Erection of 2 no. dwellings with associated garages; formation of vehicular access.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.

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 detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed further comments from the Planning Officer and objection comments from members of the public.

Mrs M Blyth, 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:

·         Site fell outside the development boundary on agricultural land so would be contrary to CS5;

·         The bridleway was a much valued amenity and well used.  No access rights existed along this route;

·         72 residents had signed a petition which demonstrated the local opposition to this proposal;

·         There had been no demonstrated need for housing in Ford and the site would be unsustainable;

·         The development would seriously impact on residential amenity; and

·         All vehicles throughout development and thereafter would pass Clifton Coach House and the noise would have a detrimental impact on family life.  As such the proposal would be in contravention of Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Mrs Z Robbins, representing the Nesscliffe Hills & District Bridleway Association, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         There was no vehicular access rights over the bridleway and recently an opening in the fence and hedge line was made to gain access;

·         No higher access rights than bridleway had been claimed or proved on this route and it was illegal to drive a motorised vehicle up a public bridleway;

·         The surfacing of a bridleway should not be to the detriment of the main users; and

·         The bridleway was the only off road through route in Ford, was a safe route and supported the initiative to get people out exercising.  It was an important link in the Humphrey Kynaston Way and any detrimental impact on this route would have an impact on tourism and put leisure users at risk and be contrary to CS16.

Councillor R Blyth, representing Ford 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:

·         This was a greenfield site and agricultural land;

·         Following consultation, Ford Parish Council had been designated as countryside under SAMDev;

·         The entrance to the field had been made just prior to the application being submitted and he questioned if there was a legal right to actually use the access;

·         The principle of developing the land had been assessed for possible development but was rejected because of its detached location from the main settlement and would not be sustainable; and

·         The impact of agricultural vehicles on the highway had not been assessed by Highway Officers.

With the agreement of the Chairman, Mr S Thomas, the agent, was permitted to speak for up to six minutes and 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 five year land supply issue had, as yet, been unchallenged and would be the subject of further scrutiny;

·         Ford had a range of services and amenities;

·         Would make a small but vital contribution to housing and would be in accordance with the NPPF;

·         The bridleway was currently used by existing properties and the use would remain unrestricted;

·         Construction would have a short-term impact;

·         Application could not be refused on issues relating to ownership of bridleway;

·         Officers would have had due regard to the Human Rights Act when making their recommendation; and

·         This would be a small scale scheme in a sustainable location.

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:

·         Pre-application advice had been sought from Planning Officers but no consultation had been undertaken with the Parish Council or the local Ward Member;

·         The area was designated as open countryside;

·         No employment;

·         Social – two large houses would not satisfy any need;

·         The site was in a remote location and access would be down a narrow lane;

·         Other applications had been granted without any identified need; and

·         Proposal would be contrary to CS6 and CS17.

In response to comments from Members, the Area Planning and Building Control Manager explained that the ownership of land was not a reason to refuse an application and the applicant had fulfilled his obligation and had published a notice in the newspaper in an attempt to ascertain ownership; the type of road surface could be imposed by conditions; and the personal circumstances of nearby residents could not be taken into account when determining an application.

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

RESOLVED:

That consideration of this item be deferred, with Members minded to refuse the application for the following reasons:

·         The application on the basis that the proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenities of neighbouring residents.  In addition, the proposal would fail to satisfy the three dimensions to sustainable development defined within the NPPF: the economic, social and environmental roles.  Given the Council’s current five year housing land supply position, the proposed scheme is not considered necessary to meet Shropshire Council’s housing development requirements or the community’s needs in terms of health, social and cultural well-being and would therefore undermine the strategy for the location of housing.  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 emerging site allocation and management of development policies MD1 and MD3.