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

With reference to Minute No. 71, the Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and explained the risks involved in refusing the application for the reasons previously given as outlined in the addendum, he also drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.

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

Mrs M Blythe, 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 in open countryside so would be contrary to CS5;

·       The bridleway was a much valued amenity and well used.  No access rights existed along this route which was too narrow to allow turning;

·       The development would cause a nuisance and a hazard to residents and would have a negative impact on residential amenity;

·       The site was unsustainable and too remote; it was a 40 minute round trip to the shop on foot; and

·       The development would damage the natural environment and would not satisfy the three strands of sustainable development set out in the NPPF.

Mr R Blythe, on behalf of 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:

·       Only vehicular farm access existed over the very narrow bridleway;

·       Access to the field had, until recently, been via a different entrance;

·       The development would impact on the surface of the bridleway, the trees and the wildlife, as well as the nearby properties;

·       Concern for the safety of riders and walkers etc;

·       Delivery vehicles would block the road; and

·       It was illegal to drive a motorised vehicle up a public bridleway.

Mr B Clyne, 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:

·       The local community were opposed to this proposal;

·       The proposal would fail the three dimensions of sustainable development contained within the NPPF, namely, economic, social and environmental roles;

·       There would be a net detrimental effect as agricultural land would be lost;

·       The site was remote and so transport was required in order to access local amenities;

·       Concern for the surface of the bridleway;

·       Impact on local residents of traffic associated with the development; and

·       The proposal did not comply with adopted or emerging policies nor the NPPF.

Mr S Thomas, 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:

·       Agricultural land was classified into grades according to quality with the site being Grade 3 Good to Moderate Land. Government policy advised that only the best and most versatile agricultural land should be protected, and this was usually defined as Grades 1 and 2;

·       The site only occupied 0.13 hectares with 90% of the field remaining unaffected;

·       Clifton Coach House would be some 18 metres away from the side elevation of one of the plots so no overlooking would occur;

·       The proposed boundary of the site was 7 metres away from Clifton Coach House and, if deemed necessary, some additional tree planting and/or fencing could take place;

·       There was no private right to a view;

·       The bridleway would be unobstructed and agricultural access already existed;

·       The site would benefit from two off-site parking spaces;

·       Endorse officers comments in the report and in particular paragraph 6.1 onwards;

·       It was a sustainable location for development and a Section 106 contribution would be made; and

·       The Committee had approved a similar, much larger scheme in the Ford area and created a precedent.

Mr G Smith, on behalf of Mrs N Qureshi, the Applicant spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·       Mrs Qureshi’s late husband had lived at Penybryn, Ford;

·       She did not wish to cause any detriment to neighbouring properties;

·       Believed there would be no direct impact on Clifton Coach House as the two dwellings would be 18 metres away; and

·       Only a small proportion of the field was taken, the quality of which was limited and for which she received only a nominal rent.

In response to a query, the Area Highways Development Control Manager (Central) explained the implications for the Council in relation to ownership of the bridleway however this was not a planning consideration and could not be taken into account.

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:

·       The wish to refuse this application had been unanimous at the previous meeting

·       It was a step too far when local residents wished Ford to remain open countryside;

·       Approval for 30 dwellings had already been approved;

·       Did not contribute to the economic viability;

·       Not sure it satisfies the NPPF;

·       The proposed site was way out of the village where there was a history of flooding; and

·       People would not walk to do their shopping.

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

Members were still minded to refuse the application as nothing had been put forward to alter their view; it was one of only a few bridleways supported by Shropshire Council; the proposal was contrary to the SAMDev; and further vehicular access would have an impact on existing properties.

RESOLVED:

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

·       The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal would represent an unacceptable encroachment into open countryside, isolated from essential services and facilities along an unlit and unpaved highway leading to reliance on private motor vehicle. Accordingly 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 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.