Decisions

The application was for the conversion of a public house into one dwelling. It had been referred to the Committee because of the number and nature of representations that had been received. It was recommended that the Committee refuse the application.

Councillor Kevin Connor, Parish Councillor, spoke against the application. The application was the latest in a series to change the use of the Cleveland Arms. There existed a strong public demand to reopen the public house and there was disappointment that offers to buy and view the property had failed. The applicant had acted obstructively but potential buyers remained interested.

Councillor Stephen Bentley, Ward Councillor, made a representation against the application stating full support for the officer’s recommendation. Councillor Bentley paid tribute to planning officer Karen Denmark, who had recently passed away. 

The Planning Officer discussed the application. The property was Use Class Sui Generis and had ceased trading as a public house in 2016. The adjacent car park and bowling green were not part of the use-change application. The property itself was in a state of disrepair with the proposed development consisting of a change of use from Sui Generis to C3 dwelling house. Section 7 of the Local Plan listed public houses as community facilities and changing use could not be supported unless an alternative facility was available. The applicant argued that the Village Hall, which operated a bar one day a week, was an equivalent facility. Officers, however, disagreed; the hall lacked the facilities of a public house. There had also been a failure to demonstrate a lack of need for the facility. Marketing documents for the property had been assessed and it was considered that the applicant had acted in poor faith and that offers made had been viable.

Members spoke of the need for the amenity in the rural setting of the locality, speaking of it as a community asset.

Upon being put to a vote, it was unanimously:

RESOLVED - that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1)         The application has failed to demonstrate a lack of need for the community facility, failed to evidence a robust marketing campaign and failed to identify an equivalent or alternative community facility that provides a similar offer which meets the needs of residents. The proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of a community facility and is contrary to Local Policies SP4, COM1 and EC7 of the Telford & Wrekin Local Plan 2011-2031 and provisions found under National Planning Policy Framework.

This was an application for the variation of conditions on planning consent for the Granville Landfill site. The proposed amendment would extend operations beyond the 31 December 2025 closure date stipulated in Condition 6 of the existing planning consent to 31 December 2030. A further variation of was proposed to Condition 13(b) of the planning consent. This would reduce the maximum amount of waste and soil material permitted per day from 1,500 tonnes to 1,350 tonnes.

The Democratic Services Officer read aloud a representation from Councillor Veronica Fletcher, neighbouring ward councillor. The objection raised a number of key points covering highway issues, noise and disturbance for residents, smells and fumes from the site, and a desire to see the landfill closed in line with Telford & Wrekin’s climate and recycling policies.

Councillor Lisa Dugmore, parish councillor, spoke against the application on environmental grounds and the impact of extension on residents. 

Councillor Adrian Lawrence, ward councillor, made representations against the application because of the impact of the site on residents and the environmental impact of landfilling.

Helen Howard, member of the public, made a representation objecting to the application. Specific objections were made to outside waste being brought in to the landfill when Telford and Wrekin performed well in terms of recycling.

Georgina Daintith, the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application citing the importance of the landfill operating to full capacity and the environmental benefits of the associated Landfill Tax benefits.

The Planning Officer informed Members that there was a need to extend the life of the site to allow the current operator to complete and fill the landfill. This was the most efficient use of the site and would allow the remediation plan to be carried out as already approved. The site and its restoration were strictly controlled by the Environment Agency and actions relating to the site required their approval. Members had previously questioned the two-year closure of the site in 2016; this was not down to the current operator.

The site had not been filled due to reduced input in the five years prior and would require a five-year extension to fill the site. If capacity was reached earlier then restoration could begin sooner.

Members had questioned taking waste from other areas national guidance clearly stated that authorities should work jointly on waste management.

Part of the site had already been restored and all efforts would be made to restore the site to its natural surroundings. Recommendations in the independent report from WSP stated that should a revised scheme be required there could be a number of issues, including gas leakage, water seepage, and slippage. Closing early could lead to an unfeasible scheme.

Another concern raised related to methane. WSP had analysed waste returns data and concluded the site did not receive a high proportion of organic waste and produced low levels of methane and other greenhouse gases. The site itself had considerable methane monitoring on site and operated methane extraction.

During the debate a number of issues were raised by Members. Members expressed reservations about extension because of the impact on residents, stating that extending the sites life would lead to further disruptions from traffic, noise, and smells. The possible impact of fires at the site was also raised.

Another issue raised by Members was environmental. A number of Members objected to the extension stating that it was contrary the Borough’s climate change goals and that high recycling rates in the Borough combined with the importing of waste from other authorities made extension inequitable.

Members also queried the need for the extension of the site’s lifespan. There were two main strands to this argument. One was that the site, based upon capacity figures, appeared likely to be at full capacity within the remaining three years of its current conditions and therefore extending was unnecessary and, perhaps, de-incentivising. The second argument was that there would be nothing stopping a further extension beyond 2030 and that this would be unacceptable.

On being put to the vote it was, by a majority

RESOLVED – that delegated authority not be granted to the Service Delivery Manager to grant the variation of conditions 6 and 13(b) of application W2006/0232.

On being put to a vote it was, by a majority

RESOLVED – that the application be refused on the grounds of the impacts approval would have on the residential amenity of residents and future residents.

This was an outline planning application for the erection of one dwelling. The site comprised a parcel of land extending from Hadley Park Road between numbers 133 and 135 and incorporated a wider parcel of land between the rear gardens of number 135 and 137. Since the report had been published, an additional representation in support had been received.

Councillor Stuart Parr, parish councillor, spoke against the application. The development was a garden development and this was against council policy and access two the property would be unsafe due to poor visibility existing to Hadley Park Road.

Dawne Telford, the applicant, spoke for the application. AC Development had acquired and renovated the derelict 135 and 137 Hadley Park Road cottages, bringing them back to use. The application on the land at the rear was in line with policy requirements and would bring derelict land back to use and provide affordable accommodation for local people.

The Planning Officer stated that highway safety and the principle of development were the main consideration of the application. All matters in the application were reserved. The illustrative block and elevation plan demonstrated that single storey development could be accommodated on the site and meet NDSS standards. Back-land development was often resisted but as the application would not affect the character of the area and did not affect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings, this was not seen as an issue.

Following the presentation, Members posed a number of questions:

8.7.1 in the report mentions a TPO, was the tree removed as part of the Park Court Development?

Confirmation of this had not been confirmed, however, this matter was not material to the application. There was sufficient space for replanting in the corner in question if needed.

Were there any concerns regarding things that had not been included in the submission?

No, but to progress the applicant would need to submit a reserved matters application on detailed matters.

On what grounds was back-land development usually resisted?

It was sometimes resisted on grounds of impact to the character of an area or inadequate separation distance. This was why an illustrative floor plan was requested. It had been provided and a single storey dwelling would not affect either character or separation.

There was a mention of Japanese knotweed in the report, had this been investigated?

An informative could be added in terms of any decision made.

Members also queried the visibility when exiting the property and the position of the bus stop. The Planning Officer advised that highways had considered the existing position and had not considered it detrimental given the fall-back position.

.

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

Condition(s):

Time Limit

Reserved Matters Time Limit

Reserved Matters

Construction Environmental Management Plan

Foul and Surface Water

Materials (details to be submitted)

Parking, Turning, Loading (to be submitted)

Access drive surface / bound material (to be submitted)

Nesting and Roosting Boxes

Scale of Development (single storey)

Illustrative Site Layout Plan (general principles)

Approved Plans

Highways License Informative

Nesting Wild birds Informative

Restriction to 1No. dwelling

Japanese Knotweed Informative

This was a full application proposing the construction 186 dwellings, public open space, and a play area. Access would be from Hadley Road to the east, with pedestrian access proposed to the northwest corner of the site. The development was a mix of 2, 3, and 4 bedroom houses along with 2 bedroom bungalows. The applicant had agreed 25% affordable units.

The scheme was well designed and on the brownfield site of a former quarry. There was some tree loss associated with development; however, this would be mitigated by planting and usable public open space. There would also be an s106 agreement for tree replacement offsite. Other s106 improvements included highways, play areas, and schools.

An update to the plan had been received following the report’s publication. The applicant would provide each unit with an EV charge point.

Previous consent had been granted in 2011 but the scheme had not come forward.

Members posed a number of questions:

How close would the offsite play areas, benefiting from s106, be?

There was a play facility on site and the money offsite would be to facilities in the immediate area.

Why hadn’t the schools benefiting from s106 money been named?

They had not been named in this case as regulations did not require it. However, the money would be used within a 2 and 3-mile radius of the development.

Could the developer be asked to include solar panels?

While developers were encouraged to be energy efficient there was no policy requiring such measures to base a request on. Building regulations set out the energy efficiency required but this could be achieved in a number of ways.

Was there no space for trees on site?

To replace like-for-like was not possible, this was why there was a financial contribution to plant offsite. Smaller trees would be planted on site.

Upon being put to a 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 s.106 Agreement:

-           £65,100 (£350 per dwelling) towards improvements of nearby NEAP and play facilities;

-           £120,900 (£650 per dwelling) towards nearby sport and recreation facilities;

-           £879,364 Primary School Education Works within 2-mile radius;

-           £366,888 Secondary School Education Works within 3-mile radius;

-           £160,506.41 Strategic Highways Contribution;

-           £36,000 towards off site cycle/pedestrian route alongside Sommerfield Road;

-           £5,000 Travel Plan Monitoring;

-           £15,000 towards PRoW Works;

-           £225,420 towards off-site bio-diversity;

-           £56,800 Tree Replacement Standard

B.        Condition(s):

Time Limit - Full

Details of Materials

Landscape Design

Landscape Management (areas other than private gardens)

Highway Conditions (incl. (i) highway construction details works; (ii) parking and roads to be completed to each property prior to occupation; (iii) demolition/construction Management Plan; (iv) drainage solution for existing ditch adjacent Hadley Road; (v) provision of bus stops and (vi) submission of Travel Plan)

Highways details of pedestrian link to Waterloo Close

Drainage Conditions (incl. (i) Foul and Surface Water Scheme; (ii) Exceedance Routing and (iii) SUD’s Management)

Ecology Conditions (incl. (i) European protected species licence; (ii) bird and bat boxes; (iii) bio-diversity net gain plan; (iv) pre-commencement walkovers; (v) lighting plan; (vi) Work in accordance with protected species survey

Noise Survey Condition (work in accordance)

Tree Protection Implementation (in accordance with Arboricultural Method Statement)

Development in Accordance with Plans

Removal of PD rights for extensions to Plots 83-87

The application sought full planning permission for enabling and engineering works comprising of ground remediation, reprofiling, demolition of the existing substation, and the diversion of existing utilities. The works were required in connection with the forthcoming ‘Station Quarter’ redevelopment.

A query was raised regarding the traffic issues in the town centre and whether operating hours for the site could be adjusted to quieter times so that business would not suffer from disruption. The Planning Officer stated that the availability of construction workers limited operation hours. To work on Sundays and bank holidays would add to the cost of development. There was a high tech solution to mitigate the impacts of construction with an online booking-in system to alleviate traffic on the highway.

Members questioned that while there were dust mitigation measures mentioned in the report, there was no mention of mud. With winter coming up, what measures would be in place for mud?

Officers confirmed that there would be wheel wash facilities at the exit.

Upon being put to a vote, it was unanimously:

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:

1)         The applicants/landowner entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Local Planning Authority (with terms to be agreed by the Development Management Service Delivery Manager) relating to the following:

a)         £104,500 towards Biodiversity Net Gain

2)         The following conditions and informatives:

a)         A04                 Time limit

b)        B057              Remediation Works

c)         B059Custom           Waste Management Plan

d)        B130              Trees – Protective Fencing

e)         C38                 Development in accordance with deposited plans

f)          C091              Development in accordance with Ecology Survey

g)        C091              Development in accordance with CEMP

h)        I06                               Memorandum of Understanding

i)          I17b                Coal Authority Development Low-Risk Area

j)          I32                               Fire Authority

k)         I40                  Conditions

l)          I41                  Reasons for grant of approval

m)       RANPPF1

This application was for the erection of 55no. dwellings with associated amenity space and car parking with the formation of new roundabout to the existing cross roads  on the former Dairy Crest Ltd (phase 3), Crudgington, Telford, Shropshire.

This application was before Planning Committee as it required a S106 Agreement.

Councillor G Cook left the meeting.

The Planning Officer informed Members that this application was for full planning permission on an agricultural field which fell between the former Dairy Crest site and the A442 and proposed to facilitate a four arm roundabout to replace the existing Crudgington crossroads.  This was a much sought after improvement to the highway by the local community, due to it being an accident hotspot.

Councillor S Bentley, Ward Councillor, spoke in favour of the application and the importance of public engagement on this application and the opportunity for him to explain, on balance, why he was in favour of the recommendation despite it being contrary to policy.  The strategic junction had and continued to have minor shunts, accidents with injury, road closures and fatalities.  This was exacerbated by the increase in traffic and the size of the vehicles, agricultural vehicles and speed of traffic.   It would have been preferable if funding for the installation of the roundabout could have been obtained in other ways with affordable housing being set aside for families with local connection.  There was a demonstrated need for safety improvements for all users of this junction including cyclists and pedestrians which would be complimented by the pedestrian crossing which had now been installed and was operational.  It was hoped that this would also help reduce the speed of vehicles.  He requested that a central refuge be installed on the pedestrian crossing and that if adjustments to the S106 were sought that the junction improvements were not compromised in any way.

Mr A Sheldon, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in favour of the application and acknowledged that under normal circumstances this application would not have gained the support of the Officers but due to the exceptional circumstances and the significant public benefit of the construction of the roundabout and the approval of the Parish Council it was considered, on balance, acceptable.  A viability assessment had been undertaken and it was not possible to provide both affordable housing on site as well as the education contribution of £450k due to the cost of providing the roundabout.  The contribution would provide additional classroom spaces and the Primary School were in support of the application.  The development would be of high quality design with a mix of housing types and sizes.  He asked that Members approve the application which would bring about a resolution to the long standing dangerous junction arrangements.

The Planning Officer informed Members that this application brought a significant community gain.  There had been no objections from statutory consultees.  Extensive negotiations had taken place and the application was supported by the Parish Council.  There was an over provision of five parking spaces and all properties would have EV charging points which has been confirmed by the Applicant and would be conditioned.  The design had been amended during the course of the application, particularly to the A442 streetscene in respect of house types and the landscaping.  The viability had been independently assessed with the cost of the roundabout and the re-location of utilities being around £2m.  The viability assessment concluded that some contributions could be provided and it was considered by Officers that more appropriate to provide education contributions on this scheme due to the capacity of the local primary school and secondary education.  The scheme would therefore not provide any affordable housing although two additional pieces of outdoor gym equipment would be installed on the play space from the earlier phases and this had been agreed with the Healthy Spaces Officer.  Whilst the scheme was contrary to policy, the significant benefits which had been sought by the local community and the Parish Council for many years on balance it was the Officer’s view that the application should be supported.

During the debate some Members felt that the roundabout was a long overdue, was supported by the Ward and Parish Councillors and it was whole heartedly supported due to safety concerns and EV charging points were welcomed.  Some concerns were raised in relation to flooding and the representations from neighbours and the capacity of the local schools.  Other Members raised concerns regarding the lack of solar panels.  Concerns were also raised in relation to the application being used to fund the cost of the roundabout instead of the highway authority and this had an impact on the local affordable housing need.  It was asked that the emergency exit and access to the A442 be conditioned as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the contribution towards education had been assessed on the standard formula for the primary school new class base together with a 5% buffer for future growth of the local community.

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 applicants entering into a S106 agreement to incorporate:

i) Financial contribution of £286,711.00 towards primary school

   expansion at Crudgington Primary School;

ii) Financial contribution of £131,452.00 towards secondary school

               expansions in the North Telford Planning Area;

iii) Financial contribution of £46,854.00 towards secondary school

                transportation;

iv) Installation of two pieces of outdoor gym equipment at the

                existing ‘Former Dairy crest’ LEAP, and;

v) S106 Monitoring Fee of £9,300.34.

b) the conditions 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 variation of Conditions 6 and 13 of planning permission W2006/0232 (Extension to existing landfill site by deepening and raising contour profile by about 2m and restoration of the site with variation to conditions 7.13 and 20 of planning consent Ref: MW/94/0424/WR) to allow the disposal of permitted wastes within the landfill area to continue until 31 December 2030 and to reduce the permitted daily limit of waste to 1350 tonnes at Granville Landfill, Grange Lane, Redhill, Telford, Shropshire.

This application was before Planning committee at the request of Donnington and Muxton Parish Council and Councillor V Fletcher, Ward Councillor.

Additional representations had been received which noted a series of observations in relation to no local need, successful local recycling with zero going to landfill, clarification was sort where the waste was from, the permit on the site and its closure for a period of time, loss of value to local houses, the need to focus on incineration and the pyramid system and it was against the Human Rights Act 1998.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the loss of value to local houses were not a material planning consideration and there was no evidence to support this.  Landfill remained an important part of the hierarchy when no other option was available and it was considered there was still a need for this to continue.

Councillor A Lawrence, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding the impact on the new residential area, it was land rise and not land fill, inappropriate location and an eyesore, loss of value to local properties and the expectation that the permit would be coming to an end and the land reverted back to a nature reserve, continual requests for extensions and the impact on the local environment.

Councillor V Fletcher, adjoining Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and raised concerns that this application went against policies within the Telford Local Plan, the need for the site, traffic flow along the access route, nearby construction site and vehicular traffic movements, the request for a 5 year extension but the site had only been closed for 2 years, impact on local residents, the lack of an impact assessment, noise and disturbance, smells, fumes and vermin on the site.

Ms H Howard, a member of the public, spoke against the application and raise concerns that this application went against policy and she felt it was detrimental to the local area, the lack of established need within Telford and Wrekin, the impact of land raise, the site was an eyesore, the contouring of the site, the operation should have ceased in 2021 and reverted back to the Granville Country Park, the extension was not viable, landfill should be a last resort and this was a blight on the landscape with no local need.

Ms G Daintith, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in favour of the application and explained that as the site was closed for two years the annual tonnage would need to increase.  The site was not expected to reach capacity and it would close in 2025, the site was a strategic resource, the northern area of the site had been restored, there were no technical objections to the site and the variations did not impact on the permitted permission on landfill activities.  There would be no additional traffic on the highway network and it was a recognised waste facility.  The site operated under an Environment Agency permit and controls were in place in relation to noise and odour and the application was compliant with policies.

The Planning Officer explained to Members that there were clear and valid reasons for the operation to continue for a further five years and if the extension was refused the operator could not comply with the conditions on the existing site.  There was no impact on future or existing residents ad there were no changes or increase to the types of waste on the site which had already been approved and the operation was controlled by the Environment Agency and this was not for Members consideration.  There were no material changes to the application and approval would allow for satisfactory completion of the site.

During the debate some Members raised concerns regarding odours from the site and impact on local residents and the highway network.  Other Members raised concerns regarding the majority of waste was brought in from outside of the Borough and if this was a strategic resource for the local area, the additional height and the impact on the contours of the site, the climate change emergency and the impact on the Council’s omissions targets.  Further concerns were raised regarding the raising of the profile, the proximity to local housing developments and the lack of benefit to the local area.  It was asked if the timescale could be reduced down from five years if requested and why the site hand been closed, what had caused the delay, where the waste had been taken during its closure, should Telford and Wrekin be taking on waste from other local councils, would the site ever meet the figures if the waste sinks down and would there be a need for further extensions on the site.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the surrounding residential areas had been identified for a significant period of time within the local plan and officers were mindful that these could come forward whilst the site was still in operation.  It was difficult to confirm where the waste came from and how it was processed as this came through a waste transfer station in Welshpool but waste was from the borough as well as other authorities and that there was still a need for landfill and the site at Granville was meeting that demand.   A full restoration of the site would be undertaken but there was presently and undersupply of waste to the site and the application did not seek to increase the height or contouring but that the wording of the condition was in reference to the original application in 2006 and the site could be monitored in order to review the contour.  With regard to extensions of time to the site, each application would be considered on its own merits.

The Legal Advisor advised Members that the site was bound by the decision that was made in 2006 in relation to the contouring and the height of the site and this could not be exceeded or it would be a breach of conditions.  The site was subject to a restoration and contouring plan.  The use of landfill was still valid and some weight had to be given to that and with regard to the impact on residents, this would have been taken into consideration and weighed up appropriately.   Members could reduce the timescale if they felt this appropriate.

Following the debate it was moved and seconded that the application be deferred in order that officers could undertake discussions with the applicant in relation to these concerns. 

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

RESOLVED – that the application be deferred in order that officers could undertake discussions with the applicant in relation to where the waste came from and how it was processed, how long would the loading take place and would it sink down, would it have reached the limit by 2030, would it be like that a further extension would be requested in 2025, whey did they not operate for a two year term and where was the waste taken.

This application was for the felling of 1no. Monkey Puzzle tree and 3no. Pine trees on the site of 23 Wellington Road, Muxton, Telford, Shropshire.

The application was before Members at the request of Donnington & Muxton Parish Council.

Councillor L Dugmore spoke against the application on behalf of the Parish Council who raised concerns regarding the conditions from the previous three applications being ignored and damage had been caused to the trees which had caused them to be in a desperate state and dangerous.  She felt approving the application was a reward for the applicant’s behaviour.  Further concerns were also raised that enforcement hand not taken place and how could they be confident that action would be taken against the Developer for their flagrant disregard of planning consent.

The Planning Officer informed Members that a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) had been placed on four trees in 2018 in relation to the proposed development and following a compliance visit it was apparent from the condition of the trees that the conditions of the TPO had not been adhered to protective fencing had not been implemented and there had been soil interruption to the tree roots.  The damage to the Pine trees had meant they had become unstable with dead wood present and the surrounding ground compacted.  Long term stability of the trees was of concern.  The Arboricultural Specialist had confirmed that the Monkey Puzzle tree had declined and the roots of the Pine trees had been damaged irrecoverably.  The Council’s Tree Officer had confirmed that in the interest of safety and future amenity that the trees needed to be felled.

It was requested that consent was approved, subject to the conditions that trees were replaced in line with the Tree Officer recommendations of a 20-25cm girth and the submission of an aftercare management plan for five years in order for successful tree survival.

The Tree Officer commented that conditions were not adhered to and ground works, the storage of concrete blocks and changes to soil levels had all impacted the trees.  In August this year there was some stem bleeding and honey fungus and it was a question of when the trees would come down.  A power company had recently taken a chunk out of the Pine tree and it was suggested that these trees be removed and replaced with similar large trees.

During the debate some Members raised concerns regarding the state of the Monkey Puzzle tree as well as the Pine trees and felt that the Tree Officer had a better knowledge of the state of the trees and that they should be replaced with like for like trees with an aftercare plan in place in order to ensure that it was adhered to.  Other Members felt concerned that the trees had been destroyed and asked what actions could be taken, whether the replacement trees would be semi mature and what conditions could be put in place.  It was also asked if there was a timescale for action to be taken.

The Tree Officer confirmed that there were a number of factors involved with the TPO legislation and that if the TPO was not adhered to other agencies would follow this up and that TPOs were very important.  The investigation was currently with the Legal Team.  The damage to the trees was being monitored.

The Legal Advisor commented that there were investigations currently ongoing into the offences committed and it was difficult to estimate a time as this depended on the case being brought, but that this was not for consideration by Members

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 Tree Preservation Order consent subject to the following:

a)    The Condition(s) and Informative(s) (with authority to finalise Condition(s) to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager) contained within the report.

This application was for a change of use from residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to children's residential accommodation (Use Class C2) at 16 Avondale Road, Wellington, Telford, Shropshire TF1 2HD

This application was before Planning Committee at the request of Wellington Town Council.

Councillor M Hosken (Ward Councillor) spoke against the application and on behalf of local residents who had raised concerns regarding the change of use from use class C3 to use class C2.  This was a residential property and should not be used for a commercial enterprise and a family would be removed from their home and moved elsewhere in order to accommodate a pseudo family.  He raised concerns regarding the ages of the residents, the sex of the residents, social and educational welfare area outside of the property, staff qualifications and who would monitor their performance and that this money making venture would affect the lives of local residents and devalue surrounding properties.

Mrs H Barker, a member of the public, raised concerns regarding the consultation process and she had made further representations prior to the committee meeting.  She was not against the idea of the scheme but felt that issues had not been fully addressed in relation to the bedrooms and sleeping arrangements for up to four people on a 24 hour basis.  Some of the downstairs space was being converted into work space and this would limit the living space which would be unfair on the children.  The back garden was of a decent size but adjoined five other gardens spaces and this, together with the weather, would limit the use in that sense.  She felt that this application would be more suitable for a detached house in order to meet the needs of the children.

The Planning Officer confirmed that this was a three bedroom, two storey house with parking at the front and around the side of the property.  The change of use to a C2 residential institution would be for a maximum of two children from the ages of 8-18 years with two carers on a rota basis.  There would be up to two children sleeping overnight with six carers on for 48 hours and the off for 60 hours with no more than three carers at any one time.  There would be a changeover at 8am with a manager visiting between the hours of 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday.  Changes to the living room into an office/study was proposed and there was sufficient parking space at the property.  Policy HO7 regarding specialist housing needs proposed that it met the needs of local residents and required local community shops, services and transport.  Policy BE1 confirmed there was no significant adverse impact.  The proposed use would simulate a typical family and was close to amenities and services in Wellington.  A balanced view had been taken as planning could not differentiate between children, there was a strict match making process for vulnerable children and a short of supply of housing with children often being move to another authority losing their local family connection.  The application could not be considered on suitability but on its own individual merits.  In relation to parking and highway impact, there were no objections in relation to trip generation. There was no detrimental impact in relation to overlooking and noise on neighbouring properties and due to adequate garden space and on-site parking the application was compliant with the Local Plan.

During the debate some Members raised that this was an opportunity for two children to be looked after and brought up in a proper manner and that the property could be sold and difficult children could move in and it was felt that it was a family replacing a family and there was no reasons to object.  Other Members felt that the property was not physically suitable in relation to small domestic living conditions and the conversion of a living room into an office space and it was asked where the second carer would sleep.  It was asked if the close family contact would take place at the residence and that the application did have unanswered questions in relation to parking and the domestic situation.  Other Members re-iterated concerns regarding visitors to the property ie psychologists, social services, police and at all times of day and night and that this could have a detrimental impact to neighbouring properties, the size of the property as it was a only a semi-detached house.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there were three bedrooms, one for each of the children and one for the carer.  Due to the nature of the shift patterns, only one carer would be asleep during the night with the other carer on hand to support the children with any issues on a rota basis and the office space would be used for this purpose.

The Development Management Service Delivery Manager confirmed that Planning related to the land use and there was no detrimental impact to amenities.  The property had previously been extended to house a family unit and had been smaller.  Ofsted would oversee any potential provider for the children in care and that they would have to provide a safe and satisfactory environment.

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

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Delivery Management Service Delivery Manager to grant full planning permission subject to the conditions contained within the report (with authority to finalise Condition(s) to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager).

This was an application for the erection of 22no. dwellings, a retirement living complex containing 66no. units and 10no. bungalows, indoor sports facility and community hall with associated car parking, additional parking for local community organisations, alterations to 2no. existing accesses and provision of 2no. new vehicular accesses, associated landscaping, attenuation pond, public open space and infrastructure on the site of former New College Telford, King Street, Wellington, Telford, Shropshire.

This application was presented to committee as it required financial contributions via section 106.

An update report was tabled at the meeting.

Mr S Thompson, Applicant, spoke in favour of the application which was part of a £27m investment in the Wellington area over the next three years.  Viability of the application had been challenging due to construction costs and it was asked that there be no affordable housing secured via a 106 on this application.  A Homes England Grant to bring the project forward was being applied for and this could not be granted if affordable housing was sought via the S106.  The development would fulfil 78% affordable housing via the Homes England Grant.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a brief overview of the application which met NDSS required space standards  Although there was slightly less outdoor space attached to the bungalows, space was provided for each of the bungalows in the form of a private outdoor space or a balcony as well as a communal garden.  Access was from Regent Street and King Street and there was an additional 21 bay car park to serve an existing community group in order to address local congestion and parking issues.  There was also an addition of a parking space for staff attending at the apartments.  An amended site plan has been agreed showing the additional staff parking space.  Concerns had been raised regarding the impact of the development on setting of the former listed girls’ school from the proximity of the retirement apartments and although it had not been possible to fully address these concerns it was considered that the benefits outweighed the harm and on balance could be accepted subject to conditions.  Following a viability appraisal the scheme was not viable for 25% affordable housing secured via the S106 and therefore Members were being asked to approve the scheme with 0% affordable housing to allow the applicant to access Homes England Grant Funding to deliver 78% affordable housing on site.  Contributions via the S106 would be sought towards healthy spaces and education and it was agreed by the applicant that these would be paid in full.

During the debate some Members asked for clarification on the use of the indoor sport facility and whether it would be used for community use and would this be manned by a paid member of staff.  Other Members asked for clarification in relation to the additional car park for community use.  Further clarification was sought on the Homes England Grant Funding and how this would be monitored.  Other Members asked if the tree to be planted at the rear of Durban could be a semi-mature specimen and raised concerns on the length of the opening hours and the condition that the winders and doors be closed at all time and where the bin storage would be housed and would refuse vehicles have sufficient access.  Other Members felt that this application was good for Wellington and the local community and that this was the right type of application in the right place, supported by the Town Council with very few negatives.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the running of the sports facility did not sit with Planning but with the Council’s Estates Team. Tennis and netball had previously been provided on site for the community and the Section 106 contributions would replace these facilities as part of a wider strategy drawn up with Sport England. In respect of the community use car park, a new 21 bay car park would be created to assist with the community group opposite the development on King Street.  With regard to Home England Grant Funding, should Members agree to 0% affordable housing there would be no means for the Local Planning Authority to monitor or revise this, however by way of reassurance to Members Wrekin Housing Group had designed the site to provide adaptable apartments and bungalows that would meet affordable housing design standards. A recent application that had been approved with 0% affordable housing has received grant funding as intended and it was hoped that would give some reassurance.  The opening hours were standard and a noise mitigation plan and management place would be required and Environmental Health had suggested the closing of windows and doors due to not knowing who would be utilizing the space.

On 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 (with the authority to finalise any matter including Condition(s), legal agreement terms, or any later variations) subject to the following:

a)    The Applicant/Landowners entering into a Section 106 Agreement with the Local Planning Authority (items i) to ii) subject to indexation from the date of Committee), relating to:

i)             Financial Contribution towards Healthy Spaces of £105,000 (£10,000 towards study  into netball provision, £10,000 towards study into tennis provision, £10,000 towards delivering netball  strategy, £10,000 towards delivering tennis strategy and £65,000 towards the nearest free to use publicly accessible Multi Use Games Area at Millfields Park to incorporate street cricket, basketball and 5-a-side football in a replacement purpose built facility);

ii)            Financial Contribution towards Education of £136,306 (£96,178 towards Primary Education and £40,127 towards Secondary Education);

iii)          Car Park off King Street to remain in use for associated community group in perpetuity to accommodate user parking for events;

iv)          s.106 Monitoring Fee of £4,852.10 (1% of the total value of contributions, or capped at £15,000).

b)   Submission of Proposed Site Plan showing addition of 1no. staff parking space in association with the retirement apartments

c)    The conditions contained in the Report and Update Report.