Erection of nine dwellings and associated garages; formation of vehicular access.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application and explained that the site was located outside of the Bayston Hill Village Development Boundary.  He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, indicative layout, access and parking arrangements. 

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Full Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillor T Clarke, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement, took no part in the debate and did not vote.  He commented that the proposal would be contrary to SAMDev and the site was ouside the development boundary.  He expressed concerns with regard to the site access and commented that the road was already inadequate and further dwellings would increase the number of traffic movements along this stretch of road.  The proposal would also impact significantly on Spring Cottage. 

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Full Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillor Mrs J MacKenzie as the local Ward Councillor, took no part in the debate and did not vote. 

Mrs E Kay, Clerk to Bayston Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council's scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The Parish Council had worked hard to identify sites during the SAMDev process;

·         As the main access to Bayston Hill Pulley Lane was very busy and especially so at rush hour.  Visibility was very poor, the banks were very high and heavily covered in foliage.  The road narrowed along Pulley Lane and there were very few opportunities to park;

·         The size of the properties suggested that children would live there and this gave rise to concerns for their safety;

·         There was already a high proportion of three-bedroomed or more properties in Bayston Hill.  Smaller and affordable housing was needed; and

·         She urged refusal on the grounds of highway and access issues, there was no requirement for this type of housing and it was outside the development boundary.

In response to concerns that Officers were advising Members to determine the application “quickly”, the Area Planning and Building Control Manager explained that he was not encouraging Members to determine the application in a speedy manner but purely advising Members that if the Committee was quorate there was a duty on Councillors to discuss the proposal.

Mr A Sheldon, the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council's scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         He explained that this was a small scale development;

·         The application site was not a field or an extension into the countryside and no precedent for future extensions beyond Bayston Hill would be set;

·         The proposed access was off an existing adopted highway;

·         Shropshire Council could not demonstrate a five year land supply and there was a need for this type of housing; and

·         An area of land would be gifted to the occupiers of Spring Cottage.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager explained that although the site had not been taken forward in the SAMDev process as a preferred site it did not necessarily mean that it had been rejected as not being suitable for development.   At the time of the SAMDev process other sites had come forward that had been seen as being more preferable. 

In the ensuing debate, some Members expressed serious concerns with regard to highway safety, the access arrangements and the steep incline of the road.  They commented that some of the properties would be significantly lower than the properties on the opposite side and the number of dwellings would result in an overcrowded development.  Members acknowledged the issue regarding the lack of a five year land supply and noted that Highways had raised no objections.  The majority of Members reluctantly supported the proposal.

In respect of the access, the Area Planning and Building Control Manager drew Members’ attention to the comments of Highway Officers who had raised no objections.  In terms of need, he explained that the need did not have to be specific to this area and Shropshire Council had a requirement to provide a specific number of homes across the County.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing provision / contribution and the conditions as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.