Outline application for residential development (up to 215 dwellings); public open space; highways works; access roads and pedestrian footbridges; and a Neighbourhood Store (Class A1 Retail) not exceeding 300 sq.m internal floorspace, associated engineering and accommodation works.

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the application and 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, she drew Members’ attention to the location, indicative layout, pedestrian and cycle bridges and access (including roundabout).

Members noted the additional information as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed further comments from the agent.

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 Andy Boddington, 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.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         The steep gradients on parts of the site would increase the risk of flooding, any flooding issues should be resolved before permission was granted and there was a need to ensure that there would be sufficient attenuation on the site to cater for a 1 in 100 year return storm event;

·         With regard to noise and air pollution he drew attention to the closeness of the A49 bypass and commented that the freight train ran every day on the hour;

·         He expressed concerns relating to the river and public safety;

·         Many dog walkers drove to Fishmore View to walk their dogs and this caused problems with parked cars;

·         Play provision could only be accessed by crossing the footbridge to Fishmore View and there were already issues of anti social behaviour relating to open space adjoining Fishmore View;

·         The highways report was out of date;

·         There was no town circular bus route;

·         The proposal would encourage residents to drive away from Ludlow rather than use town centre facilities; and

·         The proposal would not be sustainable.

Mr M Smith, 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 expressed serious concerns with regard to flooding.  The construction of the footbridge would create a “pinch point” for flood water; ground levels around his house had been raised as a result of development and all water flowed towards his property; and the area flooded 3/4 times per year; and

·         The proposal was contrary to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Mr A Williams, 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:

·         The application was for outline permission with only the principle of development and access up for consideration;

·         The Highways Agency had raised no objections;

·         Pedestrian access would be provided by the two proposed footbridges.  In view of objections raised the applicant would be willing to remove the footbridge over the river to Fishmore View;

·         Shropshire Council’s Noise Specialist had confirmed that the potential impact of noise was not a significant issue;

·         Shropshire Council’s ecologist had raised no issues;

·         Flooding – The Environment Agency and Shropshire Council’s Drainage Officers had scrutinised and approved the Flood Risk Asessment;

·         If the merits of the site and the access off the A49 had been confirmed earlier, the site might well have been identified in the Site Allocations and Management Development Plan (SAMDev); and

·         In numerical terms this site had attracted relatively few objections.

In the ensuing debate, Members noted the comments and concerns of all speakers.  They expressed their own concerns relating to drainage, flooding, access, noise and rail line safety and commented that the site visit had been inadequate and considered that a more informed visit should be undertaken prior to any decision being made.  Members unanimously supported deferral of the proposal.

RESOLVED:

That this application be deferred in order that a more informed site visit could be undertaken and for the applicant to provide further information on surface water drainage and the implications for flooding, the proposed new roundabout on the A49, and the vehicular access to the neighbourhood shop off Bromfield Road.