Outline application for residential development (up to 30 dwellings) to include access.

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 and proposed access arrangements.

Members noted the additional representations as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting, and which detailed amendments to the report and further comments and a commitment from the agent to develop the site at the earliest opportunity.

Mr S Jones, 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 revised access plan did not demonstrate any improvements for pedestrians;

·         The proposal would encourage speeding;

·         There would be no improvement to traffic flows and an additional 30+ cars would be dangerous;

·         The road was narrow and well used by agricultural vehicles;

·         The lane floods and had been closed seven times during the winter;

·         The access onto a busy trunk road would be dangerous;

·         Butt Lane joins the A458 close to the school and the parking at the start and end of the school day causes chaos; and

·         Although the school was not full it was at capacity with just enough space for children to exercise.

Cllr R Blyth, representing Ford 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:

·         Following extensive consultation the Parish Council had chosen to be designated as open countryside and this had been accepted and included in the final draft of the emerging SAMDev plan, and in accordance with the NPPF consideration should be given to emerging plans;

·         The proposal would be built on agricultural land;

·         An extra 30 houses and associated service vehicles would impact negatively on the road network; and

·         It would be necessary to travel to access employment, schools and other services; and

·         In reality, people would not use the junction at the Cross Gates Public House, but opt to use Back Lane.

Mrs P Bicknell, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council's scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Water attenuation scheme would provide a betterment; and

·         This would be a sustainable site and an element of growth should be supported.

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:

·         Brook Cottage and sections of the road were prone to flooding and at times sections of the road were rendered impassable;

·         Back Lane formed part of a bridleway and so was used by horse riders and the narrow lane was often used by walkers and children and additional traffic would make this dangerous;

·         No footpath existed from the development along the narrow road other than that section to be built as part of this development.  Access to the village would be over fields and across Parish Council land and no discussions had taken place with the Parish Council regarding the proposed pedestrian link to The Leasowes;

·         The Parish Council had not commented on the amended proposal;

·         A Housing Needs Survey had not identified a need for further housing in Ford.  There were already a number of plots with planning permission attached that remained unsold and there were a number of houses that remained for sale;

·         The bus service into Shrewsbury was very poor and cars would be the main form of transport;

·         Increasing the width of Back Lane would encourage speeding and would make it dangerous for walkers and riders; and

·         The development would not be sustainable.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments and concerns of all the speakers and the advice of Officers and it was

RESOLVED:

That consideration of this item be deferred, with Members minded to refuse the application in view of its lack of connectivity with the village for both pedestrians and motor vehicles.  In conjunction with the Area Planning Manager, the applicant to explore the ownership and provision of the proposed footway across The Leasowes playing field and also any other possible links that would provide a direct and convenient connection to the village centre.