Outline application for mixed residential development and formation of a vehicular and pedestrian access.

The Chairman drew Members’ attention to the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.  He explained that the Committee Members had also received numerous emails and letters relating to planning applications to be considered at this meeting, all of which had been noted and would be taken into account by Members when making their decision.

Members noted 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.

The Principal Planner introduced the application. With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, access and amended layout.  He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit on a previous occasion and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

Councillor Mrs A-M Jackson, representing Bishop’s 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:

·         The Town Council had been shocked to learn that a decision to unanimously refuse an application carried no weight and expressed concerns relating to the brief time afforded to them to respond to the resubmission of this application;

·         The traffic report contained no substance, data, verified costings or topographical information. No evidence to suggest that the improvements would be achievable;

·         The confirmation of CIL monies was not within the remit of this Committee; and

·         The proposal would be contrary to policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Mr S Taylor, 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 Officer’s report outlined the reasons why this application was being reconsidered;

·         Even without the highway improvements, there were no planning issues to justify refusal;

·         He drew attention to the Cabinet meeting held on 30^th July 2014 which indicated that the improvements to the highways could now be provided without recourse to public funds;

·         Would not be contrary to policy, would result in significant benefits and, if refused, would jeopardise the provision of affordable housing on adjacent land; and

·         If granted would avoid a costly appeal.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Mr Taylor and the Principal Planner provided clarification on the improvements planned alongside Bells Court and the covering of the culvert and the allocation and spending of CIL monies.

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:

·         Concerns with regard to the targeting and spending of CIL monies;

·         The Highways report had been made available on the website before she had been informed about it;

·         Expressed surprise with regard to the comments in the report relating to Corporation Street;

·         Covering the culvert by the Six Bell’s Public House and permitting vehicles to drive close to the wall would be detrimental to a Grade II Listed Building.  The culvert was currently a home for ducks and they would have to be re-housed;

·         Campaigning for years for a crossing in the location referred to in paragraph 2.4 of the report but had been informed that it would be too expensive; and

·         There were places where two vehicles could not pass and the high number of objections clearly demonstrated the concerns and knowledge of local residents regarding the inability of the road network to cope with additional traffic.

In response to comments and questions from Members, the Area Highways Development Control Manager (South) provided clarification on highway issues.  She explained that Highway Officers had raised no objections to the scheme and that nine dwellings would not constitute a highway objection and drew Members’ attention to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which indicated that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development were severe.  She explained that along with the local Ward Member and representatives from the Town Council she had attended numerous site visits to Bishops Castle prior to the July meeting.  Following a further meeting with the local Ward Member in September six recommendations for improvements to the local road network had been agreed.

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 Bishop’s Castle community had overwhelmingly rejected sites on this side of the town for housing development during a rigorous Site Allocations and Management Development (SAMDev) consultation exercise because of access problems to the town’s hinterland.  Other more appropriate sites had been identified;

·         A need for affordable housing had been identified in the area and the contribution of this application to the affordable housing stock would be minimal; and

·         This proposal would exacerbate the already significant traffic problems that exist along Kerry Lane.  To exit the proposed development site and the town, traffic would have to use Kerry Lane, which, in places is a single track road, has no footpath in places, has five junctions within close proximity, and is already unsuitable for existing residents and businesses. The deficiencies in the local road network would not achieve a good standard of amenity for existing occupants of the area and the occupants of the proposed dwellings.

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