Agenda and minutes

Cllr G Cook declared an interest in planning application TWC/2021/0897 because he had been involved in the discussions with Wellington Town Council and indicated that he would withdraw from the meeting during determination thereof.

In respect of planning application TWC/2022/0070, Councillor P Scott advised that he was a member of Newport Town Council but had not been involved in any discussions on this application.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 6 April 2022 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman

None.

None.

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 application.

This application was a reserved matters application pursuant to planning application TWC/2018/0701 (200no. dwellings, retention of the existing sports hall building for community uses with associated access, car park, public open space, attenuation areas and associated infrastructure) including details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale on the site of former Charlton School, Severn Drive, Dothill, Telford, Shropshire.

This application was deferred at the Planning Committee held on the 6 April 2022 to allow officers to negotiate with the application in respect of the layout of the site and in particular the garden sizes and to request additional information in respect of the SUDS feature.

The Planning Officer confirmed that revised plans had been submitted showing each property had now achieved the minimum garden standard by realigning property boundaries and reducing three beds to two bedroom properties where necessary.  It was suggested to Members that this meant it was no longer necessary to remove the permitted development rights on these plots.   With regard to the SUDS feature a 1.2m high post and rail fence would be installed and the unfettered access to the SuDS feature was.for maintenance purposes.

Councillor K Tomlinson, Ward Councillor, was pleased that the item had been deferred and that the issue relating to garden space had been addressed, but continued to be disappointed in relation to the parking for the gym which she considered an under allocation and that this would cause parking issues on Harley Close.  She queried the mini roundabout on the junction of Whitchurch Road and North Road junction and whether there were S106 monies for this due to the hazardous bend. It was asked that the application be rejected and a site visit be held.

Councillor L Jinks spoke on behalf of the Wellington Town Council who raised concerns regarding the junction of Whitchurch Road and North Road and felt that the highway impact had been substantially overlooked and not addressed satisfactorily.  Parking on Harley Close was a genuine concern of residents and had been raised on numerous planning applications and she asked that the application be refused and a site visit undertaken for Members to consider the issues.

Ms S Griffiths, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in favour of the application which was a key site for the Council and they wished to get it right.  They sympathised with the speakers but felt that the highways impact had been considered at the outline stage, the site had been vacant for a long time and the capital receipt was important as it was part funded by the Council.  A revised site layout had been undertaken to improve separation distances, the buffer and improve the parking with an improved setback and greater biodiversity.  There was a safe and secure access to the SUDS area and the application had been reduced by 5 dwellings with landscaping as a focal point.  Highways had not asked for an increase in parking spaces and a financial contribution was sought for off-site highway improvements to impact and mitigate in relation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC271

This application was for the erection of 3no industrial units for general industrial and storage/distribution units with associated parking, attenuation pond and hard standings on land West of Household Recycling Centre, Hortonwood 60, Hortonwood, Telford, Shropshire.

The Application was before Committee due to a Section 106 Agreement to secure financial contributions.

The Planning Officer informed Members that this was a full planning application for three industrial units Use Classes B2 and B8 on land set aside for employment purposes within the Local Plan.  A previous consent had been granted on the site which had expired in 2021.

Mr J Brumwell spoke against the application on behalf of the Hadley & Leegomery Parish Council who raised concerns regarding the transport and travel plan and the availability and practicality of public transport which went against Policy C1 which promoted alternatives to use of the car which was not satisfied by this application.  He raised further concerns with regard to the local road network and the Horton Lane closure.  It was requested that a restriction of operations to 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 1pm on Saturdays with no working on Sunday and public holidays.  Further concerns were raised regarding the site traffic routing plan for HGVs and he asked that the residential amenity be protected.

