Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 15 December 2021 5.30 pm

Venue: West Stand, AFC Telford United, Watling Street, Wellington, Telford, TF1 2TU

Contact: Jayne Clarke / Rhys Attwell  01952 383205 / 382195

Media

Items
No. Item

PC223

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

In respect of planning applications TWC/2021/0871 and TWC/2021/1043, Councillor I Fletcher advised that he was a member of St Georges and Priorslee Parish Council but had not been involved in any discussions or voting on these applications.

PC224

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To confirm the minutes of the previous meetings.

PC224a

Minutes - 17 November 2021 pdf icon PDF 397 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 17 November 2021 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

 

 

PC224b

Minutes - 24 November 2021 pdf icon PDF 368 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 24 November 2021 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

 

PC225

Deferred/Withdrawn Applications

Minutes:

None.

PC226

Site Visits

Minutes:

None.

PC227

Planning Applications for Determination pdf icon PDF 104 KB

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.

Minutes:

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/2020/1056 and TWC2021/0684.

PC228

TWC/2020/1056 - Land North East of Stirchley Interchange, Nedge Hill, Telford, Shropshire pdf icon PDF 404 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This was an application for outline planning application for the erection of up to 350 new dwellings (Use Class C3) with all matters reserved on land North East of Stirchley Interchange, Nedge Hill, Telford, Shropshire

 

This application had been brought for determination by the Planning Committee as the Council was the landowner/applicant and it involved a S106 financial contribution.

 

An update report was tabled at the meeting which set out details with regard to education, play provision and street trees.

 

Councillor G Sinclair spoke against the application on behalf of the Parish Council who raised the overwhelming negativity that the development brought to the area.  They raised concerns regarding overdevelopment, impact on wildlife, the lack of capacity on local services and schools, the impact on the Nedge Farm Riding Centre, congestion and highways and the lack of green measures such as solar panels or car charging points.

 

Councillor N England, Ward Member, spoke against the application on behalf of local residents and raised concerns regarding highway safety, safety of pedestrians and cyclists, the new island, the climate emergency, traffic generation and gridlock which would cause unnecessary pollution, flooding, loss of important hedgerows, archaeological work which needed to be undertaken prior to development and a secured phase of works.

 

K Curtis, a member of the public, spoke against the application due to the significant impact it would have on the Nedge Farm House and the Riding Centre, overdevelopment, significant historical value of the farmhouse, the lease for the farm, highway safety from farm and agricultural traffic.  She asked Members to consider reducing the dwellings to 300 and leave the lane open in order for the riding centre and farm to continue and be a benefit to the community.

 

Mr D Stengel (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in favour of the application which was outline permission for up to 350 quality houses.  It met Local Plan Policy HO1 and was a vibrant and sustainable development with open space and off-street parking and an enhanced pedestrian facility.  The masterplan responded to the topography and created woodland footpaths, it had suitable ecological mitigation measures, buffer zones and a woodland habitat with a green spine through the site.  The biodiversity net gain was in excess of 10% and integrated a sense of character and promotion of healthy living.  The road network would be improved with S106 contribution of £2.2m for the wider development, education, highways and was policy compliant with 25% affordable housing.

 

The Planning Officer confirmed that the application was based on the Local Plan site assessment and was for up to 350 dwellings but this would be confirmed at the reserved matters stage.  Although there was an impact on the wildlife, there was a biodiversity net gain of 10% and was in excess of that required.  It was acknowledged that the loss of riding centre was a concern, but the lease was a civil matter and they had been informed that the lease would not be renewed beyond 2023.  Green measures included solar, wind sheltering  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC228

PC229

TWC/2021/0637 - Former Builders Yard, Barrack Lane, Lilleshall, Newport, Shropshire pdf icon PDF 500 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This application was for the erection of 3no. detached dwellings and communal building for shared plant room on the former Builders Yard, Barrack Lane, Lilleshall, Newport, Shropshire.

 

This application was before Planning Committee at the request of Councillor A Eade, Ward Member.

