Agenda and minutes

In respect of planning applications TWC/2021/0557, TWC/2021/0558 and TWC2021/0832, Councillor I Fletcher advised that he was a member of St Georges and Priorslee Parish Council but had not been involved in any discussions on these applications.   With regard to planning applications TWC/2021/0722 and TWC/2021/0724 he had taken part in discussions with St Georges and Priorslee Parish Council but did not take part in the recommendations.  Due to the comments made on the original application and the suggestions recorded, Cllr I Fletcher would withdraw from the meeting whilst these two planning applications were being discussed.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 20 October 2021 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

None.

It was likely that there would be five site visits prior to the next meeting and details would be circulated to Members.

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.

This Application was for the erection of 16no. dwellings with associated garages and the conversion of the existing farmhouse and barn into 5no. dwellings on the site of Woodhouse Farm, Woodhouse Lane, Priorslee, Telford, Shropshire.

Councillor V Fletcher, Ward Member, had requested that this application be determined by the Planning Committee.

Councillor V Fletcher spoke in favour of the application as the Grade II listed building and the outbuildings had fallen into disrepair with difficult terrain, trees and vegetation.  She was pleased to see that the farmhouse and barn would be brought back into use and there would be an eco gain with no net biodiversity loss due to landscape and habitat with a wildflower and wildlife area, bat boxes and 79 trees and hedgerows.  The sycamore tree had also been saved.  It was asked that a traffic management plan and construction plan be in place prior to permission being granted in order to prevent disruption to nearby businesses.  She raised concerns with regard to the access road and the 4 way junction at Castle Farm Way and that S106 contributions in relation to primary and secondary education be spent in Priorslee and the attendance area. 

Mr R Perrins, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in support of the application and explained that the current scheme was compliant with policies, retained the trees and met highway safety.  The cycle route and pedestrian access would be improved by dedicated footways to access the road and provide a safe route to connect the adjacent sites.  The construction access would not adversely affect business and a traffic management plan would be provided.  There would be an inspection of the trees with important trees being retained with wildflowers and landscape management.  The biodiversity and ecology had been assessed and adequate measure had been put in place that went beyond what was expected.  The listed farmhouse and barn would be renovated to high quality family homes which met planning policy.  Contributions towards education, sports facilities, drainage and the enhancement of the existing pond into a focal point would be secured through a S106 Agreement.

The Planning Officer responded to Councillor V Fletcher’s concerns regarding the construction management plan and with regard to the access to the adjacent garden centre and farm shop would be maintained via a pre-commencement condition.

The Planning Area Team Manager addressed the concerns of Councillor V Fletcher with regard to the proposed education contributions which were in line with current policies and assured the Committee that the money would be appropriately spent but that further dialogue would be undertaken to ensure that the 3 mile radius was still appropriate.

During the debate, some Members raised concerns with regard to the granting of delegated power to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to negotiate conditions that Members may not agree to if there was a change in circumstances, the 3 mile radius with regard to the contribution towards primary and secondary education and this should be within the designated attendance zones or reduced to within  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC210

Site of Woodhouse Farm, Woodhouse Lane, Priorslee, Telford, Shropshire

Internal and external works to facilitate the conversion of former farmhouse into 3no.dwellings (Listed Building Application)

It was recommended that this application be determined by the Planning Committee as it related to planning application TWC/2021/0557

Councillor V Fletcher spoke in favour of the application as the Grade II listed building and the outbuildings had fallen into disrepair with difficult terrain, trees and vegetation.  She was pleased to see that the farmhouse and barn would be brought back into use and there would be an eco gain with no net biodiversity loss due to landscape and habitat with a wildflower and wildlife area, bat boxes and 79 trees and hedgerows.  The sycamore tree had also been saved.  It was asked that a traffic management plan and construction plan be in place prior to permission being granted in order to prevent disruption to nearby businesses.  She raised concerns with regard to the access road and the 4 way junction at Castle Farm Way and that S106 contributions in relation to primary and secondary education be spent in Priorslee and the attendance area. 

