Erection of dwelling (outline application to include means of access, but with matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved).

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations. 

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

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.

Dr D Poynton, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor J Soper, representing Worthen with Shelve 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 Heather Kidd, local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         The Rural Housing Policy had not served her division at all well; 

·         There was a significant housing need in her division but no provision.  All new houses in this Ward were 4, 5 and 6 bedroomed houses;

·         Everyone wanted housing for local people which in turn would help to keep local communities viable and sustainable and also help to ensure local schools remained open;

·         This proposal was for monetary gain;

·         The meadows were home to Curlews and we had to consider the impact of development on the natural environment; and

·         Current planning policy was not fit for purpose – it delivers the wrong sort of housing.

Mr N Williams, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers and it was,

RESOLVED:

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

It is acknowledged that Pennerley is part of a Community Cluster in the adopted Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan, under which infill development on suitable sites would normally be permitted.  However, because of the loose scatter of existing development which is a strong characteristic of this settlement, within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it is considered that the proposal would not in this case be appropriate, because it would erode the distinct character of the settlement and its environs, by a resulting density and pattern of development that is inconsistent with the local context and character.  Approval of the application for an open market dwelling would result in a disproportionate concentration of existing dwellings together with an extant planning permission for a dwelling in this part of Pennerley, eroding the loose scatter of development. The proposal, as infill, would therefore not be appropriate in this particular site context. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Shropshire Core Strategy policies CS4, CS6 and CS17; Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan policies MD2 and MD12 and paragraphs 127, 170 and 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): It would not satisfy the environmental objective of sustainable development set out in the NPPF.