Outline application for a mixed residential development (to include 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.

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting; and the additional information circulated in paper form at the meeting and via email prior to the meeting regarding an Overview Report of the Highway Infrastructure to the South of Bishops Castle Town Centre, Shropshire, which had been commissioned by the applicant.

Councillor Mrs A-M Jackson, representing Bishops Castle Town 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:

·         Public Transport provision is inadequate to meet the needs of those needing to access employment, health and leisure facilities.  As such the proposal was contrary to the Design and Access Statement which indicated that there were four bus services running from Bishops Castle;

·         Employment prospects in Bishops Castle was limited and the business park remained unoccupied;

·         The applicant had failed to acknowledge the problems associated with the stream which adjoined the development;

·         Contrary to the Bishops Castle Town Plan and paragraphs 14 and 17 of the NPPF;

·         The proposal would only make a minimal contribution to affordable housing;

·         Approval would encourage piecemeal development;

·         There were currently five applications ongoing all of which would access/egress onto Kerry Lane; and

·         This application covered only half of the site so further applications would follow;

Mr T Watkins, 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:

·         Planning Officer was recommending approval, there were no outstanding planning issues and Highways Officers had raised no objections and had indicated that the development would not result in an unsustainable increase in traffic levels;

·         In response to concerns, the applicant had appointed a consultant to investigate the potential for delivering improvements;

·         Would provide an opportunity to improve traffic issues and Bishops Castle Town Council would be involved in discussions at a later date;

·         Would help to meet SAMDev requirements;

·         No objections had been raised by Shropshire Council Officers relating to affordable housing, drainage, ecology or archaeology;

·         No pluvial flood risk had been identified; and

·         Any concerns that had been raised would be controlled by appropriate conditions; and

·         Would not be contrary to the NPPF.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Charlotte Barnes, as local Member, participated in the discussion but did not vote. During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         She expressed her concerns relating to highway issues.  Kerry Lane was already a congested road so any increase in traffic would not be welcomed.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.

RESOLVED:

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

·         The Bishops Castle community had overwhelmingly rejected sites on this side of the town for housing development during a rigorous SAMDev consultation exercise because of access problems to the town’s hinterland.  Other more appropriate sites had been identified;

·         The site was not sustainable as evidenced in SAMDev; and

·         This proposal would exacerbate the already significant traffic problems that exist along Kerry Lane. 

Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to Paragraphs 14 and 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Core Strategy Policy CS6 whereby the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.