Erection of two tourist accommodation blocks with meeting room; creation of parking areas; demolition of derelict outbuilding; and installation of sewage treatment plant (amended description).

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location and elevations.  He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit the previous day 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 Shropshire Council’s Planning Officer and Rights of Way Team, the agent, National Trust and further third party objections and expressions of support.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 95 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:

·         This was a landmark hostelry on the Edge which had been supported over many years by the local community and visitors;

·         Much Wenlock Town Council and Easthope, Shipton and Stanton Long Parish council had both raised objections to the scheme and Hughley Parish Councillors had raised their own individual concerns;

·         He was given to understand that this pub/restaurant might not have been viable when it closed, undercapitalised and in a poor state of repair.  There was little indication that there was a need for additional accommodation in the locality.  So clearly investment would be needed;

·         Concern with regard to the impact on the Shropshire Hills AONB and the effect on the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the location of footpaths, the adequacy of the water supply for all properties in the vicinity and the implications of the building on the west of the B4371;

·         There was considerable apprehension and community concern about where this application might lead whether it be approved or refused.  The Longville Arms was only 2½ miles away from this site and the view was that there was room for only one pub/restaurant on this road;

·         Policy EJ3 of the Much Wenlock Neighbourhood Plan (MWNP) supported this proposal except that it would be unacceptable where it conflicted with other land-use activities and where it would have unacceptable impact on the local road network.  Policy EJ7 was supportive provided the siting, design and scale of the development conserved the quality of the natural environment and surrounding countryside.  This proposal did not;

·         Would be contrary to Policy GQD2 of the MWNP which indicated that development would reinforce local distinctiveness and failure to have regard to the local context to preserve or enhance the character and quality of the area would not be acceptable.  Wenlock limestone was a primary construction material in the area and the use of timber cladding would be obtrusive and discordant and would be out of character with the area. 

·         Would be contrary to policy LL4 of the MWNP which indicated that developments should retain features of high nature conservation or landscape value, including mature trees, species-rich hedgerows etc;

·         Statute provided that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the provision of the MWNP – this proposal failed to meet the aspirations of the MWNP; and

·         He urged refusal but if permitted he requested that the development should be more sympathetic to the local vernacular and that stone, rather than timber cladding, be the exterior material.

Mr D Farrell, 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:

·         The proposal would be out of character with the surrounding area;

·         This was an undeveloped stretch of landscape and escarpment which attracted many visitors/tourists;

·         There were limited green belt sites in the area which should be protected;

·         The proposal would not protect or enhance the area and would have a detrimental impact and, accordingly would be contrary to the MWNP and the NPPF; and

·         Would set a precedent for future development.

Mr B May, 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:

·         A successful inn would not have to be “backed-up” by such a development;

·         Design out of character, unsuitable and detrimental to the area;

·         Stonework would be more in keeping; and

·         Contrary to EJ8 and GQD2 of the MWNP.

Councillor B Seaward, representing Easthope, Shipton and Stanton Long 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 former 1996 approved development on the eastern side of the road and not in the AONB had raised no highway objections; and

·         The Wenlock Edge was a special place, an important visitor attraction and one of the iconic features of the wider Shropshire Hills AONB.  The location was of particular significance in landscape terms as it was the first place where the landscape and views opened out on the western side of the road when travelling from Much Wenlock towards Church Stretton.  This development, if permitted, would compromise this area and destroy it forever.  The harm done to the AONB would not be outweighed by the benefits of the proposed development, the majority of which could otherwise be reasonably gained on the opposite site.  The potential investment in the area was welcomed and the Parish Council would like to see the pub re-opened as a thriving enterprise, however, this could be achieved within the curtilage of the existing development.

Councillor M Whiteman, 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 best developed on the same side as the Inn;

·         Contrary to MWMP and the Shropshire Hills AONB Management Plan;

·         Would impact on connectivity and be contrary to MWNP LL3; and

·         Would be contrary to Core Strategy policies CS5, CS6, CS13, CS16 and CS17.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members commented and concurred that this was a sensitive site, would be out of character with the surrounding area, should be developed on the opposite site of the road and the use of timber cladding would be wholly inappropriate.  In response to a written communication from the agent received by Members prior to the meeting, which suggested that this development would be essential to the re-opening of the Wenlock Edge Inn and its future prosperity and, if refused, an immediate application for the change of use of the Inn to a residential dwelling would be submitted, a Member requested that it be noted that this comment had been totally inappropriate.

RESOLVED:

That contrary to the Officer’s recommendation planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

The proposed built form of the holiday accommodation units and meeting room, by reason of their scale, external wood clad appearance and positioning on open land would detract from the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The benefits of the proposed development in terms of facilitating the re-opening of the public house are not considered sufficient to outweigh this harm.  The proposed development is therefore contrary to Core Strategy policies CS5; CS6; CS16 and CS17; Much Wenlock Neighbourhood Plan policies EJ7; CW2; GQD1; GQD2 and LL3 and paragraphs 58; 60 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(The meeting adjourned at 3:29 pm and reconvened at 3:38 pm)