Erection of 93no dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping (amended description).

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application which was an application for the erection of 93no dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping and with reference to the drawings and photographs displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the to the location and layout.

The Principal Planning Officer drew Members attention to the information contained in the schedule of late representations which had been circulated by email

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that Members had attended a site visit prior to the meeting

Adam Shantry spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mark Duffell spoke on behalf of Ford Parish Council against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees

Councillor Roger Evans, local Ward Councillor made a statement against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees

Alex Jones on behalf of the applicants spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

During discussion members expressed the following concerns

·       The proposals for 93 affordable dwellings would add a disproportionate number of dwellings and would adversely alter the mix of housing in the settlement

·       93 dwellings constituted over development of the site

·       The proposed alterations to the existing traffic calming measure could adversely affect highway safety

·       The proposed access point could create a hazard during school drop off and pick up

·       The loss of the historic ridge and furrow and high-quality habitats would not be compensated for adequately by the proposed mitigations.

·       The need for 93 affordable homes in the Ford area had not been proven

Following a vote it was RESOLVED

That contrary to officer recommendation planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

·       The application site lies in an area of open countryside for planning policy purposes, contrary to CS5 and MD7a

·       The proposal for 100% affordable housing would disproportionately alter the mix of housing within the settlement and adversely alters it character, contrary to CS5, CS6, MD2 and MD3

·       The proposal for 93 dwellings would add a disproportionate number of dwellings to the rural settlement and is contrary to achieving sustainable development as set out in the NPPF and CS1

·       The proposed access point off But Lane would result in a hazard with the opposing Primary School access point and school drop off and pick up, whereby the removal of existing traffic calming measures worsens highway safety for all users, contrary to CS6 and Paragraph 116 of the NPPF.

·       The proposed development would see the total loss of historic ridge and furrow and irreversibly remove high quality natural habitats, whereby the proposed mitigation is unable to adequately address this loss resulting in an adverse impact on the historical and natural environments, contrary to CS17, MD12 and MD13.

·       The proposal has failed to adequately demonstrate a local need for the proposed 93 affordable dwellings, furthermore unable to demonstrate a specific need for the proposed number of dwellings within the settlement of Ford, contrary to CS5, CS11 and the Type and Affordability of Housing SPD.

·       The proposed development, by virtue of having an open countryside location, is contrary to the adopted spatial strategy and would result in an incursion into the undeveloped countryside in conflict with CS1, CS5, MD1 and MD7a.

·       The proposal would result in the loss of local biodiversity and adversely impact on the natural environment, contrary to CS17, MD12 and Section 15 of the NPPF.

·       The proposal site is insufficiently served by services, facilities and infrastructure to accommodate the proposed number of dwellings without making any suitable contributions to any improvements, contrary to CS8, CS9 and MD8.

·       The proposal has failed to adequately demonstrate that it would not result in flood risk on-site, off-site or elsewhere, contrary to CS18 and Paragraph 170 of the NPPF.

And that delegated powers be given to officers to refine the reasons for refusal and ensure relevant policies applied.