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

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and 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.  The Principal Planning Officer drew Members attention to the Schedule of Additional Letters.

Ms Kate Couttes, 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 area was prone to flooding;  

·         Back Lane was a narrow, poorly lit, single track country lane with no pedestrian path;

·         There were no employment opportunities within the village and so those living in the proposed new development would be entirely car dependent; and

·         The Parish of Ford wished to be designated open countryside.

Councillor Ray 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:

·         The proposed access along Bank Lane was narrow and had no footpath in places and so had poor pedestrian connectivity;

·         The site had a propensity to flood;

·         Occupants of the properties would take short cuts and be reliant on cars; and

·         The proposed development was unsustainable and did not reflect the needs and aspirations of the local community.

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:

·         A Housing Needs Survey had not identified a need for further housing in Ford;

·         There seemed little role for Members of the Planning Committee if the only criteria was whether a development was sustainable;

·         The Housing Land Supply had now been met and this application would set a precedent for others in the future; and

·         The development would not be sustainable.

The agent for the applicant was invited to address the Committee, however he indicated that he had no further comments to make.

During the ensuing debate Members expressed concern at the lack of connectivity to the rest of the village for pedestrians and motor vehicles, establishing a link between the development and the rest of the community was critical to the sustainability of the site.  Parking at the school was already difficult and would be worsened if the proposals went ahead. 

RESOLVED:

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

The proposed development would comprise an unsatisfactory and unsustainable addition to the existing settlement, outside the current development plan boundary, as it would not provide an acceptable level of connectivity and integration with the existing settlement by means of access to services within the settlement (especially in flood events) and would thereby fail to encourage the use of alternative means of transport to the car contrary to Policies CS5 and CS6 of the Shropshire Core Strategy and the push for sustainable development within the National Planning Policy Framework (in particular Section 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport).