The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout, landscaping, drainage and access plans.

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

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting detailing further comments from the Shropshire Council Archaeology Officers.

The meeting adjourned at 2.40 pm to enable Members to consider further information circulated at the meeting detailing objections from Sibdon Carwood Parish Meeting and further comments from members of the public.  The meeting reconvened at 2.43 pm.

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 Evans, 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:

·         Although Craven Arms was in need of affordable housing, this site was outside the development boundary and, although in SAMDev, was not supported by Sibdon Carwood Parish;

·         The site lay on a ridge to the west of Craven Arms west of the Roman Road of Watling Street on the edge of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and close to Sibdon Church and Stokesay Castle (both listed buildings).  The route of the Shropshire Way ran through a section of the site and the development would be prominent from Flounder Folly and the Roman Norton Camp;

·         There was no public footpath along the B4368, which was the shortest route into Craven Arms.  The school lay to the east of the A49 - this would not be a safe route for school children to use or to access services in the town;

·         A previous application for this site had been refused on the grounds of it not being sustainable; and

·         Would be built on good arable land, would not be sustainable, constituted overdevelopment and would negatively impact on the surrounding area.

Mrs E Holden, representing Sibdon Carwood Parish Meeting, 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 site would be unsustainable due to its location to services and crossed a historic natural boundary, namely Watling Street (Roman road);

·         Affordable housing proposed would be in the wrong place and should be at opposite end of town; and

·         Would be out of scale and contrary to the NPPF and Shropshire Council’s Core Strategy Policies.

Mr S Thomas, 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 site had been allocated in SAMDev;

·         Would be in accordance with CS11;

·         Affordable housing had been identified as a key priority and this proposal would exceed required amount;

·         Would be located in a developable area and adjoining the development boundary for Craven Arms;

·         No objections from Shropshire Council Highways Officers;

·         Extension of the 40mph speed limit would be financed by applicant;

·         Dedicated footpath link would be incorporated; and

·         The proposal was fully policy compliant.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Thomas provided further clarification on the location of the dedicated footpath and the type and number of affordable homes. 

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted as per the Officer’s recommendation, subject to:

·         A Section 106 to secure the funding of the cost to extend the 40 mph speed limit;

·         Any subsequent application for reserved matters being considered by this Committee;

·         An additional Condition as recommended by Shropshire Council’s Archaeology Officers as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters; and

·         The conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the report.