Construction of an equestrian centre to include: main facilities building incorporating reception, offices, changing rooms, therapy room, toilets, boiler room, viewing area, stables, stores and indoor arena; outdoor manege; carriage track; paddocks; two field shelters; vehicle parking, pa Construction of an equestrian centre to include: main facilities building incorporating reception, offices, changing rooms, therapy room, toilets, boiler room, viewing area, stables, stores and indoor arena; outdoor manege; carriage track; paddocks; two field shelters; vehicle parking, package treatment plant; surface water attenuation pool and associated drainage; formation of access and highway improvements; and landscaping.ckage treatment plant; surface water attenuation pool and associated drainage; formation of access and highway improvements; and landscaping.

In accordance with her declaration at Minute No. 95, Councillor Cecilia Motley left the room during consideration of this item.

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

The Area Highways Development Control Manager (South) provided clarification on the revisions to the scheme following deferral at a previous meeting and with reference to the drawings displayed, she drew Members’ attention to the now proposed junction arrangements and passing places.

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.

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting detailing further neighbour objections and comments in support of the proposal.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 97 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 David Turner, 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:

·         He reiterated his concerns raised at the previous meeting relating to scale, flooding and highways;

·         The location was inappropriate.  The majority of objectors would welcome the application if situated in a safe location and of appropriate design;

·         He drew Members’ attention to the Inspector’s report on the appeal against the Environment Agency's Anti-Pollution Notice regarding the neighbouring fertilizer factory, which had been published following consideration of this application at a previous meeting of this Committee.  Whilst a regime was now being initiated to address the issues raised by the Inspector, it was scheduled over a period of years during which time approval of this planning application would put vulnerable people within 250 yards of the “highest risk site in the River Severn catchment”;

·         The large building by virtue of its scale and development in open countryside would be contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan and would be situated just 250 metres from the boundary of the Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);

·         Flooding – As no quantative assurance had been given that measures contained in this proposal would reduce the flow of water off the development it would be contrary to Policy RF2 of the Neighbourhood Plan.  It would also be contrary to policy which required no major development until the Integrated Urban Drainage Management Plan had been implemented;

·         Heritage asset - He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 4.1.9 of the report, which referred to a complex of earthwork features within the development boundary and he further commented that traffic would increase on a daily basis and would put greater pressure on the ancient narrow river bridge in the lane.  Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to paragraphs 129 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

·         Highways - No reconsultation had taken place following the latest amended highways proposals.  He reiterated his concerns relating to highway safety and the entrance drive to the site.   He drew attention to the concerns expressed by the occupants of the cottage which sat below the road at the A4169 junction and the detrimental impact any increase in noise and fumes and vibration from manoeuvring vehicles would have upon them.  No highway construction details had been submitted by the applicant. The applicant had indicated that the vast majority of lessons would be delivered using the Perry Group’s own horses and ponies kept at the site and this, along with the volumes of visits being as described, would require the amount of bedding and feed that would need to be brought in by road to be far greater and more frequent than supposed and delivered on vehicles up to 2.5 metres wide. 

·         Participants of any competitive events would bring their own mounts and carriages – all arriving within a small timeframe.  No Event Management Plan had been submitted; and

·         The increased volume and concentration of vehicular movements would present difficulties for horse riders and walkers on the Jack Mytton Way and no proposals had been submitted to mitigate the conflict on users of the Shropshire Way which crossed the lane near the proposed development.

Mr M Walton, a Planning Consultant speaking on behalf of 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:

·         No consultation had been undertaken on the revised proposals;

·         Highway concerns.  No wide-ranging review of highway improvement options had been undertaken and, as such, potential junction improvement works had been limited to land with the Highway Authority’s control and any ‘best option’ would require the acquisition of third party land;

·         No safety audit had been undertaken of the revised proposals.  In response to this, he had been instructed by local residents to undertaken an independent review (which had only recently been uploaded onto the Planning Portal of Shropshire Council’s website) and he outlined the key conclusions; and

·         In conclusion he requested that a further deferment be agreed to review the findings of the independent review or refused on the basis that the proposal would have an adverse effect on highway safety.

Ms R Hewitt, a local resident, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         She herself was disabled and the therapeutic benefits and the activities that this facility would offer her and many others would be extremely beneficial.

Councillor Mrs M Hill, representing Much Wenlock Town 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 proposal would be contrary to CW2 and Objective 4 of the Much Wenlock Neighbourhood;

·         The proposal would not address surface water run-off issues;

·         There were indications of a Medieval settlement on site;

·         The area had been designated as a high risk area by the Environment Agency; and

·         Inappropriate site for such a worthwhile scheme.

Mr D Haston, 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:

·         He outlined the proposed highway improvements and as set out in the report and stated that the Perry Group had agreed to finance a third passing place; and

·         The Perry Group horses would be kept at the centre and would be used for many of the lessons so would not involve the movement of horse trailers/boxes.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Haston confirmed that the bridge was not the subject of a weight restriction and no structural stability assessment had been undertaken on the bridge.

In response to comments from Members, the Area Highways Development Control Manager (South) confirmed that an Event Management Plan would have to be submitted for any planned events and she raised no concerns relating to the planting of shrubbery/trees at the junction provided that there would be no impact or conflict with road users and emerging vehicles.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members expressed concerns with regard to the impact on the residents of No. 19 adjacent to the junction and any conflict the proposal would have on the Jack Mytton Way and the Shropshire Way but considered that these impacts could be satisfactorily mitigated through the amended access/road improvement details and conditions.

RESOLVED:

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

·         Appropriate planting of shrubbery / trees being undertaken at the junction to protect the amenities of the adjacent property; and

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