Outline planning application for up to 20 dwellings (indicative) to include access.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 19, Councillor David Roberts left the room during consideration of this item.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and explained that the recommendation should refer to both an off-site and on-site affordable housing provision/contribution and the conditions were as set out in Appendix 1 (and not Appendix 2).  He confirmed Members had undertaken a site visit that morning and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, indicative layout and proposed access. 

Cllr M Roughan, representing Great Hanwood 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:

·         He drew attention to paragraph 2.1 of the report and expressed concern that further development would take place on the remainder of the agricultural field;

·         Drainage issues remain unresolved and prior to any works taking place on this site it should be demonstrated that development would be possible without increasing the problem.  Any drainage issues should be dealt with at outline stage rather than at the reserved matters stage;

·         Flooding – Shropshire Council should assess and ensure that any flood risk would be avoided;

·         Speed limit was 40 mph and not 30 mph;

·         The site would not be sustainable;

·         The site had been rejected during the Site Allocations and Management Development Plan (SAMDev) process; and

·         The footpath on the southern side of the A488 was narrow;

·         Insufficient open/play areas proposed; and

·         If approved the applicant should address any surface water run-off problems.

Mr A Sheldon, the applicant, 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 technical issues had been raised which would prevent building on this site;

·         Hanwood was a sustainable location;

·         The site had been the subject of a previous planning application and as such access at this location had already been established;

·         He provided confirmation that the applicant had agreed to a contribution of £25,000 towards the provision of a light controlled pedestrian crossing;

·         Would be willing to agree to any additional appropriate conditions; and

·         This site was a sustainable location.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Roger Evans, as local Member, participated in the discussion and spoke against the proposal but did not vote.  During which he raised the following points:

·         The SAMDev requirement in this area would be satisfied without developing this site;

·         He expressed serious concerns with regard to highway safety and suggested that the provision of a light controlled pedestrian crossing should be investigated and conditioned as necessary;

·         If approved, flooding issues should be addressed now and not at reserved matters stage;

·         He reiterated the concerns of the Parish Council that development could take place on the remainder of the field;

·         This site had been the subject of a previous application for a nursing home and had had been supported on-balance by the Parish Council.  It had not been a pre-cursor exercise for development on this site.

The Principal Planner, Area Planning and Building Control Manager and Area Highways Development Control Manager (Central) provided clarification on drainage and confirmed appropriate conditions would be attached to any permission; the local infrastructure and highway network; agricultural land classification; and explained that the sub five year land supply issue was a County-wide issue.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans, noted the comments and concerns of all speakers and continued to express reservations with regard to highway safety.   

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted as per the Officer’s recommendation, subject to:

·                A Section 106 Legal Agreement relating to the affordable housing element;

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

·                That the Area Planning Manager be granted delegated authority to undertake negotiations with the applicant with regard to an appropriate contribution towards the provision of a light controlled crossing.