Agenda and minutes

Cllr K Middleton stated that, regarding planning application TWC/2021/0191 – Land adjacent 4 Tunnel Cottages, Aqueduct Lane, Stirchley, Telford, Shropshire, she knew Mr Sugreo, a registered speaker, but had not been involved in any discussions on this issue.

In respect of planning application TWC/2021/0191 – Land adjacent 4 Tunnel Cottages, Aqueduct Lane, Stirchley, Telford, Shropshire, Councillor J Loveridge stated that she was a member of Brookside Parish Council but had not been involved in any discussions on this application.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 18 May 2021, 19 May 2021, and 2 June 2021.

Councillor I Fletcher stated that the declaration of interest relating to himself on the 18 May 2021 minutes was incorrect. It was not Councillor I Fletcher but his wife who was a Board Member of the multi-academy trust that had responsibility for Buildwas School.

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 18 May 2021 be confirmed as amended and signed by the Chair

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 19 May 2021 be confirmed and signed by the Chair

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 2 June 2021 be confirmed and signed by the Chair

None.

None.

This was an application seeking the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on Woodland to the rear of 39 Ercall Lane, Wellington, Telford TF1 2DY.

Members heard a representation from a member of the public.

Ms Nicholls spoke against the application objecting to the necessity of an order to protect the trees in question.

Members were informed that while ancient woodland status was not, in itself necessarily a reason to confirm an order, it did support it. A TPO would not preclude lopping or pruning but would require Council consent prior to such work.

The woodland had originally been a part of the Ercall woodland SSSI until the construction of the M54. The site supported rich botanical diversity and was a UK-backed priority habitat. Figures in the studies state that 2.9 hectares, 40%, would be lost to development if approval to develop were granted. Ancient woodland was an irreplaceable habitat.

On being put to the vote, it was, unanimously:

RESOLVED – that Borough of Telford & Wrekin (Woodland to the rear of 39 Ercall Lane, Wellington, Telford TF1 2DY) Tree Preservation Order 2021 be confirmed.

Please note that the order in which applications are heard may be changed at the meeting.  If Members have queries about any of the applications, they are requested to raise them with the relevant Planning Officer prior to the Committee meeting.

Members had received a schedule of planning applications to be determined by the Committee and fully considered each report and the supplementary information tabled at the meeting regarding planning applications TWC/2010/0828, TWC/2020/1068, and TWC/2021/0191.

This was an application for a Deed of Variation of the S106 agreement  relating to Phase 10 of the Lawley Sustainable Urban Extension (Planning Permission ref’s.: W2004/0980 and TWC/2010/0828), to remove an obligation to provide Affordable Housing as part of the approved development.

Members heard from one speaker:

Councillor J Yorke, Parish Councillor, spoke against the application expressing opposition to the decrease in affordable housing provision on the development and noting the impact on residents.

The original s106 agreement obliged the developer to provide 25% affordable houses. Since the economic downturn, the developers had sought to reduce the amount of Affordable Housing on various Phases as they have been brought forward for reserved matters consent. This had resulted in previous variations to the 2005 S106 Agreement to allow reduced Affordable Housing contributions of 15% on Phase 7 and 8, 12.5% on Phases 5 and 9, and most recently 10% on Phase 11.

With this application, the applicant was seeking to reduce the percentage of affordable housing on Phase 10 from 12.5% to 10%. Without the reduction, Phase 10 was unviable; an independent appraisal had confirmed this. The applicant had offered 10% as affordable rented units – a reduction of four units.

Councillor J Jones left the meeting temporarily and was unable to contribute for the rest of this item.

Members expressed concern at the number of applications to reduce the provision of affordable housing on developments that had been brought to Committee.

On being put to the vote, it was unanimously:

RESOLVED – that the Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Agreement be approved.

This was an Outline planning application for the erection of 1no. dwelling on the site of No. 26 Hillside Road. The application was Outline with access included for consideration and a number of issues to be considered at Reserved Matters stage.

Councillor S J Reynolds, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application citing a number of concerns relating to road width, drainage, environmental impact, and the existence of a Second World War air raid shelter on the property.

The application was for one dwelling located within the urban area of the Borough. The dwelling would sit comfortably within the plot with private amenity space to the rear. Objections to the development had been made and were detailed in the report. Highways officers had raised no objections.

At the Reserved Matters stage, the applicant would have to prove that the development was of suitable size and scale. Finished floor levels would also be determined at that stage.

A small section of hedgerow would be removed from the access area. On the matter of the narrow road, any damage as a result of large vehicle movements was a civil matter.

The Authority proposed that the Second World War shelter be retained. Shropshire Council did not object to removal subject to an archaeological survey.

In response to a question posed by Members relating to the absence of a visibility splay, Members were informed that a visibility splay was not required and that the Highway Officer supported the scheme and report as they appeared.

On being put to the vote, it was by majority:

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant outline planning permission subject to conditions.

This was a reserved matters application for the erection of two dwellings on the land adjacent to No. 4 Tunnel Cottages on Aqueduct Lane in Stirchley. The application follows the grant of Outline Planning Consent in 2018.

The application required consideration of Reserved Matters relating to access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping for the proposed pair of dwellings. The proposed dwellings consisted of a pair of semi-detached 2-bed properties, with front gardens and private amenity space to the rear. The dwellings would be set back within the site to provide off-street parking to the front of each plot. The plots would utilise a shared access onto Aqueduct Lane.

Members heard a number of representations from members of the public.

Councillor G Sinclair, Parish Councillor, spoke against the application raising particular concerns over the visibility splay as described in the report.

Councillor A England, adjoining Ward Councillor, spoke against the application expressing concerns relating to the narrow width of the road and the site’s location opposite a junction.

Councillor N England, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application stating concerns around the removal of hedgerow and trees during development and the impact this would have on wildlife.

Mr Sugreo, a member of the public, spoke against the application with concerns over access and the visibility splay.

Outline planning permission had been granted for two dwellings on the site in 2018. The reserved matter application had been made within the required period. The site was not designated as a green network area. No statutory consultees had objected.

Members posed a number of questions:

In response to a question relating to the original plans, which had shown the incorrect scale, Members were informed that the scale as presented in the report was developable and valid.

Members also sought clarification on the validity of the visibility splay; officers confirmed their view that the splay was valid.

The Committee requested that, if approved, a bin collection point be a condition of approval. The Committee also requested that, if approved, officers consider whether double yellow lined no waiting restrictions needed to be imposed in the vicinity of the development.

On being put to the vote, it was by majority:

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant reserved matters approval subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report together with a condition relating to the bin collection point with authority being given to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to finalise the conditions and informatives.