 

Councillor D Shaw, spoke on behalf of the Parish Council who raised concerns regarding the loss of a greenfield area, the outstanding enforcement notice, the strength of feeling of the local community, the need for recognition of the local Neighbourhood Plan during decision making, it went against policy as it was not an infill plot, did not contribute to the village or fit within the local character.  Access was over private land with a farm track and there would be adverse impact on the neighbouring properties and the nearby farm.   It was also felt that largescale development works may destabilise neighbouring properties and there was a possibility of claims by landowners which was a key consideration of policy BE1.  He urged Members to refuse the application to enable the enforcement notice to return the area to its former use as green space.

 

Councillor A Eade, Ward Member, gave a short history on the site relating to multiple attempts to build houses on the site being refused and endorsed by planning inspectors, together with the refusal of the land for storage and the ongoing enforcement action.  He hoped that Members would not inflict this design on the Borough and he felt that Policy HO10 was being used to circumvent refusals.  It was felt that design was subjective and he was of the opinion that this was not an exceptional design.  There were 80 objections and he did not believe that this was an exception to Policy BE1 or HO10 on policy grounds as it did not enhance the local built area, natural environment or topography.  He felt that if it went to appeal the Council would not lose or incur costs.

 

Mr S Locke, a member of the public, spoke against the application on behalf of local residents who felt that the land should be restored to its former green status, the land was situated in the countryside and was not well related to other dwellings as there would be 3 houses and the relevant access.  It was not an infill plot as it was surrounded by woodland.  Policy HO10 paragraph 80 referred to “exceptional” and “truly ground breaking” and he questioned whether it was unique and innovative and that it needed to have an independent impact land assessment.  The Design Review Panel raised concerns regarding sustainability, costs, access and the living concept.  The criteria had not been met and it did not positively enhance the skyline or village setting.  It was not a secure environment and encouraged isolation and did not consider mine workings.  He felt that there were inaccurate drawings a lack of acknowledgement of the footpath and would impact the nearby houses and the dairy farm.

 

Mr J Warrington, a member of the public, spoke  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC229

PC230

TWC/2021/0684 - 25 Pinewoods, Church Aston, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 9LN pdf icon PDF 139 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This application was for the erection of 1 no. outbuilding (Part-Retrospective) at 25 Pinewoods, Church Aston, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 9LN

 

This application was before Planning Committee at the request of Councillor A Eade.

 

An update report was tabled at the meeting which presented details with regard to additional information received and a series of points raised by neighbours.

 

Councillor A Eade, Ward Member, spoke against this application due to the retrospective material changes that had taken place compared to the original planning application.  It was not compliant with policy BE2 with regard to respecting the character and the adverse effect on the amenity of the neighbouring property.  He raised concerns regarding light pollution, the grey soffit, the large triple opening doors, overlooking into kitchen and bedroom with obscuring glass ineffective and excess height of the development.

 

Mr S Wilmott, member of the public, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding the contravention of Local Plan policy BE1 and BE2 in relation to the centralised bi-fold doors, the detrimental impact of overlooking, the facia and soffit which was overbearing, appearance, air conditioning unit, the increased height, length and depth of the building which was built on blocks.  There was light pollution which impacted the neighbouring property and there was a change from office use to an extended lounge and bar.  It overlooked into the kitchen and bedrooms and could be seen from every aspect from the neighbouring garden and there was exaggerated light and noise pollution.  It was felt that this was an unauthorised building subject to a contravention notice and should be refused.

 

Mrs A Fletcher spoke in favour of the application and following full planning permission being granted in 2020 without objection or concern the site was cleared.  Due to a promotion it was felt that extras such a bi-fold doors could be achieved and there was a minor alteration to the window design.  At this point they were advised that a new planning application was required and the scale and size was further tweaked at this stage.  It was felt this was not dissimilar to the scale under permitted development rights and it was asked that Members grant full planning permission.

 

The Planning Officer confirmed there were no technical objections to the application.  It was clad with feather edged board and was one open plan room with the front alteration with fully opening patio doors and on balance did not detract from the property.  There was limited view from the street scene and in order to address concerns the application had agreed to mitigation measures such as obscure film to the bi-fold doors and the high level window and the removal of the downlight and fascia lights.  It was recommended that members grant permission subject to the conditions contained in the report and the update report.

