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 floor space, associated engineering and accommodation works.

With reference to Minute No. 22, The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the application and confirmed Members had undertaken a further 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 applicant.

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:

·         His concerns with regard to water run-off, flooding and the footbridge.  He expressed support for the scheme but continued to express his opposition to the footbridge and suggested that it should be removed from the proposal.

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 proposed housing area would not be in the flood plain;

·         Several options for attenuation had been put forward and considered to be satisfactory and the development would not exacerbate water run-off;

·         The junction arrangements and the roundabout had been scrutinised by Highway Officers and considered to be acceptable;

·         The footbridge had been considered as being beneficial but not essential so would be willing to remove it from the scheme; and

·         No demonstrable harm had been identified.

In response to a question from a Member, Mr Williams confirmed that the footbridge had been the subject of consultation and discussion with the Estates Division of Network Rail.

In response to questions from Members, the Technical Specialist Planning Officer, the Area Planning and Building Control Manager and the Area Highways Development Control Manager (South) provided further clarification on access arrangements, the distance of the proposed dwellings from the rail track, the implications of the sub five year land supply and reiterated that no objections had been received from National Rail and Public Protection Officers.

In the ensuing debate, Members noted the comments and concerns of all speakers. They continued to express their own concerns relating to access, noise and rail line safety, the possibility of increased train journeys in the future, the close proximity of the River Corve and the detrimental impact on the historical setting of the town.  A Member commented that children should be encouraged to play outside and this proposal would not be conducive to such an ambition.

RESOLVED:

That, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

·         The proposed development, through the close proximity and the associated dangers of the A49, River Corve and the railway, noise from road traffic and train movements, and the potential for an increased number of train journeys in the future would detract from the living conditions and be detrimental to the amenities and safety of residents.  The site has poor accessibility and is considered to be an unsuitable location for residential development contrary to Policy CS6 Sustainable Design and Development Principles of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy and Paragraph 17 (point 4) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  These adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in terms of the site contributing to the supply of housing land in Shropshire.