Erection of four dwellings; retention of public house; formation of new vehicular accesses and alterations to existing car parking arrangement; associated landscaping.

(The Chairman, as the local ward Councillor for this application vacated the Chair and the Vice-Chairman, Councillor Paul Wynn presided for this item.)

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application for the erection of four dwellings; retention of public house; formation of new vehicular accesses and alterations to existing car parking arrangement and associated landscaping.  He drew Members’ attention to the schedule of additional letters and confirmed that Members had attended a site visit that morning and had assessed the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

Mr Peter Clark, on behalf of Kinnerley Neighbourhood Plan Committee, 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 Cross Keys public house occupied a very important position within the village of Kinnerley and as such it was important to protect and enhance the area for the future;

                    ii.        The Parish did not need any more houses, 73 additional dwellings were planned, with an additional 34 houses agreed, this represented a 46% increase in the number of houses within Kinnerely;

                   iii.        An additional brownfield site within the village that was currently being considered would lead to a further increase in houses;

                   iv.        The application did not comply with the Local Development Plan (LDP) and that the LDP should be given more weight due to the amount of development planned for Kinnerley; and

                    v.        A residential development was not appropriate in that particular location.

Councillor Rick Bright, on behalf of Kinnerley 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 proposed development would be overbearing and have an adverse visual effect on the character and street scene of the area;        

                    ii.        The objection from English Heritage relating to the setting of the Church had not been removed;

                   iii.        Highways safety was a concern; and

                   iv.        The loss of car parking spaces would have an adverse effect on the viability of the Cross Keys Public House.

Mr Malcolm Guest, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

                      i.        The agent and the applicant had recently met the Parish Council to discuss the proposals and during that consultation amendments to the scheme had been made;

                    ii.        The Planning and Conservation Officers at Shropshire Council were supportive of the scheme;

                   iii.        The Cross Keys Public House needed investment and had been subsidised by the landlord which was the only reason the business was still able to open;

                   iv.        How did the Parish Council intend to make the business financially viable if the application was refused;

                    v.        The further submissions made by the Parish Council were inaccurate; and

                   vi.        Going against the Planning Officer’s recommendation to approve the application would be detrimental to the village.

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the Council Meeting held on 27^th February 2014, Councillor Arthur Walpole, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement, took no part in the debate and did not vote.  During his statement, he stressed the significance of the Kinnerley Neighbourhood Plan (KNHP), which had been developed and held up as a flag ship example for other Parishes.  The Cross Keys Public House was a very important aspect of the village and its viability depended on it having sufficient parking spaces to accommodate local and passing trade.  He was aware that the Parish Council were not opposed to a smaller, enabling development.  St Mary’s Church in Kinnerley was of great historical importance and the harm that would be done to the setting of the Church and the damage to the character of the village in and around the village green were sufficient grounds to refuse the application.

During the ensuing debate Members of the Committee acknowledged that the Council did not currently have a five year housing land supply, however concern was expressed that the development was not set out as enabling development and therefore, weight could not be given to the viability of the public house and would have an adverse effect on the character of the village, St Mary’s Church and the Cross Keys Public House which were of great historical significance.  The design of the proposed development was criticised as being cramped and of high density.   The Committee considered that these factors when taken together, represented significant harm which was not balanced by the benefit to the public.

Having considered the submitted plans for the proposal Members of the Committee unanimously felt that great weight should be given to the harm that would be caused to both designated and non-designated heritage assets and was inappropriate in scale and design, taking into account the character of the area.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be refused, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

The Local Authority acknowledges that it cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites and as such the policies relating to housing are considered to be out of date. However paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises that permission should be granted unless specific policies indicate development should be restricted. Heritage Assets are one of the examples for restricting development. In this instance, and in relation to Paragraph 132 and 134 of the NPPF, the Council consider that that greater weight should be given to the less than substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II* Listed Building as a consequence of development within its setting, and that this harm is not outweighed by the public benefits of the proposed housing and does not therefore comprise sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Furthermore the density, layout and design of the properties are not in keeping with the open character of the immediate area or the relationship with the heritage assets, including the non-designated asset of the Cross Keys. As such the scheme does not contribute towards protecting, restoring and enhancing the natural and built environment contrary to policy CS6 of the Shropshire Core Strategy.

(Councillor Arthur Walpole withdrew from the meeting whilst consideration of the following item took place)