 

During the debate some Members raised concerns regarding the retrospective application, the extension dominating the main building, its height and the noise from the air conditioning unit.  Further concerns were raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC230

PC231

TWC/2021/0871 - Holy Trinity Academy, Teece Drive, Priorslee, Telford, Shropshire, TF2 9SQ pdf icon PDF 223 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This was an application for the erection of a standalone three storey teaching block with changing block, 3G Pitch with 6no 15m floodlights, two single storey in-fill extensions to the existing school, fencing to grass pitches outside school boundary, a new 5v5 mini soccer pitch, and associated landscape works at Holy Trinity Academy, Teece Drive, Priorslee, Telford, Shropshire, TF2 9SQ.

 

This application was before the Committee as Telford and Wrekin Council was the applicant. 

 

Councillor V Fletcher had also requested that the application be determined by Planning Committee. 

 

The application was subject to a Memorandum of Understanding for a financial contribution towards potential traffic restriction orders in the vicinity of the school.

 

Councillor V Fletcher, Ward Member, said that, although school places were needed, she had concerns regarding the loss of green space regularly used by the public.  She raised further concerns regarding the green guarantee, the 5x5 sports pitch and its upkeep, the highway impact in regards to excess traffic, the bus route and parking on grass verges despite the double yellow lines, the route being used as a rat run and road safety due to the lack of a school crossing.  The impact of noise and light impact on the surrounding homes and on the classrooms during construction and the effect on health and wellbeing was also a concern.  She felt it failed to meet policies and there was non-compliance with policy NE3.  Councillor Fletcher was of the opinion that other potential solutions had not been considered and the pitches could be well maintained with or without a fence and it was asked that the School and the community worked together to find a solution.

 

Councillor R Cadman spoke against the application on behalf of St Georges and Priorslee Parish Council.  Although they were not against the expansion of the school as there were not enough school places within the Borough, they raised concerns regarding the fencing off of valuable green space, the impact on the traffic on Teece Drive, the loss of access to green space which was important for mental and physical wellbeing and the use of the 3G pitch year round.  They raised concerns regarding the impact of local residents and young children with regard to light and noise pollution and the increased traffic and impact on the nearby residential estate.

 

Mr L Coffey and Mr M Anderson spoke in favour of the application and confirmed that the construction of the new block and the playing pitch improvements were welcomed and that a need had been identified for additional pupil places.  The application would improve facilities including an artificial playing pitch and changing facilities and would give greater flexibility for pupils and local people and improve safety and security for students.  The green space would remain accessible as part of the network and a community use agreement would bring a better balance.  An updated travel plan was submitted as part of the application which would assist in reducing vehicular trips and 21 parking spaces would  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC231

PC232

TWC/2021/1043 - Highgrove Meadows, Priorslee, Telford, Shropshire, TF2 9RJ pdf icon PDF 134 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This application was for the erection of part single and part two storey rear extension at 32 Highgrove Meadows, Priorslee, Telford, Shropshire, TF2 9RJ.

 

This application was before Planning Committee at the request of Councillor V Fletcher.

 

Councillor V Fletcher raised concerns regarding conditions, overlooking, amenity of the neighbouring property, loss of outdoor space and no eco gain, a construction management plan, access and highway impact.

 

Mr A Lane, Applicant’s Agent, confirmed that this was an application for a small house extension to the ground floor area and complied with policy and a permitted development to the existing bedroom and bathroom on the first floor.  This was of good design practice and met the characteristics of the street scene.  He accepted any conditions with regard to limiting construction time, but felt that a traffic management plan and construction management plan went way above what was required.

 

The Planning Officer advised Members this application lay within the urban boundary and had no impact on residential amenity and design and was within the rear property of the garden.  Separation distances were considered appropriate and there was no impact on the street scene.  Although there would be some level of noise and dust during constructions, this would be limited and temporary.  The grant of permission at the previous committee of 30 Highgrove Meadows was a material consideration and the application was compliant with Policy BE1 and BE2.

 

During the discussion some Members felt that there was a measure of overlooking to the bedroom window where the contour of the land dropped away, the construction management plan was required within the culdesac, the impact on access and egress and a limit to be put on the construction hours.

 

The Planning Officer confirmed that this application was not dissimilar to the application at the previous Committee and the proposed working hours were consistent with the previously approved application.

 

Upon being put to the vote it was, by a majority:-

 

RESOLVED – delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant planning permission subject to the conditions contained within the report (with authority to finalise conditions and reasons for approval to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager).