Outline application for residential development (14 houses) to include access (revised proposal).

The Principal Planner introduced the application and explained that the application was for outline permission with all matters reserved except for access.  He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site and assess the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, archaeological features and an amended indicative layout and explained that the built development would avoid linear archaeological features within the site. 

The Principal Planner confirmed that no outstanding objections had been received from highways, drainage, policy, rights of way and archaeology.  Ecology had initially objected and had requested a prior bat survey; however, the applicant had confirmed that no mature trees would be affected and an Arboricultural Method Statement would apply so this matter would be dealt with by a pre-commencement condition.  Similarly, a holding objection from Shropshire Council Tree Officers was capable of being dealt with at the reserved matters stage given that the indicative layout had confirmed the avoidance of mature trees.  Craven Arms Town Council had raised objections given that the site was Greenfield and was viewed as an important historic/leisure area by the general public which should be protected and they considered that the proposed development would not be seen as an enhancement to the gateway of Craven Arms but an extension of Halford which would impact on the rural nature of that countryside. 

With reference to policy, the Principal Planner explained that the site had not been identified for development in the emerging Site Allocations and Management Development (SAMDev) plan.  However, in the current sub-five year housing supply situation the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required sustainable development to be approved and the proposal in relation to the sustainability tests identified by the NPPF had been assessed and detailed in the Officer’s report.  The site was within 200m of the existing built edge of Craven Arms which had been identified as a Key Centre in Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy.  Hence, in terms of general location and proximity to services the site was considered to be sustainable. In terms of environmental sustainability, it had been concluded that there would be no unacceptably adverse impacts when available mitigation measures were taken into account, including recommended conditions.  With respect to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) it had been considered that there would be a very limited impact which would be outweighed by the national need for housing and the associated economic and social benefits recognised by the NPPF.  In terms of housing type, it was considered that there was a general shortage of this type of housing within the town’s housing mix.  Accordingly, it had been concluded, that whilst the site was not allocated in the emerging SAMDev it met relevant sustainability tests and there would be no unacceptable adverse impacts.

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Full Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillor David Evans, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  He commented that the site had been put forward and withdrawn during the SAMDev process and had never been proposed as a development site.  There was much archaeological history associated with the area and it formed part of the AONB.  The proposed houses would be very close to the River Onny and would constitute overdevelopment of the area.  There was no mains sewer in the area, the mains water that fed Craven Arms and the surrounding villages ran between the B4368 and the edge of the site, and Severn Trent had experienced many problems in this area.  The B4368 was a very fast road and the entrance to the site sat just under the brow of the hill on the Corvedale Road.  The development would be unsustainable and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape (particularly with the close proximity of Stokesay Castle, Norton Camp and three Rights of Way) and amenity of the area.  He urged refusal of the proposal.

Councillor R Conway, representing Craven Arms Town Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         This was a speculative application which was unacceptable;

·         There was no demand for houses of this size and affordable houses were needed;

·         Other sites in the Craven Arms area for up to 250 homes had been identified;

·         The development would impact on the eastern approach to Craven Arms and the gateway to the area should be from the western side of the river;

·         The development would be very close to the River Onny and no other development has been permitted so close and accordingly the proposal would adversely impact on the ecology, wildlife, trees and hedgerows;

·         The proposal would be contrary to paragraph 116 of the NPPF by virtue of its impact on the landscape and encroachment on the AONB; and

·         The Town Council had a vision for the future of the area and urged refusal.

Mr S Taylor, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         There would be little impact on the surrounding area, Planning Officers were recommending approval, the scheme had been amended and reduced, and some trees would be retained;

·         The footpath on the eastern side of the site would be reinstated and routes along the Corvedale Road to the Discovery Centre would be enhanced to provide an improved walking route; and

·         The proposal would provide higher value housing which would promote the economic development of the town.

Members noted the additional information received from Shropshire Council’s Historic Environment Officers as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.

In the ensuing debate Members noted that the site had not been put forward as a preferred site for development; land for 350 houses had been identified elsewhere; the access to the site would join a busy and fast stretch of road and be close to the brow of a hill; and acknowledged the concerns relating to drainage.  They further commented that this was a speculative application and not driven by the needs of the town and Craven Arms Town Council had at no point been consulted.  They particularly noted that the site was partially located within the Shropshire Hills AONB and commented that the development would severely impact on what was the gateway to the area; the building of houses would significantly impact on the rural nature and openness and would urbanise a rural area; and paragraph 115 of the NPPF suggested that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

In response to questions and comments from Members, the Planning Officer reiterated that the site had been put forward at the Preferred Options stage of the SAMDev process but had subsequently been withdrawn following the objections of Craven Arms Town Council.  The Solicitor clarified that paragraph 116 of the NPPF suggested that planning permission should be refused for major developments in designated areas, ie Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, except in exceptional circumstances but clarified that this proposal could not be considered as being a major development, but confirmed that paragraph 115 of the NPPF was applicable.

RESOLVED:

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

·         The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and in particular the approach to the eastern side of Craven Arms.  Accordingly it is considered that the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits andthe proposal is considered contrary to Shropshire Core Strategy Policies CS5, CS6 and CS17 and paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.