Mr R Perrins, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in support of the application and explained that the current scheme was compliant with policies, retained the trees and met highway safety.  The cycle route and pedestrian access would be improved by dedicated footways to access the road and provide a safe route to connect the adjacent sites.  The construction access would not adversely affect business and a traffic management plan would be provided.  There would be an inspection of the trees with important trees being retained with wildflowers and landscape management.  The biodiversity and ecology had been assessed and adequate measure had been put in place that went beyond what was expected.  The listed farmhouse and barn would be renovated to high quality family homes which met planning policy.  Contributions towards education, sports facilities, drainage and the enhancement of the existing pond into a focal point would be secured through a S106 Agreement.

The Planning Officer responded to Councillor V Fletcher’s concerns regarding the construction management plan and with regard to the access to the adjacent garden centre and farm shop would be maintained via a pre-commencement condition.

The Planning Area Team Manager addressed the concerns of Councillor V Fletcher with regard to the proposed education contributions which were in line with current policies and assured the Committee that the money would be appropriately spent but that further dialogue would be undertaken to ensure that the 3 mile radius was still appropriate.

During the debate, some Members raised concerns with regard to the granting of delegated power to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to negotiate conditions that Members may not agree to if there was a change in circumstances, the 3 mile radius with regard to the contribution towards primary and secondary education and this should be within the designated attendance zones or reduced to within a 2 mile radius and that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC211

This application was a full application for the erection of 10no. new dwellings and the conversion of the existing listed building to provide 3no. new dwellings (Use Class C3), community facility (Use Class F2 (b)) and Parish Council Offices (Use Class E(g)) together with associated landscaping at the Former Youth Centre, Gower Street, St Georges, Telford, Shropshire.

Councillor I Fletcher left the meeting for items TWC/2021/0722 and TWC/2021/0724.

The Planning Officer addressed Members that this application was for full and listed consent for the renovation of the northern wing, central entrance area and the southern wing and secured funds to relocate the existing play area on the site of the Women’s Institute Building on the opposite end of Albion Street but that the application did involve the removal of the community garden.   The building was unsafe to use in its current state.

Mr A Gaut, member of the public, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding the restoration of the building for the benefit of the community, impact on neighbouring properties, loss of sunlight, overdevelopment, removal of the play area, lack of public consultation, limited school places, the impact on the local doctors surgery, reduced community activities as a community hub and limited use for refreshments and the lack of an outdoor play area.

The Planning Officer informed Members that there had been several interested parties who wished to speak but in accordance with the Council’s adopted public speaking policy had been unable to do so. .These included representatives of the Gower Heritage Enterprise Foundation, St Georges Community Group and Mr Edwards.

These representations wished to state that the development was best suited as a community facility for the wellbeing of the local community without housing and for the social and economic benefit of its surroundings and that it required a fully fitted play park and outdoor space.  Concerns were raised that sustainability and the Climate Change Action Plan had been ignored, open spaces were to be demolished, there was a lack of a sustainable business plan and that the community had been excluded from the engagement process with stakeholders, it was an asset of community value, the trees had not been protected, an unviable scheme, loss of community use was not outweighed by the improvements, impact on the designated heritage asset which needed special regard and to be preserved as a listed building and its setting and its unacceptable impact. The Officer advised that Members had also viewed the proposal from Mr and Mrs Gaut’s property, 83 Albion Street, on the afternoon of the meeting. The Officer advised that there had been no objections from technical consultees and the officers recommendation remained the same that full consent and listed building consent should be granted.

The Legal advisor addressed the Members that as Cllr J Jones arrived late to the meeting and had not been in the meeting for the whole of the discussion she would be unable to take part in the vote.

During the debate some Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC212

Councillor I Fletcher left the meeting for items TWC/2021/0722 and TWC/2021/0724.

The Planning Officer addressed Members that this application was for full and listed consent for the renovation of the northern wing, central entrance area and the southern wing and secured funds to relocate the existing play area on the site of the Women’s Institute Building on the opposite end of Albion Street but that the application did involve the removal of the community garden.   The building was unsafe to use in its current state.