The Planning Officer informed Members that the design and appearance of the application was typical of the area with additional features such as solar panels and electric vehicle charging points and there were no technical objections in relation to drainage or highways.  In relation to ecology and trees, £172,000 had been set aside for off-site mitigation measures due to the biodiversity net loss and on balance this was accepted by the Ecology Specialist.  There would be a loss of several mature trees and £50,000 had been set aside for off-site replacement trees.  Since the preparation of the Committee Report there had been a revised biodiversity net loss which had slightly improve and an updated layout plan.  In respect of the residential properties, a noise impact assessment had been submitted and the application was considered satisfactory on balance subject to conditions.  With regard to the travel plan this was an identified site that had previously been granted permission.  Unit 1 had an end user and additional travel plans would need to be submitted for Units 2 and 3.   The hours of operations were set out in the report and would be conditioned and highway movements could not be conditions as they would not be enforceable.

During the debate some Members raised concerns regarding the loss of trees which was contrary to Policy NE2 and felt that the financial contribution did not fully compensate their loss and as the previous application retained some trees they could not support the application.  Other Members felt that although they valued trees highly, that this application was for an industrial unit on an industrial estate and on balance it could be supported due to the creation of jobs and it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC272

This application was for the erection of a 67no. bed extra care home with associated open space, landscaping, car/cycle parking, service infrastructure (drainage, highway, lighting) and engineering operations on the site of former Stirchley Recreation Centre, Grange Avenue, Stirchley, Telford, Shropshire.

As the Council was the current landowner and this was a major application it was a requirement  that Planning Committee determine the application.

The Planning Officer informed Members that all units were compliant with NDSS standards and the development included sustainable construction with solar panels and electric charging points.

During the debate some Members felt this was a big development and asked if the windows overlooking the nursery would be opaque or frosted.  They welcomed the electric charging points and solar panels but felt the parking provision was barely adequate and raised concerns regarding the traffic survey.  They further queried why there was a three bedroom apartment and where the bay for emergency vehicles was and the reference to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

The Planning Officer confirmed that the windows overlooking the nursery were not habitable rooms although this was corrected but that they were of sufficient distance at 9.5m to preserve privacy it was noted that the nursery submitted no comments in relation to the application. There were 4 electric car charging points in front of the communal gardens. Reference to CIL was in reference to a test in relation to developer contributions and to govern whether contributions through S106 could be sought. Ambulance bay was not a dedicated space and had access outside the entrance in front of the disabled spaces. 

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

RESOLVED – that Delegated Authority be granted to the Service Delivery Manager to grant full planning permission (with the authority to finalise any matter including conditions, legal agreement terms, or any later variations) subject to:

a)    The conditions contained within the report (with authority to finalise conditions and reasons for approval to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager)

This application was for the erection of storage and distribution unit (Use Class B8) including ancillary offices, access, servicing yard, car parking, landscaping and drainage infrastructure on land to the rear of Wrap Film Systems Ltd, Hortonwood 45, Hortonwood, Telford, Shropshire.

This application was before Committee due to a Section 106 Agreement to secure financial contributions.

Hadley & Leegomery Parish Council had requested that the application be heard by Planning Committee.

The Planning Officer informed Members that this was a single storey distribution unit including parking, service yard and landscaping.  It was an occupier led scheme for a warehouse ancillary offices and with three pick up and delivery fingers.  Financial obligations would be secured for highways, trees and ecology.  At 1.1 of the report there was an error within the recommendation detailing the planting specification which would need to be amended, this was to be omitted.

Councillor J Parkin spoke on behalf of Hadley & Leegomery Parish Council who were fully supportive of economic growth and employment and although this application was on employment land designated for manufacturing it was critical that each application was assessed for the impact on residents and local environment together with the nature of the business and the operating hours applied.  A distribution warehouse would mean unlimited vehicular movements for HGVs and an unfettered level of activity and noise and light pollution.  He raised concerns regarding the hours of operation, increased traffic and the impact on the roundabouts and road junctions.  He asked that this be rejected.

Mr D Green, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in favour of the application which he felt was a good news story with the occupier being a parcel delivery company.  This was the only suitable site that could accommodate the operation.  It would bring capital investment of around £17m with the creation of 90 jobs which would increase by a further 50 jobs in time.  It would mean the loss of trees and hedgerows, but this was not uncommon across the area.  A package of biodiversity and planting would take place to mitigate against this.  There were no technical objections and they were committed to delivering a highly suitable development with a sustainable travel plan promoting the use of car sharing, together with cycle parking and e-charging points.  The site was not adjacent to any houses and it was felt a suitable site for a 24/7 operation which was critical to the Company and a noise assessment had been undertaken.  There were overall significant benefits which met local strategies and local planning policy.

The Planning Officer informed Members that this was an allocated site for B8 use and was compliant with the local plan.  The traffic impact had been assessed for such sites and the relevant contribution towards the strategic network requested.  There would be an enhanced footway/cycleway and a noise impact assessment undertaken with the nearest residents being some 230m to the east separated by landscaping.  There was an impact on the trees and biodiversity, but it was felt on balance that  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC274

This application was for the erection of 2no buildings for workshop, storage, office, agricultural retail with external display of agricultural machinery on land South of A518/West of A41, Newport, Shropshire.

The application was determined by Planning Committee as it required financial contributions via a S106 Agreement and the Council was the landowner.

The Planning Officer informed Members that this was Phase 2 of the Newport Innovation Park and the application was for a workshop, storage and an office for the sale of agricultural machinery with 1,500 sq metres of floor space, 25 parking spaces, three electric charging points and fuel tanks.  This application was hybrid and required full planning permission rather than reserved matters consent.  It sought permission for a pair of building workshops, storage and external display typical of the development in the area and although it deviated slightly from the masterplan in respect of the layout and access to the plot officers were in support subject to conditions.  Contributions of £28,000 for strategic and £5,000 for travel monitoring were sought together with further financial contributions via a Memorandum of Understanding towards the strategic highway network and travel plan.

During the debate some Members felt that there was no reason to refuse this application as it was important to attract business to the area, the solar panels, electric vehicle charging points and the geothermal heating were welcomed and it was whole heartedly supported.

Upon being put to the vote it was, unanimously:

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant planning permission subject to the following:

a) The following Contributions to be agreed through a S106 Agreement:

-       £28,254.15 towards the Strategic Transport Network;

-       £5,000.00 towards Travel Plan Monitoring;

-       £332.54 s.106 Monitoring Fee (1% of total s.106 Contributions)

b)        The Condition(s) and Informative(s) (with authority to finalise Condition(s) to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager)

This was a retrospective application for a change of use from office/storage to a holiday let at Rushmoor Lodge, Rushmoor Lane, Telford, Shropshire        TF5 0DA

This Application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor J Seymour.

Councillor J Seymour, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and gave a brief history of the site.  The stables and office store area included domestic features such as a balcony and kitchen contrary to policy HO10.  She raised concerns that this application was previously turned down and was now before Members for approval and this could set a precedent.  Concerns were raised regarding surface water drainage and incorrect paperwork, and that the application was contrary to Policy BE1.

Mr G Moss, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in favour of the application which was for a rural activity.  All businesses change or evolve after time and the change of use was a logical step forward for an evolving successful business.  It was a facility that worked with the business and was not a new or separate enterprise on the site.  There was a right to drain which came with the original sale and full approval of the drainage work had been approved by the Council and he asked that the application be approved.

The Planning Officer informed Members that objections had been received regarding the principle of the development; the need for the accommodation; highways; biodiversity and drainage.   With regard to setting a precedent, the application was subject to a condition which allowed occupation for no more than four consecutive weeks per year and future applications would be judged on their own merits.   There were no comments from Highways.  In relation to drainage, the conditions had been discharged in February 2022 and the legal right to discharge water over adjoining land was not one that Planning Committee could take into account as it was a civil matter.

During the debate some Members felt they could fully support the application.  Other Members did not like retrospective applications and asked what the splits for residential purposes would be and if there were issues with the drainage and the septic tank. 

The Planning Officer informed the Members that there was a split of accommodation across the existing caravan which was a workers dwelling with the rest used for storage and stable purposes.  There would be no weight given from the holiday let if an application came forward to a conversion to a permanent dwelling.  With regard to drainage, it was more about the water entering into the watercourse and crossing third party land.  There was a septic tank on site but surface water was going into the watercourse.

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

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant planning permission subject to the following:

a)    The conditions contained within the report (with authority to finalise conditions and reasons for approval to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager)  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC276