Outline application for the erection of 35 dwellings to include means of access, together with resiting of school football pitch, provison of extended school car park and new school access (amended description).

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer 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.

Members noted the additional information as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed further objection comments from members of the public and comments from Shropshire Council’s Highway Officers.

Mrs J Ingham, 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:

·         Longden was a rural community with small scale facilities;

·         Because of the nature of the layout of the development (a cul-de-sac) the occupants would be unlikely to interact with the community;

·         Concerns with regard to the volume of traffic that would be generated by the development, and because of the limited employment opportunities in the area this would be exacerbated with residents journeying by car to access employment;

·         It had not been demonstrated that school traffic would use the proposed access arrangements;

·         No adequate drainage proposals had been submitted;

·         A number of trees, including trees up to 350 years old would be felled;

·         Great Crested Newts had been discovered and this required further investigation;

·         Would lead to further applications; and

·         Unclear if a proper bat survey had been undertaken.

Councillor P Carter, representing Longden 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:

·         The Parish Council welcomed additional housing but only if it was sympathetic to the area;

·         The proposal would not meet the needs of the community, would increase the size of the village by 40% and be contrary to Parish Plan;

·         No consultation had been undertaken and pre-application discussions would have highlighted concerns;

·         The narrow, single track road network was already busy with agricultural and school traffic. No traffic assessment had been carried out to seek the views of users. Residents would have to commute to work;

·         Inadequate bat survey undertaken and Great Crested Newts were present;

·         The proposed footpath might not be achievable as it crossed private land;

·         A significant number of mature trees would be removed;

·         Not sustainable;

·         If approved, strict control on the ecology was imperative; and

·         Any Reserved Matters application should be considered by the Parish Council and this Committee.

Mr M Parrish, 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:

·         All comments received from consultees and interested parties had been addressed and he drew Members’ attention to the information from Highway Officers as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters;

·         Discussions had been undertaken with the School Head with regard to access and associated facilities.  Any works to the school would be funded by the applicant.  Car park had been welcomed by the school;

·         Footpath linkages would be surfaced and the footpath crossing private land was already a public footpath and used by the public;

·         Substantial landscaping would take place;

·         The site was not classified as being good agricultural land so would be in accordance with the NPPF; and

·         The development would be sustainable and in accordance with the NPPF.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Roger Evans, as local Member, participated in the discussion and spoke against the proposal but did not vote. During which he raised the following points:

·         No discussions had been entered into by the applicant with the Parish Councillor or the local Ward Member;

·         Would be contrary to Parish Plan;

·         This and other proposed applications would exceed the number of units projected for 2026;

·         Limited employment in the area;

·         Highway network already congested and access to the site would be restricted;

·         Other sites had been identified for small developments.  The size of this application would overwhelm and change the rural character of the village;

·         Oak trees would be felled; and

·         He questioned if parents would use the proposed parking at the school.

In response to comments from speakers and Members, the Technical Specialist Planning Officer and Principal Planner confirmed that the Sport England objection had been withdrawn and conditions would be attached to any permission to ensure the continued provision of sports facilities; details of the proposed equipment store would not have to be provided for an outline planning application; and provided clarification on the number of dwellings proposed in Longden.

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 would fail to satisfy the three dimensions to sustainable development defined within the National Planning Policy Framework: the economic, social and environmental roles. Given Shropshire Council’s current five year housing land supply position, the proposed scheme is not considered necessary to meet Shropshire Council’s housing development requirements of the community and would therefore undermine the strategy for the location of housing. Furthermore, the development would extend into the countryside, and would fail to protect or enhance the natural environment. Accordingly the proposal would fail to accord with the aims and requirements of saved policy H3 of the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Plan, adopted Core Strategy policies CS4, CS5, CS6 and CS17, and emerging site allocation and management of development policies MD1 and MD3; and

·         The proposed development would result in the loss of a significant number of mature trees with high amenity values. It is not accepted that the replanting scheme proposed would adequately compensate or mitigate for the loss of the mature trees. Accordingly, the proposal would fail to comply with the aims and requirements of adopted Core Strategy policies CS6 and CS17 or the guidance within the NPPF.