Outline application for residential development to include means of access.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and confirmed that 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, drainage and proposed road improvements.

Mr S Hawksorth, 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:

·         At a well-attended public meeting many residents objected to the scheme;

·         Site was prone to flooding;

·         The drainage report had referred to a gradual fall from south to north and east to west, but this was incorrect and approximately 70/80% of the site sloped towards existing houses;

·         The old railway line had become a wildlife sanctuary;

·         Expressed serious concerns relating to an increase in traffic movements and the potential impact this would have on highway safety;

·         Would result in overlooking and would impact on light and outlook; and

·         Flooding had recently blocked the A458 and more water diverted from this site would exacerbate this problem.

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

·         Cross Houses had already doubled in size in recent years following the last Local Plan exercise;

·         In an attempt to provide affordable housing in the area and to save the school the community had embraced the building of 80 homes and had accepted the last two developments in the area;

·         The Parish Council’s wish to remain as Open Countryside had been accepted;

·         No play facilities had been proposed; and

·         The development would seriously impact on highway safety.  The A458 was a very busy road; the junction to the site would be very close to a mini roundabout where many accidents had occurred; and children would have to cross the A458 to access play facilities.  She urged the applicant to reconsider the access to the site.

Ms H Howie, 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 SABC Local Plan had identified Cross Houses as being suitable for development;

·         At this point in time, little weight could be afforded to SAMDev;

·         The proposal would be sustainable and would contribute to shared ownership and CIL;

·         The delivery of houses would be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

·         The package of measures provided would help to calm traffic and improve highway safety on the A458;

·         No objections had been raised by Shropshire Council’s Ecology Officers;

·         Trees along the disused railway line would be retained; and

·         Drainage proposals had been approved by Shropshire Council’s Drainage Officers and would provide for better water management.

In response to questions and comments from Members, the Area Highways Development Control Manager (Central) provided clarification on the proposed improvements and drew Members’ attention to conditions that would ensure that the measures proposed by the applicant on the A458 would be fully implemented prior to occupation of the dwellings.  The Floods and Water Manager provided clarification on drainage and confirmed that full details of the proposed drainage would be required and submitted at the reserved matters stage.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  They expressed concerns relating to highway safety, the lack of play facilities on the site and the conflicting views of the local people and the applicant relating to drainage.

RESOLVED:

That this application be deferred for the applicant to reconsider the access and provide further information relating to drainage.