Re-development of Astbury Hall Estate to provide; leisure and spa building comprising fitness suite, health spa, two swimming pools, farm shop, function room, restaurant and bar; external facilities comprising lido pool, tennis courts, bowls/croquet/petanque greens; formation of parking areas; terraced areas; amendments to existing golf course; formation of 9-hole golf course and 18-hole putting green; alterations to two dis-used outbuildings to form service buildings; with all associated works.

The Chairman explained that it had been decided that the first four planning applications for Astbury Hall, being items 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the agenda, would be dealt with together but voted on separately.

In accordance with the Council’s practice on public speaking at regulatory committees, the Chairman had used his discretion and allowed each objector, supporter and Parish Council to speak for up to six minutes, the Local Ward Councillor up to 10 minutes and the applicant up to 12 minutes. 

In response to a comment from a Member, the Principal Planner explained that the applicant had chosen to submit four separate planning applications, hence the duplication of material before Members and the reason why there was a need for four separate votes to be taken at the meeting.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.  He drew Members’ attention to the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting and a further objection that had been received following the publication of the Schedule of Additional Letters but which had raised no new additional grounds.  He identified the areas that were covered by extant planning permissions.

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

Mr T Allison, representing The Ramblers’ Association, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mr J King, a local business man and resident, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor R Woods, representing Chelmarsh Parish Council, made a statement in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.  The Parish Council expressed support for the sympathetic design, employment opportunities and investment it would bring to the area but raised serious concerns regarding the scale of the development, pollution and the road access both during construction and later operation of the site.

Councillor J Hodgkins, representing Eardington 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 Robert Tindall, 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:

·         Transport – The B4555 Bridgnorth to Highley and beyond was in a very poor state of repair - the sub-structure and the base of the road was falling apart;

·         If given the go ahead responsibility for the reconstruction of the B4555 must be met by the company;

·         People would travel from the West Midlands and would need to cross the River Severn – there were only two places to do this – the ancient Low Town bridge over the River Severn, left by the gym, left at Oldbury then through Knowle Sands and Eardington, or via the by-pass, turn left on B4356 to Ludlow, then Halfway House Lane; 

·         A development of this scale would cause the infrastructure to become even worse;

·         Density – This would be overdevelopment.  The original scheme was acceptable but this scheme would mean every space would be occupied, the chalets would ruin the countryside and it would have a detrimental impact on the lovely Mor Brook valley and the flora and fauna;

·         Layout -  It was not family-friendly and there were no play areas.  He questioned what market this proposal was aimed at;

·         Severn Valley Railway – It was illegal to stop a passenger train for passengers to alight on board – you would need Rail and Road Board consent.  There were no plans to re-open the halt - if opened there would have to be a safety management system and would require the permission of the Rail and Road Board.  It was fanciful to think that holiday makers would arrive by train.

·         Finally -  If Members were minded to approve, he requested that Members approve only a scale of development matching the existing previously approved applications.

Mr J Steven, Mr S Rickards and Mr J Wooldridge spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.  In response to questions from Members responded as follows:

·         There was already a bus service running past the site and the bus company had been approached to see if it would install an additional bus stop near to the site entrance.

·         This was a rural location – expansion of a bus service to include Sundays would depend on viability. This development could support and maintain an improved bus service.

·         Lodges would be delivered to the site by experienced companies.  Each lodge would be delivered in two parts and because of the size of each load no escort vehicle would be required but the police would have to be notified.  It was envisaged that there would be two lorries per day on a planned basis avoiding peak travel times.  All access routes had been considered and they were aware of any constraints.

·         Provided clarification on construction phases and times; ownership of the site now and in the future; and target market.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members expressed concerns regarding the cumulative impact of the numerous caravan parks in the area; the detrimental impact it could have on the Mor Brook corridor; the effectiveness of the design to maintain wildlife; impact on the footpaths and the users of the footpaths; impact on road network; cyclist safety; capacity and infrastructure of Bridgnorth and surrounding areas to cope with an increase of visitors; and the proposed high number of chalets which would result in a cramped site.  On the plus side, Members acknowledged that the scheme would benefit the local economy and provide employment.  If granted, Members requested improved road signage, a less reflective glazing to be installed on the leisure and spa building and low-level lighting be used on the site.

RESOLVED:

That, as per the Officer’s recommendation, as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters, planning permission be granted, subject to:

·         Confirmation from the Shropshire Council (SC) Legal Services that the submitted Unilateral Undertaking would secure the non-implementation of any extant planning permissions relating to the application sites (including but not limited to the unbuilt elements of planning permission BR/98/0829) should planning permission be granted for this development; delivery of the proposed apprenticeship schemes; and the development and management of the site (holiday lodges and leisure facilities) as a single entity as a tourism and leisure resort;

·         The conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the report, subject to Condition No. 4 being amended as follows:

Prior to the above ground works commencing on each building/structure hereby approved, samples and/or details of the external materials to be used in the construction of that building/structure, and in the case of the leisure and spa building details of the glazing to be installed, shall be submitted to and  approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details.

Reason:  To ensure that the external appearance of the development is satisfactory.

·         That the Area Planning Manager be granted delegated authority to negotiate any adjustments to the unilateral undertaking sought by SC Head of Legal Services and to make any associated adjustments needed to planning conditions.