Conversion of former hospital building(s) and outbuildings into 158 apartments and houses to include some demolition; formation of parking areas, courtyards and community gardens; erection of 82 dwellings with associated garages and parking; provision of new vehicular access and alterations to existing vehicular access; provision of new bowling green, associated works and pavilion; to include the felling of some trees, erection of protective netting adjacent to cricket pitch (Amended description).

The Principal Planning Officer introduced this 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, layout, access and elevations.

Members noted the additional information as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed further comments from members of the public, a petition objecting to the scheme and further objection comments from Sport England.

Mrs K Pearce, representing Racecourse Lane Residents 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:

·       Concern about the density and layout of the proposal;

·       Wished to see a revised layout protecting existing facilities;

·       The proposal would lead to the loss of the junior football pitch, which, coupled with cuts to the Shropshire Youth Service, was a double blow for the children who used the facilities;

·       The proposal raised equality / deprivation issues;

·       A petition had been signed by 1060 local residents objecting to the proposal;

·       There were safety issues in relation to the proximity of the cricket pitch to proposed housing;

·       Traffic levels would become unacceptable; and

·       It would not be in the public interest to approve this application.

Mrs J Griffiths, representing the Cricket Club, 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 Cricket Club had a long standing history of some 130 years and have had to fight for the survival of the Club;

·       Access to the ground had always been through the site; concern that access had not been decided;

·       Concern that emergency vehicles would not be able to get to the ground;

·       Fencing would not reduce the impact on properties; there would be potential for injuries;

·       The long term costs to the Club were unknown; and

·       The Club had not been engaged in the process.

With the agreement of the Chairman, Mr H Thorne, 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:

·       It was easy to lose sight of what the application was for, which was 240 houses whilst retaining the biggest listed building in Shropshire;

·       The applicants had consulted widely on the application and had held meetings with officers, the Town Council, the School and Church, had held public meetings and met individual objectors and had done its best to address any concerns;

·       Changes to footpaths and access had been made as a result;

·       The recreational facilities had been discussed with officers; a new bowling club house and car park was being proposed in a better location; the applicant had met with the Football Club who said they were going to abandon the pitch; there was scope to relocate the football pitch onto the old boiler house site;

·       In response to Sport England concerns, Mr Thorne explained that the proposal only took away 6% of the playing field;

·       It was felt that the benefits outweighed these concerns;

·       The bowling green could not be left on the existing site;

·       Following meetings with the Cricket Club, a 5 metre high permanent boundary fence would be erected to prevent balls reaching the houses;

·       The applicant would pay for the repositioning of the cricket square; and the houses would be fitted with toughened glass;

·       The Council will take ownership of the Cricket Ground via a Section 106 Agreement; and

·       The proposal would provide 240 homes on a sustainable, brownfield site and had the support of officers and English Heritage.

In response to a query, the Area Highways Development Control Manager (Central) discussed access through the site including crossing points and pedestrian access.  He explained that the raised crossing on Racecourse Lane would not be a controlled crossing but was hoped to address some traffic issues by reducing speeds.

Although Members welcomed plans for reuse of the old hospital building they were concerned about the negative impact on the current sports facilities and open space.

In response to a query, the Principal Planning Officer explained that in light of Sport England’s objections, if members resolved to approve the application, the report and decision would have to be sent to the National Planning Casework Unit to make a decision or it may decide that officers can make a decision, however this could delay determination of the application by up to four weeks.  He reminded Members that the National Planning Policy Framework advocated working with developers in order to obtain an acceptable proposal.

In response to a query it was confirmed that in order to mitigate the loss of a large number of mature trees, 200 replacement trees would be planted.

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

RESOLVED:

That this application be deferred to allow the applicant to produce revised plans to address aspects of Sports England’s objection.