Outline application (all matters reserved) for the erection of four dwellings with garages.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and explained that the application was for outline permission with all matters reserved and would be subject to an affordable housing payment and CIL contribution in line with Shropshire Council policies.  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 and explained that a previous application for six dwellings on this site had been refused on the basis that the site was not within a proposed hub or cluster.  This current application had initially been submitted for six dwellings but had subsequently been amended to four and the land had previously been leased to provide a playing field for the village school which had since merged and moved to a new site outside Caynham in 2011.

The Principal Planner confirmed that no objections had been received from ecology (subject to safeguards), Rights of Way (subject to protection of the footpath) and Highways Development Control.  Caynham Parish Council had objected on the basis that the site was classed as countryside, had no allocation for market housing, there were no economic diversification reasons for development and would like the site to remain as open amenity/recreational land.

With reference to policy, the Principal Planner explained that Caynham did not form part of an identified community hub or cluster, there were no community facilities other than a village hall and limited bus services, and in the current sub five year housing supply situation the NPPF required sustainable housing proposals to be approved. 

With reference to environmental effects, the Principal Planner explained that the indicative design and density was considered to be in keeping with adjoining housing.  The site lay within the built curtilage of the village and there had been no highway, ecology or drainage objections.  A public footpath would not be affected. 

The Principal Planner further explained that it was considered that the loss of the playing field would have an adverse impact on the area.  However, the site was in private ownership and there would be no public funds available to purchase the land for continued recreational use.  Sport England had raised no objections.  The applicant had offered the Parish Council a lease on land adjacent to the former school for the provision of car parking for the village hall and possible space for a play area to the rear of the school, conditional upon support for the proposal, but this had been rejected.

In conclusion, the Principal Planner explained that the site would increase market housing in a rural settlement and would provide financial benefits to the local community and affordable housing in the wider area.  There had been no attempts to secure the future of the play area and reduced weight could be given to this factor as it was in private ownership with no available resources available for purchase and maintenance.  Recent housing appeals would suggest that a refusal on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to Development Plan housing policy would be unlikely to be sustained upon appeal.  Accordingly, it had been concluded that residential development on this site would be sustainable in accordance with the NPPF.

The Principal Planner drew Members’ attention to the Schedule of Additional Letters, circulated prior to the meeting, which detailed further comments from the agent and which indicated that the applicant had reiterated a willingness to offer the adjacent land (the subject of a planning application also to be considered at this meeting [13/03835/OUT]) to the Parish Council for use for parking for the village hall and potentially for a play area on a long-term peppercorn rent basis if the current application was to be approved and not to appeal against any refusal of that application.  Planning Officers were recommending refusal of the subsequent application and it was considered that this provision would add to the level of community benefit and overall sustainability being offered as part of the current proposals. Without prejudice, if the subsequent application [13/03855/OUT] was refused and the current application was approved it was requested that officers be given delegated authority to add an appropriate legal clause securing this voluntary provision.

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 Richard Huffer, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room and took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  He welcomed the recommendation to refuse planning application 13/03835/OUT and urged refusal of this application.  He expressed concerns relating to highway safety, the narrowness of the private access and minimal vehicle turning facilities.  He had objected to the closure of the school which had had a negative impact on the structure of the village and commented that this was the last piece of amenity land which could be made available to the community for recreational/leisure use. 

Mr P Chester, a local resident, 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 proposal would not be sustainable and contrary to the NPPF;

·         Local Planning Authorities must apply sustainability on a case-by-case basis;

·         Finance had always been available to purchase the land for community use;

·         The proposal would be contrary to Core Strategies CS5, CS8, CS17; and

·         SAMDev would become the over-reaching policy from July onwards.

Councillor Mrs B Ashford, representing Caynham Parish 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:

·         There had been many objections from local residents and the Parish Council had unanimously objected to this application;

·         SAMDev was now at an advanced stage and should be taken into account;

·         Caynham was in the countryside and was not a settlement where additional housing for sale on the open market was considered to be appropriate or sustainable;

·         More appropriate for development to take place in Clee Hill;

·         Caynham Parish Council had been consulted and contributed to Shropshire Council policies; and

·         The proposal would not be sustainable and would be contrary to the NPPF

Mr J Needham, 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:

·         No objections had been raised from technical consultees relating to drainage, ecology and highways, and Rights of Way had raised no objections subject to the footpath being legally diverted;

·         No comments had been received from Sport England and Shropshire Council Archaeology Officers, and Shropshire Wildlife Trust had raised no objections;

·         The proposal would result in affordable housing and CIL contributions;

·         He expressed agreement with the refusal reason of the original planning application but commented that Shropshire Council could not currently demonstrate a five year land supply; and

·         He drew Members’ attention to the applicant’s offer to make the land adjoining the school available on a 25 year lease.

In the ensuing debate Members commented that the proposal would not be sustainable, the dwellings and gardens proposed were too big, and would provide no economic benefits to the area. They expressed concerns relating to the narrow access road and minimal turning head facilities, and the negative impact the proposal would have on the ecology rich hedgerows.  They further noted the minimal community facilities and the limited bus service.  They acknowledged that the area had not been designated as a community hub or cluster and noted that nearby Clee Hill had been designated as a hub where land had been allocated for development in the SAMDev process.

RESOLVED:

That, contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused because the proposed development is not considered to be sustainable because of the lack of and distance to and from services. Accordingly, it is considered that the lack of sustainability outweighs the need for new housing in the area and is considered to be contrary to the Shropshire Core Strategy Policies CS1, CS4 and CS5.