Outline application (access, layout and scale) for the erection of 47 dwellings (7 affordable), school hall, car parking area and enlarged school playing field for existing school, allotments, village green and informal open space (amended description).

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 and layout.

Members noted the additional information as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed comments from Shropshire Council’s Archaeologist. 

Mr J Casewell, 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:

·         Would not be sustainable;

·         Would lose agricultural land;

·         Not included in Site Allocations and Management Development (SAMDev) Plan.  Other sites had been identified. Local views should be taken into account;

·         Would alter the character of Condover;

·         The cumulative impact of this application and other new developments in the area would lead to a substantial increase in traffic;

·         Pedestrians/cyclists already at risk from current traffic levels;

·         The lane regularly floods and access cut-off as a result;

·         Sewerage already struggles to cope with storm water; and

·         Contrary to the NPPF.

Councillor David Lane, representing Condover 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:

·         Development would be outside village boundary;

·         Some of the land was classified as Grade 2;

·         Alternative sites should be considered if Greater Crested Newts present;

·         High archaeological potential so would be contrary to the NPPF;

·         This was a Greenfield site; and

·         The cumulative impact of this and other applications would be detrimental to the area.

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:

·         Officers were recommending approval;

·         In accordance with the NPPF and CS4;

·         Would provide a range of dwellings including affordable housing, open space, allotments and additional school facilties;

·         New school facilities supported by School Governors;

·         No technical objections from drainage, archaeology and highways;

·         Proposal submitted following consultation with Planning Officers; and

·         Would be sustainable.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 54 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 Tim Barker, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote. During his statement the following points were raised:

·         Following extensive consultation in the area, other sites for development had been identified in the SAMDev process;

·         Drainage, surface water flows and archaeology issues;

·         No prospect of employment in the area, so residents would have to commute to work;

·         School was full;

·         The development had some elements of sustainability, however, the aspects of unsustainability far outweighed the positives; and

·         Cumulative impact of this and other developments would be detrimental to the area and social cohesion.

In response to comments and questions, the Principal Planner confirmed that the application site:

·         Was classified as being a mix of Grade 2 and 3 quality agricultural land:

·         The village benefitted from a range of essential services and facilities, including school, social club, Post Office, village shop, butchers, sporting facilities;

·         The school could accommodate additional pupils;

·         Drainage provision had been deemed to be adequate;

·         Would provide affordable housing and CIL monies;

·         Minsterley Motors ran 10 daily bus services approximately every hour;

·         No objections had been received from Shropshire Council’s Highway Officers or the Highway Agency;

·         There were a number of large agricultural employers in the area;

And referred to:

·         The NPPF, Paragraph 112 which indicated that development should not be precluded on agricultural land when any economic benefits of housing outweighed the loss of agricultural land;

·         Following the submission of the SAMDev Final Plan to the Planning Inspectorate at the end of July, the Council’s position (as published in an amended Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement on 12/08/14) was that it had identified a housing supply of 5.47 years for Shropshire which was sufficient to address the NPPF five year housing land supply requirements.  In the calculation of the five years’ supply, the Council recognised that full weight could not yet be attributed to the SAMDev Final Plan housing policies where there were significant unresolved objections.  Full weight would be applicable on adoption of the Plan following examination but, even as that document proceeded closer to adoption, sustainable sites for housing where any adverse impacts did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development would still have a strong presumption in favour of permission under the NPPF, as the five year housing supply was a minimum requirement and the NPPF aim of significantly boosting housing supply remained a material consideration; and

·         The local community through the Parish Council had expressed an aspiration for 20-25 dwellings over the remaining plan period (up to 2026) in the SAMDev pre-submission draft.

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 proposal will represent an unsustainable form of development as the cumulative harm caused by the loss of good quality agricultural land; inadequate public transport provision; the inability of small scale facilities in Condover to cope with additional demand; the success of the small scale facilities are dependent on the energies and entrepreneurialship of the people who run them; the safety of the vehicular junction of Station Road and the A49; and together with ecological, archaeological and drainage issues will significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  As such Members consider that the proposal is contrary to the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.