Outline application (access, layout and scale) for the erection of 47 dwellings (7 affordable), school hall, car parking area and enlarged school playing field for existing school, allotments, village green and informal open space (amended description).

With reference to Minute No. 57, the Principal Planner introduced the application and explained the risks involved in refusing the applications for the reasons previously given as outlined in the addendum, he also drew Members’ attention to the location and layout.

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

Mr J Casewell, 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:

·         He urged Members to refuse this application for a second time;

·         Would be contrary to paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  A housing estate situated on the side of a small village would lead to distortion of and damage to the communities that had taken many decades to evolve;

·         Would be contrary to paragraph 12 of the NPPF.  The community had made its intentions clear – new development should be in small pockets distributed throughout the village;

·         Paragraph 111 of the NPPF required authorities to encourage the use of brownfield sites and where significant development of agricultural land was demonstrated to be necessary local authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality.  Paragraph 112 emphasised this duty and nowhere had the necessity to develop agricultural land been demonstrated and since February 2014 livestock had been grazed and two crops had been grown;

·         Concerned by the extra volume of traffic that would be generated alongside the HGVs, farm machinery and the dangerous junctions onto the A49;

·         Facilities – No-one would be solely reliant on the two shops and the reference to a plethora of other services was a wild exaggeration;

·         There were 18 mainly small businesses on the industrial estate, Farm Friends Nursery employed 16 staff.  Raising turkeys and growing potatoes was seasonal and as the latter was not labour intensive any vacancies for employment would be minimal;

·         Any need for a double classroom at the school should be addressed by the education authority and not used by the developer as justification to build an estate; and

·         Other land had been identified and the community should not be ignored.

Councillor David Lane, representing Condover 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:

·         He drew attention to a recently dismissed appeal for land in Dorrington and pointed out specific similarities to this application:

Ø  The site was in open countryside, where new development was strictly controlled under Shropshire Council’s Core Strategy Policy CS5 and only limited types of development, such as accommodation for essential countryside workers and other affordable housing was permitted;

Ø  The site had not been identified in the emerging Site Allocations and Management Development (SAMDev) Plan;

Ø  The Shropshire Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement currently indicated that there was a 5.47 years supply of deliverable housing land in the County as at 31 March 2014;

Ø  The proposal would fail to satisfy the three dimensions to sustainable development in the NPPF: the economic, social and environmental roles.  Given the five year housing land supply position, the scheme would not be necessary to meet the County’s housing development requirements or the community’s needs in terms of health, social and cultural well-being.  It would also fail to accord with and therefore undermine the strategy for the location of housing.  Furthermore, the development would extend into the countryside on the edge of the village and fail to protect or enhance the natural environment; and

Ø  The proposal would be contrary to national and local policies regarding sustainable development and the provision of housing;

·         The proposal would double the number already included for the village within SAMDev;

·         The land in question was a mixture of grade 2 and 3 arable land;

·         The site had high archaeological potential;

·         European Protected Species had been confirmed to be breeding on this site;

·         Three new development sites had been included in the new Condover development boundary and at least one of these sites was brownfield.

Mr S Taylor, 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 NPPF was now a prescriptive document;

·         The outcome of appeals suggested that local authorities were now obliged to support sustainable development;

·         Officers were recommending approval and had confirmed sustainability;

·         The proposed footpath link would be traffic free; and

·         The proposal would be in accordance with CS4.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 65 and 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 Tim Barker, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote. During his statement the following points were raised:

·         He reiterated his concerns made at the previous meeting and commented that the proposed development would not be sustainable and the community character and nature of Condover would be substantially changed;

·         Would result in the loss of good agricultural land;

·         The site formed part of a much larger field; and

·         Would be contrary to national and local policies.

In response to questions and comments, the Area Planning and Building Control Manager explained that applications should not be refused where an issue could be appropriately dealt with by condition and any reasons for refusal should be clear and capable of being objectively evidenced and justified; and any deferral could result in an appeal against non-determination.  With reference to the Dorrington appeal, the Principal Planner explained that this application had some differences from the Dorrington appeal but clearly outlined that the benefits arising from this scheme in Condover would be substantially different and drew Members’ attention to the proposed facilities/benefits, namely the provision of affordable housing, highway improvements works and the community facilities including school car park, hall, recreation and play facilities and allotments.  He further explained that under delivery of housing could have implications on Shropshire Council’s ability to demonstrate a five year land supply.

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:

·         Notwithstanding the community benefits included within the application, 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 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 of the community and would therefore undermine the strategy for the location of housing. Furthermore, the development would extend into the countryside, utilising high quality agricultural land 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 HS3 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.