Mr A Gaut, member of the public, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding the restoration of the building for the benefit of the community, impact on neighbouring properties, loss of sunlight, overdevelopment, removal of the play area, lack of public consultation, limited school places, the impact on the local doctors surgery, reduced community activities as a community hub and limited use for refreshments and the lack of an outdoor play area.

The Planning Officer informed Members that there had been several interested parties who wished to speak but in accordance with the Council’s adopted public speaking policy had been unable to do so. .These included representatives of the Gower Heritage Enterprise Foundation, St Georges Community Group and Mr Edwards.

These representations wished to state that the development was best suited as a community facility for the wellbeing of the local community without housing and for the social and economic benefit of its surroundings and that it required a fully fitted play park and outdoor space.  Concerns were raised that sustainability and the Climate Change Action Plan had been ignored, open spaces were to be demolished, there was a lack of a sustainable business plan and that the community had been excluded from the engagement process with stakeholders, it was an asset of community value, the trees had not been protected, an unviable scheme, loss of community use was not outweighed by the improvements, impact on the designated heritage asset which needed special regard and to be preserved as a listed building and its setting and its unacceptable impact. The Officer advised that Members had also viewed the proposal from Mr and Mrs Gaut’s property, 83 Albion Street, on the afternoon of the meeting. The Officer advised that there had been no objections from technical consultees and the officers recommendation remained the same that full consent and listed building consent should be granted.

The Legal advisor addressed the Members that as Cllr J Jones arrived late to the meeting and had not been in the meeting for the whole of the discussion she would be unable to take part in the vote.

During the debate some Members felt concerned that the building was in such a poor state following vandalism and neglect and that if no action was taken soon the building may not be saved and accepted that the housing on site mitigated the enormous costs it would take, the contribution towards the play area was welcomed although the siting of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC213

This application was for the erection of first floor front extension, installation of a second floor rear dormer and retrospective single storey ground floor rear extension at 30 Highgrove Meadows, Priorslee, Telford, Shropshire, TF2 9RJ

Councillor V Fletcher, Ward Member, had requested that this application be determined by the Planning Committee.

Councillor V Fletcher, spoke against the application which was in two parts with one being retrospective without consent.  This development had caused many months of misery to the neighbours and during December to August had impeded neighbour amenity of their gardens and home and whilst working from home had suffered noise pollution and disturbance which was excessive and without any consideration.  The installation of the 2^nd floor dorma windows with transparent glass looks entirely over the garden of the neighbours giving them no privacy and destroying residential amenity, the dorma had wood cladding and was not in keeping with the street scene and was a fire risk, it blocked natural light from the neighbouring bathroom window and overshadowed the footpath which was detrimental to number 28 and it caused them additional costs for electricity and lighting and had an impact on global warming.  It was considered an overdevelopment with cars needing on street parking which caused congestion due to it being a corner plot.  The extension took up three quarters of the plot and dominated the neighbouring property.

Mr E Woodhouse, member of the public, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding the 2^nd storey overshadowing their property and the loss of light to the side window and sunlight from between the houses.  The dorma overshadowed the rear garden, reduced the natural sunlight and compromised their privacy and was an overdevelopment of the plot with the visual appearance no longer in character with the street.  The kitchen extension caused nine months of unnecessary disruption to neighbours with the children often confined to home due to noise, vibration and foul language it was impossible to work from home and on several occasions had to vacate due to the disturbance at all times of the day and weekends.  It was difficult for deliveries and working vehicles which caused dangerous congestion for pedestrians who had to walk off the footpath.  There was conflict when contractors vehicles blocked access, wouldn’t move their vehicles and became aggressive.  A bigger project would be more distress if it were to go ahead.

The Planning Officer informed Members that they needed to consider the impact upon the residential amenity and design.  The bathrooms was not a consideration and was given limited weight   With regard to design the planning authority has taken into consideration the permitted development rights and the proportions were in line with permitted development rights and did not require planning permission.  However, planning permission would be required for the timber cladding as it was not a material used within the existing property and it was asked that Members consider whether the material was appropriate.  The single storey extension was built in  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC214