Erection of 6 No dwellings and formation of access.

The Technical SpecialistPlanning Officer introduced the application and explained that the Parish Council had objected to the application as the site was outside the development boundary being promoted in SAMDev. In relation to objections raised regarding the proximity of plot 9 to Field House, she drew Members attention to an amended plan and additional comments on the Schedule of Additional Letters from the Agent, which agreed to move Plot 9 further away from Field House. It was further explained that the proposal was considered to be sustainable and at this point in time a five year land supply could not be demonstrated. The Technical SpecialistPlanning Officer 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. 

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting, which detailed further comments from a local resident and the Agent.

Mr G Wallach, on behalf of local residents, 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 application was not supported in Bicton;

·         The application was contrary to SAMDev;

·         Shepherds Lane was a narrow road with no street lighting;

·         The access was near an accident black-spot;

·         Refuse vehicles and other large vehicles would cause nuisance to neighbouring properties;

·         The application was ribbon development; and

·         The sewage system was already overloaded.

Councillor J Everall, the local Ward Councillor, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Although he considered this was the right area for the type of development proposed, the density of the site was too high and should be reduced from 6 to 4 dwellings;

·         The proposal would surround Field House on 2 sides, which was unacceptable and would be overbearing; and

·         The access was too narrow and should be widened.

Mr N Thorns, the agent, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with the Council’s scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The site was located in a sustainable location and had a pub, shop and a regular bus route;

·         There was a primary school within 900 metres of the site;

·         The proposal rounded off the settlement and met the three sustainability tests in line with the NPPF;

·         The low density scheme reflected the village setting;

·         The access had been agreed by Highway Officers and was wider than Holyhead Road;

·         There were no drainage issues and the puddle on site was due to impacted hardcore;

·         The scheme had been designed to avoid any overlooking to Field House; and

·         There had been discussion on site yesterday to move plot 9 further away from Field House.

 In response to questions from Members, the Technical SpecialistPlanning Officer noted that existing drainage issues had been raised by local residents, but assured Members that the proposed conditions would resolve any issues.

Responding to questions regarding the density issues and the affordable housing contribution, the Technical SpecialistPlanning Officer explained that the scheme was of a low density and as the proposal was for just 6 dwellings, in accordance with the Councils adopted policy in relation to affordable housing it did not amount to a whole house on site.

Members questioned why the access road would not be to be built to an adoptable standard. The Technical SpecialistPlanning Officer explained that there was no requirement for the road to be built to this standard but it could be brought up to an adoptable standard in the future. In response to this issue, the Agent confirmed that the road would be built to an adoptable standard.

In light of other developments in Shrewsbury it was suggested that there should be a condition to state that no work take place until the access road was finished to an acceptable standard to avoid construction vehicles leaving mud onto the road. The Technical SpecialistPlanning Officer explained that it was usual in large schemes for the developer to submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan, which had not been requested for this proposal but could be added as a condition to any permission granted.  

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to:

·         A Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the relevant affordable housing contribution;

·         To the conditions as set out in Appendix 1 to the report; and

·         The additional requirement of Construction Traffic Management Plan.