Outline application for residential development for up to 2No. dwellings with retention of access.

Councillor Ted Clarke as local ward Councillor vacated the Chair and Councillor Nat Green as Vice-Chairman presided as Chairman for this item. 

Councillors Tony Parsons and Jane Mackenzie (local ward Councillors) left the table during consideration of this item, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.

In line with his declaration at Minute 57 Councillor David Vasmer left the table during consideration of this item, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.

The Area Planning Manager introduced the outline application for residential development for up to 2 dwellings with retention of access and confirmed that the Committee had undertaken a site visit to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area that morning.

Members’ attention was drawn to the Schedule of Additional Letters which included representations from a third party, the Case Officer, Councillor David Vasmer and the agent for the applicant.

A statement in objection to the proposal from Jill Ashurst, local resident was read out to the Committee by the Solicitor.

Caroline Higgins, on behalf of Bayston Hill Parish Council spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1), Councillor Ted Clarke addressed the Committee as the local ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, a number of points were raised including the following:

·         He explained that Betley Lane was un-adopted, undrained, unsurfaced and not suitable for the 22 residents it currently served;

·         The maintenance of the lane was funded by the residents of Betley Lane and the proposed development would further impact on existing residents; and

·         He noted that access for larger vehicles was difficult and urged the Committee to refuse the application due to the inappropriate access.

During the ensuing debate, Members considered the access to be unsuitable stating that access for emergency vehicles was a particular concern especially in light of the un-adopted status of the lane and therefore the Council’s inability to impose parking restrictions to improve the situation.

Having considered the submitted plans and listened to the comments made by the speakers Members unanimously expressed their objection to the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

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

The access to the proposed development via a narrow un-adopted lane was considered to be unsuitable given the restrictions arising from existing properties using it for access and parking. In particular there is concern that adequate access for emergency vehicles cannot be ensured if required and the Council was unable to secure improvements by imposing parking restrictions given the un-adopted status of the lane. Accordingly the proposal was considered to be contrary to the aims and requirements of adopted development plan policy CS6 (Core Strategy).