Construction of an equestrian centre to include: main facilities building incorporating reception, offices, changing rooms, therapy room, toilets, boiler room, viewing area, stables, stores and indoor arena; outdoor manege; carriage track; paddocks; two field shelters; vehicle parking, package treatment plant; surface water attenuation pool and associated drainage; formation of access and highway improvements; and landscaping.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit the previous day 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, layout, elevations, access, passing places and proposed junction arrangements. 

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting, which detailed further objections and comments from local residents, Much Wenlock Civic Society and Shropshire Council Archaeology Officers.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 69, and 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 David Turner, 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:

·         He refuted the suggestions of the applicant’s agent which suggested that he had interfered in the determination of this planning application;

·         Both he and a number of local residents supported the provision of riding for the disabled, but expressed reservations with regard to scale, flooding and highways;

·         Scale – The proposal would be contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan’s Policy GQD1, which stated that:

“The high quality natural landscape outside the development boundary of Much Wenlock will be protected from any development which adversely affects the town’s character, setting and open views.”;

“open views towards the countryside, or across open spaces should be maintained”; and

“Elsewhere, the parish is characterised by small settlements….as well as hamlets and scattered farmsteads and it is important that new development respects its rural setting and does not detract from the high quality landscape of the parish in line with CS6”;

·         The proposal would be sited only 250 yards from the boundary of the AONB;

·         Flooding – There was no quantitative assurance that the measures contained in the proposal would reduce the flow of water off the development, and, as such, would be contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan Policy RF2;

·         Highways – It is difficult to gain access to and from the lane onto the A4169 and innumerable shunts had taken place.  Although regular users of the lane were aware of the blind spots and the need to reverse for quite some distance in order to pass, and, although the proposed passing places would alleviate some of the problem, he expressed concerns that this might not be sufficient to resolve concerns given the likely increase in the number of vehicles using the lane.  As such the proposal would be contrary to Neighbourhood Plan Policy EJ3, which suggested that in supporting development it should not have unacceptable impacts on the local road network;

·         There was no reference to how users of the popular Shropshire Way and the Jack Mytton bridleway would be managed;

·         Concerns with regard to the close proximity of the fertilizer works;

·         Concerns with regard to the wider use and planning creep -  The application also sought to accommodate other uses and referred to subsequent development of listed building, which had led to community apprehension about the future of the site; and

·         If approved, he requested that matters that would have an early influence upon neighbouring vulnerable properties, ie highway improvements and flood relief measures, be conditioned to be implemented prior to construction stage; additional conditions to include limited hours of operation; and consideration to be given to the safety of walkers and horse riders in, and crossing, the lane.

Mr M Walton, a Planning Consultant speaking on behalf of local residents, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         This would be a large scale development that would have an adverse impact on the area;

·         The Lighting Assessment failed to demonstrate how the lighting would impact on the area;

·         Would lead to an increased number of vehicles entering and leaving the site;

·         Activity on the site might continue until evening – no impact assessment had been submitted;

·         Archaeology – insufficient information had been made available; and

·         Drainage concerns.

Mrs M Budd, a local resident, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Supports the Olympic Heritage of Much Wenlock;

·         Perfect location for the Centre;

·         Would create volunteering opportunities for students at William Brookes School;

·         Would support existing businesses in Much Wenlock;

·         The Centre was needed to encourage and train the next generation of carriage drivers; and

·         The Centre would close if refused.

Mr D Haston, 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:

·         A significant number of representations had been made in support of the proposal and a low number of objections.  Many objections had been with regard to flooding;

·         Two passing places would be provided and there had been no accidents at the junction recorded;

·         Surface water from the site would be limited and attenuation measures would be implemented;

·         In accordance with the Development Plan;

·         There was no intention for activities such as quad biking to take place on the site;

·         Would provide employment for eight full-time staff and would support the wider economy; and

·         There would be no Centre if planning permission refused.

In response to a question from a Member, Mr Haston confirmed that the Centre would operate until 8 pm Monday to Sunday.

Councillor Mr B Harper, representing Much Wenlock 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 proposal would be contrary to the Much Wenlock Neighbourhood Plan;

·         There were indications of a Medieval settlement on site;

·         Concerns with regard to the close proximity of the Fertiliser Factory;

·         Highway issues in relation to access;

·         Increased flooding risk and no information of the Rapid Response Catchment Area had been provided; and

·         Large scale development in the wrong location.

In response to comments from Members, the Principal Planner and the Area Highways Development Control Manager (South) drew Members’ attention to the comments of Shropshire Council’s Archaeology Officer detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters, which detailed an amendment to Condition No. 11 and provided further clarification relating to highways. 

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members commended the ethos of the scheme but expressed serious concerns relating to highway safety, particularly with the number of proposed passing places, the narrowness of the road leading to the site and the junction onto the A4169.

RESOLVED:

That this application be deferred to enable further consideration to be given to highway issues in relation to access to and from the development site.

(The meeting adjourned at 4.48 pm and reconvened at 4.56 pm.)