Agenda and draft minutes

Cllr G Cook declared an interest in planning application TWC/2024/0265 as the item had been discussed at Wellington Town Council and indicated that he would withdraw from the meeting during determination thereof.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on 22 May 2024.

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 22 May 2024 be confirmed and signed by the Chair.

None.

None.

To agree the terms of reference for the Planning Committee for the 2024/25 municipal year.

The Legal Advisor presented the report of the Director: Policy & Governance which set out the Terms of Reference for the Planning Committee.

The Constitution required that Full Council should agree at its Annual Meeting the Terms of Reference for each of its Committees to enable the Council to efficiently conduct its business.

At the Annual Meeting of the Council on 23 May 2024, Full Council delegated authority to each Committee to review its own Terms of Reference and the Terms of Reference forms part of the Constitution and approved by Full Council in that context on 3 March 2022.

There was an error in 3.4 of the report that referred to a change shown in red in Appendix A.  This change from was from a previous year and there were no changes to the Terms of Reference for the current municipal year and Members were asked to approve the Terms of Reference set out at Appendix A to the report.

RESOLVED – that the Terms of Reference be approved.

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 application TWC/2024/0334.

This was an application for a change of use from a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a three-bed residential care home (Use Class C2) at Kensington, 69 New Church Road, Wellington, Telford, Shropshire, TF1 1JE.  This application was in a sustainable location and would provide a family home for three young persons aged 7-17 years in the care of the applicant in a family setting.  Minor internal adaptations would be required to the property.

Councillor L Carter, Ward Member, had requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee.

Councillor Carter, Ward Member, expressed that he took his role as corporate parent extremely seriously, but spoke against the application on behalf of residents and in the absence of Councillor A McClements who was unable to attend the meeting.  He queried the validity of some of the support for the application as these had come from outside of the borough and some had connections with the care company and potentially financial beneficiaries.  Although he was aware they were not effectively material considerations, he noted that the property was currently back on the market and questioned their applicant’s ownership of the property.  Concern was raised that the property could become a HMO in the future and the change of use would be significantly out of character for the area which was mainly residential and could lead to issues of antisocial behaviour.  Highway safety was also questioned at the junction of New Church Road and Holyhead Road, particularly at school times.

Mr P Berry, member of the public, spoke against the application which was set in an attractive part of Wellington.  The proposed demolition of the brick garage and the tarmac open front with marked bays would present the premises as a business.  There was no evidence of site selection and the property had open site access to the frontage and it was queried if this would be compatible and secure with the mental health needs of the children.  Residents asked for reassurance on whether the unit would be secure if children could come and go as they pleased and raised concerns with regard to the meaning of “family home”, absconding and the availability of drugs to vulnerable young people.  Concerns were also raised in relation to highways and parking and whether this was the correct location.  The council’s mission statement was to care, protect and invest in the borough but they also had a duty to local residents, business and charities.  These were compelling reasons for the application to be refused. 

Mr A Dallison, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in favour of the application which would be a safe and nurturing home for vulnerable children who had been placed in care.  It provided an opportunity for a family-style home for three children which the statutory regulator, Ofsted, were now favouring and moving away from institutional care.  The Minister for Housing had said the planning system should not be a barrier to provide for the most vulnerable children in society and they should brought  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC7

This application was an outline application for the erection of 2no. self build dwellings to include layout and scale with all other matters reserved following demolition of existing dwelling and structures on the site of Coronation Bungalow, Station Fields, Oakengates, Telford, Shropshire.

Councillor S J Reynolds, Ward Member, had requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee.

Two additional reports had been tabled at the meeting.

Councillor S Reynolds, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application on behalf of local residents.  He raised concerns regarding the unadopted single track lane which was in a poor state of repair with very few passing places and following a recent collision into the fencing safety issues were raised.  Further concerns were raised in relation foul and surface water drainage and their connectivity and the impact of the joint water supply if this needed to be turned off during construction.   The area suffered from a lack of lighting and safety of pedestrians was highlighted.  An investigation of past mining works, together with any remedial work would be welcomed if the application was approved.

The Planning Officer informed Members that this application was for one bungalow on the site frontage and one dwelling to the rear on the existing large curtilage of the property with sufficient amenity space.  Objections had been received in relation to the unadopted road which was narrow in places but there were no objections from highway officers.   There was a public right of way on Station Fields and 2 conditions were proposed to ensure any damage caused was rectified and this was addressed in the two additional reports before Committee.  The road was unregistered and as such the applicant needed to complete a Certificate D Form and it was requested that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Management to ensure this was completed prior to any decision  notice being issued.  There would be two highway conditions in relation to a dilapidation survey of Station Fields and the requirement for a Construction Management Plan.  A remediation work condition would be imposed to ensure that any damage from construction vehicles along Station Road be repaired.  There were no objections in relation to drainage but conditions were requested from Severn Trent and site investigations would take place prior to commencement.  It would be unreasonable to ask the developer to install lighting on Station Fields for the addition of one dwelling.

During the debate, some Members questioned if adoption of Station Fields had ever been considered and suggested that the Council or the Parish Council consider bringing the road up to standard and providing additional lighting.  Other Members asked how the council would be satisfied that all of the conditions were adhered to.  Amendments and mitigation measures had been put in place but the council needed to ensure that the application remained one house and one bungalow but that there were no planning reasons that this application could not be approved.

The Planning Officer confirmed that in terms of bringing  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC8