Residential development of 6 bungalows and 58 houses (Revised scheme)

(In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 35, 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 objections from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and 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.

Mr G Catling, representing Albrighton Development Action Group, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor P Woodman, representing Albrighton Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the 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) Councillor Malcolm Pate, 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, the following points were raised:

·         By taking the care facility out of the equation, this current application was a blatant attempt to divide the application into two parts;

·         He was not against the housing on the site but would prefer the site to be accessed from Kingswood Road;

·         Highways had originally objected and had not supported the initial application on highway grounds but following proposals to incorporate traffic calming measures, Highways had withdrawn their objection;

·         Shaw Lane is the most congested road in Albrighton;

·         200 children use the current school driveway to and from their way to school;

·         Drainage – The system could not cope now and there has been flooding in the area.  Even with the proposed conditions, he could not understand how Severn Trent Water could alleviate the problems; and

·         He urged refusal.

Mr C Jessup, the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees and responded to questions from Members regarding the access arrangements.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers and the Area Highways Development Control Manager (South).  Members reiterated their concerns regarding the sole vehicular access to the development onto Shaw Lane, traffic congestion, highway and pedestrian safety, and the lack of assurance that access from Kingswood Road to the south could be achieved in the future

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 SAMDev Plan. However, these benefits are outweighed by the following 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 proposed development would therefore be contrary to Shropshire Core Strategy policies CS6; Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev)Plan policies MD2 and S1.1, and paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework: It would not satisfy the environmental role of sustainable development set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.”