Agenda and minutes

In respect of the Tree Preservation Order, Councillor G Cook advised that he was Ward Member for Haygate but had not been involved in any discussions on the Tree Preservation Order.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 28 July 2021 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

None.

None.

Borough of Telford & Wrekin (Trees on land to the North of Haygate Road, Wellington, Telford TF1 2FP) Tree Preservation Order 2021.

The Committee considered the report of the Assistant Director: Policy & Governance which sough confirmation of a provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) (Borough of Telford & Wrekin (Trees on land to the north of Haygate Road, Wellington, Telford TF1 2FP) Tree Preservation Order 2021. The report detailed an objection received from the owner of the land that had been circulated to members prior to the Committee meeting and raised concerns which included the condition of the trees, the successful retention of the trees within the TPO and they were no longer subject to encroachment or possible damage. 

The Legal Advisor outlined the process and explained the background to the making of the Provisional Order.  Members were advised that the focus in this case should be on the amenity value of the trees and whether it was expedient to protect them.  If members were minded to confirm the Order the property owner could apply for consent to lop, prune or fell the tree at any time.  The current recommendation was to confirm the order without modification but T15, the sycamore tree, had already been felled due to its condition.  An amendment to the recommendation was therefore requested for the Tree Preservation Order to be confirmed in respect of Trees T1-T14 inclusive but for T15 be excluded from the order, if Members were minded to confirm the order.

The Chair, at his discretion, had allowed public speakers at the meeting and the Objector had provided a letter prior to the meeting, which had been circulated to all parties and made available on the website as they were unable to attend the meeting.

Councillor J Seymour fully supported the Tree Preservation Order which was now for 14 trees as one had already been removed.  Condition 3 of the reserved matters application TWC/2017/0643 specified which trees were to be protected together with the root protection areas (RPAs).  This condition had been breached by the developer with construction machinery impacting on the RPA and was continuing to be breached even within areas where development had been completed.  Meetings that had previously taken place with the developer and the residents association had now ceased following consultation regarding the trees and in particular T1.  She felt that following the advice of the Tree Officer that the remaining 14 trees, with care, could be saved she asked Members to confirm the order.

Mr J Pattinson spoke on behalf of local residents who fully supported the Tree Preservation Order to protect the beautiful old trees and did not understand the objections by the consultant who had only visited the site once.  The developers had boycotted the liaison meetings which was a discourtesy to local residents.  The subcontractors had pressed on regardless without protecting the trees and in particular to T1 at the entrance to the site.  Inadequate protection, equipment and plant and unauthorised changes to the levels of the site had left T1 in a pool of water for much of the winter months and other trees on the site have  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC189

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 the planning application.

This was an application for the variation of condition 16 of outline planning permission W2004/0890 to exclude the areas comprised within the reserved matters application ref TWC/2010/0627 and within plots G4 and G5 as defined within the phasing plan drawing number 006 rev L from the effect of condition 16 (amended description) and land at Ironstone, Lawley, Telford, Shropshire.

The Planning Officer advised Members that a request had been brought before Members in order to vary the affordable housing element of Lawley Phase 10 urban extension.  The developers sought permission from the Authority to agree a zero percent affordable housing. The developers would be seeking to apply for Homes England Funding which could provide 10% affordable housing on site.

At their 30 June 2021 meeting, Members resolved to grant the Deed of Variation to secure the provision of 10% affordable housing on site.  It was established that the resolution that was agreed on 30^th June, based on the update to Planning Committee, could not be implemented and that the request from the applicant had been misinterpreted. The correct request was outlined within the report.. 

Councillor J Yorke spoke against the application on behalf of the Parish Council who raised concerns regarding zero percent affordable housing and the incorrect information presented to the 30 June Committee.  He raised at that Committee that the Developers had endorsed the ten percent affordable housing and the Parish Council reluctantly accepted this due to paragraph 64 of the NPPF which requires at least ten percent affordable housing contribution.  He raised further concerns regarding the incorrect information, performance, the viability and the affordable contribution, the profitability of the development and the lack of assurance regarding the Homes England Grant.   He said that the requirement from the 2005 application for twenty five percent affordable housing will no longer materialise together with the grant of the community facility.  He said that there had been continued failures and that applications should be heard upon planning merit and adherence to policy and conditions.

The Planning Officer explained that since the economic downturn the consortium of Developers had found it necessary to reduce the number of affordable dwellings on phases approved since 2008.  Viability evidence had been presented to the Committee on the land value today which showed that Phase 10 was unviable and even without affordable housing the development would still not provide the financial return that would meet the guidance set out in the NPPF.  The viability report had been assessed by an independent consultant who supported the applicant’s position.  The developers were seeking to provide 10% affordable housing on the site via Homes England which would result in the delivery of four less affordable units. However, in order for the development to be eligible for the Homes England funding, these could not be obligated through S106 or condition, and the Local Authority must first agree to zero percent affordable housing through planning obligation. Taking all of the information into consideration officers accept the applicant’s justification that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC191