Minutes of the Committee Meeting of the

Albrighton & District Civic Society

held at APC Office, 82B High St, Albrighton,

on Monday 11th June 2012 at 11am

 

Present :       

Peter Woodman - Chairman

Rod Smith – Secretary.

Mike Pitchford - Membership Secretary and Acting Treasurer

John Bulmer

Ron Kidson

David Murray – ex-officio, representing Tong PC

 

1. Apologies  received from David Hughes, Peter Leigh, David Beechey, Michael Ward  and Hugh Hughes

 

2. Minutes of Meeting of 14th May 2012 were approved.

 

3. The Chairman and Committee were pleased to welcome Chris Edwards (SC Area Director) and Ian Kilby (SC Head of Planning) to our meeting as a follow up on the previous meeting of 3rd May 2012 and to deal with other items which had arisen. For the sake of clarity and convenience the questions on the agenda sent to Mr Edwards and Mr Kilby, prior to the meeting, are shown in italics followed by the summary of the ensuing discussion. 

 

a. CE’s response to the items raised at the meeting on 3 May 2011

The Chairman confirmed that ADCS is now in receipt of the monthly List of Planning Applications. IK will send to ADCS a guide to the use of the SC website and ADCS may register as a Group.

 

b. Please provide ADCS with the SC Guideline Booklet for Shop Fronts & Signs.

i) If none then can we use the Bridgnorth DC Guide?

ii) We are waiting for the SC Enforcement Officer to report back concerning the Chip

   Shop and Tattoo Parlour.

RS suggested that shop keepers needed a guide to what was acceptable so that they could avoid buying expensive signs etc which then may need to be removed as required by SC Planners. Such a Guide would also be useful to the Society. IK confirmed that the Bridgnorth DC Guide may be used as a guide but it will not be a cast iron specification.

The SC Enforcement Officer has spoken to the Rumbles Chip Shop owner and the temporary yellow banner has been removed, but some other items are under discussion between the shop and SC. 

 

c. Planning committee meetings to be held at Bridgnorth for our local applications and not

     at Ludlow

 

IK said that there had been no recent planning committee meetings at Ludlow and expected that most, if not all, local applications would be held at Bridgnorth and if not there then at Shrewsbury.

 

d. The Hollies development (18 Cross Road). Plot 1 has an approval for a building which is a pair of semi-detached houses which are tightly squashed into the space. Neighbours had made adverse comments to the developer Mr Rogers and they preferred a single house which was more in keeping with the surroundings. Mr Rogers agreed to change the building type to a detached house and made a request for an amendment to the original application for a change of building. Mr Rogers reported that SC Planners have refused this “change of building type” and have asked him to start again make a new planning application which will now incur the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) making the change non-viable to Mr Rogers. So if the semis are built Mr Rogers will not have the building he wants, the neighbours will not have the building they want and SC will not have its CIL money – everyone loses. Why can’t the ““change of building type” be accepted which will not affect SC but will provide Mr Rogers and the neighbours what they prefer?

 

IK said that the new rules on CIL were causing the CIL Team to ask for the situation as above and the request for CIL was not due to the Planning Team. ADCS said that in either case the semis OR the single house SC will not receive CIL but that with the single house both the developer and the community would get what they preferred. It was felt that the community would not understand SC if their position was to not allow the single house even when they would not receive CIL in either case. It was not a common sense result and would make SC appear illogical and unreasonable. The reputation of SC is now in question and the community is looking for the common sense answer. The Society was building up good relations with various departments of SC and we are sometimes asked by residents to interpret and justify SC decisions. The situation above would make it difficult for the Society endorse SC in this instance and we would come down on the side of the community.

IK fully understood the situation and was sympathetic and noted that the application and subsequent change of building request came in the transition period between the old and new rules and that may allow him to achieve a good outcome. Also if Alb PC and ADCS wrote to SC it would show local community support. He said before such letters were written he would prepare the ground and discuss with colleagues in SC and he would advise ADCS in due course. Letters could then be sent.

[Post Meeting Note. IK advised ADCS to contact Adrian Cooper of the CIL Team T:01743 252568 over the issue, but he did not see a way round the matter]

 

e. Lea Hall Cottage, Newhouse Lane. This has been empty for many years and falling into dereliction. PW has asked SC for help in dealing with it and to encourage it being brought into use

 

PW reported that it is now up for auction. 

 

f. State of street furniture including incorrect colour and standard of street lighting columns and bollards especially in the conservation areas. PL had requested a written statement of the Quality Standard (ie the Specification) for such items and this is still awaited. (See email from PL to ADCS 31/5/12)

 

CE said that information and specification would be sent to ADCS

 

g. Officer’s Report and Recommendations for a Planning Application.

This is the document which is sent to members of the planning committee prior to the Planning Committee Meeting.  Currently, this only available for supporters and objectors when they arrive at the Planning Meeting.

 

i) The system allows one objector and one parish councillor to speak at the planning committee meeting (and one supporter on the other side). By receiving the Report upon arrival at the meeting this does not allow them to read the document and certainly does not allow them a proper review of the situation before addressing the meeting. Their address to the meeting needs to take account of whatever is in the officer’s Report etc. This situation is not fair and does not meet democratic principles.

 

At the LJC meeting on 28/9/10 the SC officers (Mr Kilby and Mr Mills) said that they intended to provide the Report 5 days prior to the planning meeting. For practical reasons 5 days is not enough and we ask that the Report, and any associated document eg developer’s additional comments, should be available 14 days prior to the planning meeting. Neighbours and other interested parties need to receive the Report with more time to deal with it. Interested parties need to decide if they wish to speak at the planning committee meeting and if so who amongst them will speak on behalf of all – as current rules only allows one objector and one supporter. Parish Councils need to receive the Report well in advance of the planning committee meeting to allow it to be dealt with at their regular council meetings and to make arrangements for a Parish Councillor to address the planning meeting if necessary.

 

ii) We recommend that the Report etc should be available 14 days prior to the 

planning committee meeting in the following ways:-

 

1.            On Shropshire Council’s website

2.            Paper copies at all Shropshire Council’s offices and including the Shropshire Council office, High St  Albrighton

3.            Notification to all those who send comments or objections to the Council

 

Item 3 above may be achieved without incurring more cost or additional work.  All those who send comments or objections to the council currently receive a letter of acknowledgement and we recommend that this letter includes a paragraph to say that the Report may be seen on the website or at the Council’s offices 14 days prior to the planning meeting – thus leaving people to seek out the Report etc by whichever means they find most convenient. Thus this does not entail any additional cost as the acknowledgment letter is already being issued in the current procedures. A few paper copies should still be available for the public at the planning committee meeting as is the current practice – but this is no substitute for the advance copies being available as described above.

 

IK explained that the planning officer’s report is published 5 days in advance of the Planning Committee Meeting and is shown on the web site.  He said that the business process did not make it easier to publish the report any sooner.  The previous practise of sending an acknowledgement letter to all persons who sent comments/objections to the Planning Department has been discontinued.   RS asked how lay people commenting/objecting would be aware of the publication of the report.  RS said that perhaps the Society could help by publicising the new planning procedures in the Parish Magazine if SC would send us a document providing a brief explanation.  IK agreed to do this

 

h) Feedback to interested parties after the planning meeting

We see that even after comments/objections are sent by the Parish Council there is no response to them from Shropshire Council. Some of the points made are effectively ignored without explanation. The Parish Council is a “key” body (Draft SCI cl 4.9) and a “first point of contact” (Draft SCI cl 2.5) and perhaps more attuned to local people’s views and it is the PC which knows its area well.

It thus seems that their proper comments should be taken into account in planning decisions and if Shropshire Council (SC) disagrees with their comments it would be helpful to explain why. By doing this there will be two effects:-

 a) SC will be seen to fully review Parish Council (PC) comments if they have to set out reasons why PC views are to be set aside

b) if any comments by the PC are not “material considerations” then SC can point this out to enable the PC to avoid similar situations in comments on future planning applications and this will help the PC focus on relevant issues. This should improve the quality of PC comments.

 

IK advised that feedback is now shown in the Planning Officer’s Report.

 

i) Enforcement of Conditions

Any breaches of the Conditions in the Approval of a Planning Application should be promptly followed up and dealt with so that other developers are not similarly encouraged to break conditions.

Currently in the LJC18 area there are at least two examples (developments at The Horns and at The Hollies) where it would appear that developers have ignored Conditions laid down by SC and where no enforcement has yet been effected. The result is a general feeling by residents that the Planning Office is not doing what it should do and the reputation of the Planning Office is damaged.

 

There did not appear to be any current enforcement issues concerning The Hollies, Cross Rd.  However, the stable development opposite The Horns in Boningale included a second access gate built directly onto the A464 and which was not shown on the approved Planning Application Drawings. 

IK said that there was an old access gate in existence at that location and shown on old plans and that the developer had merely replaced the old access gate with a new.  Members expressed concern that use of that gate on the very busy and fast A464 could lead to a very unsafe and dangerous highway situation and asked why the Planning Permission for the site did not contain the condition that this old gate was not to be used and to be blocked off.  IK regretted that the Planning Development Management Officer had not noticed this old gate and thus the opportunity to make this a condition had not been taken up.

 

J)  Other Items

 

The Committee referred to the lack of parking at the rail station and said that the owner of the strip of land (A) to the south of the station ramp, which has planning approval for 9 dwellings is willing to do a land swap with the owner (we believe this is a gas company) of that part of the “white land” behind St Mary’s School which is allocated for parking and which would then allow land (A) to be used for parking.  CE and IK considered this to be a good option and suggested that this point was made to Helen Howie who is our SAMDev Officer.

 

The Chairman and Committee thanked Mr Edwards and Mr Kilby for coming and for providing thought-out responses to our concerns. ADCS hope that SC can deal with the items as discussed. ADCS wish to build on this good cooperation and we will try to assist SC in any items which fall within our remit. It was agreed that ADCS will keep in contact with Mr Kilby for his advice concerning any planning issues which may arise.

 

4. Main Issues

 

a) Station Heritage Centre

We have not had approval from HLF who requested further information, as shown on the letter circulated by PW. The committee agreed to prepare the additional information and continue with our submission to HLF

 

ACTION: SCTG to meet to draft the required information.

ACTION: RS to prepare an A3 size poster briefly describing the proposal plus forms to collect signatures of support on Fayre Day – this for use in our Addendum to our Application to HLF.

 

b) Villages Entrance Scheme.

 

JB reported that the areas at Patshull Road/A464 and at Kingswood Road/A41 had been spray- weed killed.

 

c) Schools Civic Awards Scheme.

 

Albrighton Primary and Birchfield are the only participants this year.  It was disappointing to have no or little response from either St Mary’s Primary School and Idsall School in spite of many requests over several months.

.

 

d) Planters & Tubs.

 

MP had prepared and submitted an application for funding from Communitybuilders fund and a further application would be submitted.

 

e) Hanging Basket Competition for Flower Show (7th July).

Civic Society’s Bulmer Cup to be the 1st prize.

The Flower Show’s advertising was not very well done and there may not be many hanging baskets entered.

 

f) Albrighton Fayre (14th July). Activity by all committee members as last year

ACTION:  PLEASE COULD ALL MEMBERS DONATE A BOTTLE(S) AND TAKE TO PW. 

Stall is in front of 33 High Street.

 

g) Visit by Brewood Civic Society Committee.

 

Visit will be on 10th July and starting inside The Shrewsbury Arms to inspect the renovations followed by a guided tour by Ernie Howells including the interior of the Old School and ending with drinks and nibbles at the chairman’s house

(Post meeting Note:  Brewood Civic Society has just emailed to postpone their visit as most of their members were unavailable on that date and they will suggest another date).

.

h) SAMDev.

Deadline for submission noon 20 July 2012.

RK has prepared a note.  Our Task Group met and prepared bullet points. ADCS to prepare our formal submission.

 

 

4. Any Other Business

 

Litter – PW again reported along the High st litter included broken glass in the entrance to Millers Green, which he and Phyll had cleared up.

 

 

Next meeting:  2 p.m. Monday 2nd July 2012

 

Following Meeting will be at 2pm on Monday 6th August 2012.

 

All Committee Meetings, unless otherwise noted, are on the first Monday of each month at

Alb PC Offices, 82B High Street, Albrighton WV7 3JA (T: 375455).

 

(All future AGMs are on the second Monday of October

– NOTE FOR YOUR DIARY: this year’s AGM is at 7pm on 8th October 2012)

 

 

Copyright (c) 2013 ALBRIGHTON and DISTRICT CIVIC SOCIETY