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

The Principal Planner introduced the application for outline permission with all matters reserved.  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, access and amended layout.  He confirmed that two of the dwellings would be affordable with the remainder being for open market sale and the number of proposed dwellings had been reduced to nine dwellings to meet ecological requirements linked to the Clun catchment.  He drew Members’ attention to the objections which had been addressed in the report and explained that, in addition to an affordable housing contribution, a financial contribution from the applicant would fund a priority junction arrangement at the Kerry Lane/Woodbatch Road junction. 

With reference to policy, the Principal Planner explained that Bishops Castle had been identified as a market town and Key Centre in the adopted Core Strategy and new housing would be developed through a combination of one allocated site (40 houses) and a windfall allowance.  The proposed site had not been allocated in the Pre-Deposit Draft SAMDev Plan and was outside (to the immediate west of) the development boundary of the town.  However, in the current sub-five year housing supply situation the NPPF required sustainable development to be approved.

The Principal Planner explained that the site was immediately adjacent to the existing built edge of Bishops Castle and within 500m of the geographic centre.  Therefore, the general location was considered to be sustainable.  In terms of traffic, Highway Officers had determined that a highway refusal could not be sustained and the applicant’s offer to fund signage for a priority junction at the Kerry Lane/Woodbatch Road intersection would be welcomed.  No objections had been received from Land Drainage Officers and interceptor ditches would be placed on the western and eastern boundaries and would help to address problems encountered by residents of the Novers to the immediate east. Mains sewerage had been proposed and a biodisc plant would provide an appropriate back-up plan.  The site would not be visible from the AONB; however, because of its relatively elevated location the applicant had agreed, in principle, to specify less tall 1½ storey houses or bungalows and landscaping to integrate the site with its surroundings. 

In conclusion, the Principal Planner drew Members’ attention to the NPPF which stated that there was a national need for housing and emphasised the associated economic and social benefits.  The type of housing would be capable of meeting a local need and it had therefore 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 when available mitigation measures and conditions were taken into account.  The proposal was therefore recommended for approval subject to the required affordable housing contribution.

Members noted the additional information detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters which had been circulated prior to the meeting and detailed further comments from Bishops Castle Town Council, comments and an additional condition from Shropshire Council Highways, and a further objection from a local resident relating to flooding.

Mr J Percy, 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:

·         He lived adjacent to the proposed development in the south-eastern section and had done so for 13 years and he, along with other residents, had constantly suffered from run-off water every year.  He had experienced flooding underneath his property, which caused soil erosion; 

·         He had dug trenches to divert the water into a stream and this had alleviated but not solved the problem;

·         The volume of water had not been factored into the developers Flood Risk Assessment (FRA); and

·         In winter the land was waterlogged and the FRA should be based on winter conditions.

Councillor S Harris, representing Bishops Castle 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;

·         There was a need for starter homes in the area;

·         The site fell outside the development boundary and adjacent to the AONB:

·         40 homes had already been agreed and included in SAMDev proposals;

·         There had been a high number of objections;

·         The highway network would not be able to accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by this development;

·         The proposed junction arrangements would require the use of land belonging to a private resident who had not been approached or expressed agreement to the proposal;

·         He expressed concerns with regard to water run-off; and

·         The Town Council was concerned that this would open up the door to build on other Greenfield sites.

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;

·         Planning Officers had confirmed that all technical issues had been addressed;

·         This development would provide an opportunity to solve the water run-off problems;

·         The proposal was for outline and the form of development could be controlled by conditions;

·         The number of houses proposed had been reduced to nine;

·         An upgrade and contribution to the access and road network had been proposed; and

·         This proposal would contribute to the shortfall of housing in Shropshire.

In response to comments from Members, the agent explained that the upgrades to the junction at Woodbatch Road and Kerry Lane had been agreed following discussions with the Planning and Highway Officers and no consultation had been undertaken in this regard with Bishops Castle Town Council. 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Charlotte Barnes, as local Member, participated in the discussion and spoke against the proposal but did not vote.  She expressed some concerns that Bishops Castle Town Council had not been consulted on the proposed junction arrangements and also that the landowner of the land required to improve the access had not been approached or agreed to such a proposition.  She also expressed concerns with regard to the high volume of traffic using the road network especially during peak times, ie school drop-off and pick-up times, and flooding.  She commented that local people would not be able to afford these homes; the proposal would impact on the character of the area and move the main focus to the side of the town; a more preferred location for residential development would be on the north western side; and, given the elevation of the site, any dwelling would adversely impact on the landscape.

In the ensuing debate, Members acknowledged the hard work of Bishops Castle Town Council and the local Member in identifying alternative sites for development and expressed serious concerns with regard to the drainage and particularly the access and highway arrangements.  A Member commented and expressed her dismay that very little contact or consultation had been undertaken with the Town Council and local Member and suggested that, in future, contact between Highway Development Control Officers, the local Town and Parish Councils and the local Member should be vastly improved not just for this application but generally.  Also, the local Member should also be involved and kept informed of any accidents or other major developments affecting the highway network in their respective areas outside of the planning process.

RESOLVED:

That this application be deferred in order for the applicant to review the impact and effect of the proposed development on the local road network and Conservation Area and review impact and effect re drainage and consult on and put forward mitigation measures identified as necessary.