Residential development of 74 Extra Care apartments and associated facilities, 6 bungalows and 58 houses; improved access.

(In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 5, Councillor David Turner left the room during consideration of this item.)

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.  He provided a verbal update regarding information received following publication of the agenda, including:

·         Further objections received from members of the public;

·         Further comments from Albrighton Development Action Group; and

·         Further comments from the applicant in response to the comments made by the Albrighton Development Action Group. 

Members had undertaken a site visit on a previous occasion and had viewed the site and had assessed the impact of a proposal on the surrounding area. 

Councillor R Smith, representing Albrighton Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Dr Jeremy Bradley, representing Albrighton Medical Practice, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees and responded to questions from Members of the Committee.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15) Councillor Malcolm Pate, as local Ward Councillors, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         Albrighton Parish Council, Albrighton and District Civic Society and over a thousand residents of Albrighton had opposed this application;

·         He did not agree with the recommendation to permit.  The proposed three-storey building would be unsuitable and totally out of character - many buildings had been refused for this reason;

·         The Highways Manager had originally objected to the application on highway grounds but following proposals to incorporate a raised plateau outside the school entrance to reduce traffic speed the recommendation was changed to permit.  Shaw Lane is the most congested road in Albrighton;

·         Drainage – The system could not cope now and there was regular flooding in the area;

·         He was not against housing on this site.  This site had been identified through the SAMDev Plan as one for residential development – an extra care home had never formed part of the SAMDev Plan; and

·         He urged the Committee to take note of all the concerns raised and refuse the application.

Mr A Williams, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees and responded to questions from Members of the Committee.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the revised plans, and noted the comments of all speakers and the advice given by the Solicitor, Planning Officer, Principal Policy Specialist and Area Highways Development Control Manager (South).  Members expressed concerns regarding the overdevelopment of what was an already congested area, the proposed sole vehicular access to the development onto Shaw Lane, the lack of assurance that access from Kingswood Road to the south could be achieved in the future, traffic congestion, highway and pedestrian safety, and the large scale, need and impact of the ‘Extra Care’ home facility on the surrounding area. 

At 03.26 pm, Members agreed to adjourn in order that Officers could consult and formulate possible wording of planning grounds for refusal based on comments and concerns proffered and expressed by Members during the debate.  At 03.35 pm the meeting reconvened and it was:

RESOLVED:

That, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

It is acknowledged that the application site forms part of an adopted Development Plan housing allocation and would deliver new market housing and a high level of affordable housing broadly in line with the development guidelines for the site set out in Policy S1.1a of the Site Allocations and Management Development Plan (SAMDev).  However, these benefits are not outweighed by a combination of negative factors which comprise:

- the vehicular access to the development being solely onto Shaw Lane with no assurance at this stage that access from Kingswood Road to the south could be achieved, which is the preferred option for the site as shown on the SAMDev Policies Map S1Map,  with the consequence that the nature and scale of the development would create traffic flows that would exacerbate the existing traffic congestion already experienced in the Shaw Lane area because of the close proximity of the School, Railway Station and Doctors Surgery, to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety;

- the bulk and massing of the predominantly three storey extra care building would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the locality, leading to the over development of the area, and would have an adverse impact upon the setting of the listed railway station building, albeit less than substantial but still a significant harmful impact, and there are no public benefits sufficient to outweigh this harm. 

The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Shropshire Core Strategy policies CS6 and CS17; SAMDev policies MD2, MD13 and S1.1  and would not satisfy the environmental role of sustainable development set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.