Outline application to include access and layout (scale, appearance & landscaping reserved) for the residential development of six detached houses; formation of vehicular access and estate roads (amended description).

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location and access.

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting, which detailed further comments from Shropshire Council’s Archaeology Officers and the Planning Case Officer.

Members had undertaken a site visit that morning and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

Mr E Miles, representing 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:

·         His property adjoined the application land and he would find it dangerous when reversing to and from his garage;

·         The entrance would be awkward and restrictive and would necessitate vehicles driving on opposite sides of carriageway and the blind points on the highway would further impact on highway and pedestrian safety;

·         Concerned that in icy conditions vehicles would slide into his property;

·         Flash flooding would be increased if a non-pervious road treatment was installed;

·         External lighting would impact on his privacy;

·         Broseley had met its housing commitment and there was a plentiful supply of mixed housing available in Broseley; and

·         Proposal would be overpowering and incongruous.

Mr M Harris, 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 Planning Officer had assessed the proposal and was recommending approval;

·         The original application had been withdrawn because of highway concerns.  These concerns had been acknowledged and accordingly the number of dwellings had now been reduced;

·         Archaeological Officers had considered the proposal and adequate conditions would be attached;

·         Any impact on amenities could be adequately addressed through detailed consideration at the Reserved Matters stage; and

·         The proposal would be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Jean Jones, as local Member, participated in the discussion but did not vote. During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         The site would be unsuitable for development and had been designated as countryside;

·         Broseley was on target to meet housing development;

·         The site would not be sustainable and Broseley had access to limited bus services;

·         Employment opportunities were limited and use of private vehicles was essential to access employment;

·         Would provide large expensive housing which was not needed;

·         Would be contrary to the NPPF;

·         Would have a detrimental impact on walkers and wildlife;

·         Access could encroach on neighbouring properties;

·         Highways and local people were against the applicant’s suggestion of a one-way system; and

·         She urged Members to consider the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the local people.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members expressed serious concerns regarding the narrowness of the streets and the potential for increased surface water run-off.  They commented that the provision of large houses would not fulfil the overarching need of affordable housing and the proposal would be contrary to the Broseley Town Plan.

In response to comments/questions, the Area Planning and Building Control Manager explained the position to date with the Site Allocations and Management Development (SAMDev) Plan and drew Members’ attention to paragraph 6.1.6 of the report which stated that prior to examination 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 5 year housing supply was a minimum requirement and the NPPF aim of significantly boosting housing supply remained a material consideration, it would be difficult to defend a refusal for a site which was considered to constitute sustainable development unless the adverse impacts of granting consent would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits.  He further reiterated that no objections had been raised by Highway Officers.

RESOLVED:

That, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

·         The proposed development does not represent a sustainable form of development;

·         The site is outside any defined development boundary;

·         Would have a detrimental and visual impact upon the environment and character of the area; and

·         This proposal would exacerbate the already significant traffic problems in the area.

Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy policies CS5, CS6 and CS17 and Broseley Town Plan whereby the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  In addition, greater weight can now be afforded to the emerging policies in the Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) documents.