Outline application for 296 mixed residential dwellings (landscaping reserved) and employment/commercial use (all matters reserved) to include; offices; showroom; A3/A4 (restaurant/pub); C1 (hotel); public open space, structural landscaping, associated infrastructure; vehicular accesses and all associated infrastructure.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager 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, layout, elevations and access.   He suggested that, if Members were minded to approve, additional conditions be added to give Officers delegated authority to agree with the applicant the amount of hedgerow to be removed and to vary conditions subject to them not being substantially different to those stated in the report.

Members noted the additional information as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting, and which detailed an amended recommendation and further comments from the Planning Officer and agent.

Mr D Kilby, a local resident and representing SWRA, SPFA and Bicton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – applications should take into account the economic, social and environmental factors and reflect community needs.

·         There would be a shortage of school places by 2015 and this proposal would exacerbate this;

·         In places there would be no footpath and insufficient space for two vehicles to pass;

·         No Health Impact Assessment, Needs Assessment or Environment Assessment had been submitted;

·         Trees would be lost;

·         Strong and sustainable development should respect the character of the countryside, so would contrary to planning policy;

·         Oxon Touring Park might close in the future as a result of this development;

·         Would create congestion;

·         Inadequate open space provision; and

·         Contrary to the NPPF - A collective and collaborative approach should be undertaken to planning.

Councillor P Adams, a local Councillor, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Due to an unsatisfactory consultation exercise, he requested deferral of the application so that everyone could have a chance to put forward their preferences; and

·         The number of accesses onto Shepherd Lane would be excessive and to reduce the number of accesses he suggested that houses along this Lane should be as the initial proposal.

Ms K Else, 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:

·         Would be a sustainable and would provide housing and employment growth;

·         Detailed discussions had taken place with Planning, Highways and Drainage Officers prior to submission;

·         Proposal took into consideration the proposed link road;

·         The layout had been designed to take account of the restrictions along Shepherds Lane and would provide a betterment;

·         Would provide open public space; and

·         Would not be contrary to the NPPF, national guidance or local planning policies.

In response to comments, the Area Planning and Building Control Manager explained that notwithstanding the quality of consultation undertaken by the applicant, Shropshire Council had fulfilled its own consultation requirements and the public had been afforded the opportunity to comment.  The level of consultation undertaken by the developer would not be a material consideration in the determination of the application and the proposal should be considered on its own merits. 

The Senior Specialist – Planning Policy in referring to the report provided clarification on the infrastructure contributions, which included contributions towards education.

In the ensuing debate, some Members suggested deferral of the application in order that the applicant could address issues regarding rights of way, drainage, affordable housing provision, density, trees, inadequate and inappropriately placed open space/play areas, highways, impact on the hedgerows, the number of access/egresses onto Shepherds Lane, pedestrian/cycle routes, design of the houses and allocation of parking spaces per dwelling.  Some Members questioned if the demand for two-bedroom dwellings had been acknowledged and resolved and had enough been done to mitigate the use of cars.

In response to further comments, the Area Planning and Building Control Manager explained there would be no intention of blocking-up any rights of way; no objections had been received from Rights of Way and Drainage Officers; location of the play area had been deemed to be appropriate; and the boulevard had been created to protect trees. 

Members considered the submitted plans, noted the comments of all speakers and on the Chairman’s casting vote it was

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted as per the amended Officer’s recommendation as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters, subject to:

·      The completion of a S106 Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing, infrastructure contributions and land as set out in the report and to ensure that funding is provided for mitigation works to be provided to Churncote Island in the event that these are not delivered through planned junction improvement works within the next 10 years;

·         The Conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the report, subject to amendment by the Area Planning Manager as set out below;

·      An additional Condition relating to the amount of hedgerow to be agreed which will be dealt with through delegated powers to finalise Conditions; and

·      The Area Planning Manager be given delegated authority to vary conditions subject to them not being substantially different to those stated in the report.