Erection of 6no detached dwellings (including 1no affordable unit) with means of access and layout.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application for the erection of six detached dwellings (including one affordable unit) with means of access and layout. He drew Members’ attention to the schedule of additional letters and confirmed that consideration of the application had been deferred at the meeting on 11^th March 2014 in order that the implications of the written ministerial statement issued by Nick Boles MP and the Planning Practice Guidance with regard to issues concerning the phasing of development in the settlement and the shared residential and agricultural access could be assessed prior to any decision being made. 

Mr R. Purslow, local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

                    i.        He agreed with the points made by the Parish Council;

                  ii.        He asked for an explanation as to why a previous application in the village for 14 dwellings had been rejected by Planning Officers in September 2013 as being unsustainable; and

                 iii.        Why was another development within the settlement now considered to be sustainable.

Mr R. Jeffrey, Myddle and Broughton Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

                    i.        The views of the Parish Council were driven by the (Community Led Plan) CLP which had received a 46% response rate, so the views expressed were well founded and current;

                  ii.        The response to the CLP had indicated that the community of Harmer Hill were least in favour of residential development;

                 iii.        The CLP had allowed for 53 properties, however the number granted planning permission had already reached 41

                 iv.        The application was not in accordance with the NPPF as it failed to provided economic, social and environmental benefits to the area; and

                  v.        The proposal went against the wishes of the residents of the Parish as expressed in the CLP, in that the development was for too many dwellings and they were in the wrong location, thereby diminishing the character of the village and the open countryside.

The Chairman reported that Ms P. Stephan, the agent for the applicant, had registered to speak in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.  However she had been unable to attend the meeting and so he referred Members of the Committee to page 9 of the Minutes of the previous meeting and the points made by Ms. Stephan at that time.

At the previous meeting concern had been expressed at the location and form of the agricultural access, however it was noted that although the submission remained the same in this respect, it was preferable to having the access located at either end of the development where visibility would be limited.

In response to comments made by Mr Purslow, and comparisons to a similar application for a residential development within Harmer Hill that had recently been refused by Shropshire Council, the Principal Planning Officer explained that the decision was taken at a time when the Council considered it had a five year supply of housing land, meaning the development boundary of Harmer Hill was a saved policy and that particular application site was located outside the development boundary and therefore in open countryside.

Concern was expressed at the access onto the B5476 Wem Road, which had a 40mph speed limit, although it was felt that this limit was not usually observed by motorists.  The Principal Planning Officer highlighted the fact that the Highways Authority considered the proposals to be satisfactory and had raised no objection to the development.  

Having considered the submitted plans for the proposal, the majority of Members expressed the view that whilst, hearing and understanding the views of the local community, it would be difficult to find reasons to refuse the application that would be sustainable on appeal and for this reason they supported the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the applicants entering into a S106 Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing, and an update to Condition 1, Planning Permission be granted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.