Outline application for the erection of 15 dwellings to include access

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the outline application for the erection of 15 dwellings to include access noting the description of development had been amended to read ‘up to 15 dwellings’. It was confirmed that Members had attended a site visit that morning and had assessed the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

Mr R Jones, Local resident spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which a number of points were raised including the following:

·         Local residents were against the development and their concerns had been well documented;

·         The Planning Officers report was weighted in favour of the development;

·         There were issues of overlooking at the south of the development; and

·         There had been little evidence to reassure residents that these issues would be resolved at the reserved matters stage.

Nigel Thorns, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which a number of points were raised including the following:

·         The site was in a sustainable location and closer to services than applications previously approved;

·         The site was modest and was hidden from view by houses fronting Chester Road;

·         The proposal was not back-land development but a normal estate layout;

·         The access for the development had been installed previously to accommodate the proposal; and

·         The indicative layout plan addressed the issues of overlooking.

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillor Peggy Mullock, as the Local Member, made a statement, and then left the room, taking no part in the debate and did not vote. During her statement a number of points were raised including the following:

·         The main concern in relation to the application was the topography of the site which would create overlooking issues;

·         The site was too small to accommodate 15 dwellings; and

·         She considered the application to be back-land development.

In accordance with Rule 6.1 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in Part 4 of Shropshire Council’s Constitution, Councillor Tom Biggins addressed the Committee as the Local Member, during which a number of point were raised including the following:

·         A proposal on same side of the road was previously rejected by a planning inspector;

·         It was concluded that the development would result in substantial changes to the area;

·         The number of dwellings proposed was too high and it was back-land development;

·         Bungalows would be more in keeping with the topography of the site;

·         The development would create run-off and flood risk for houses down hill; and

·         If Members were minded to approve the application, the application should come back to Committee at the reserved matters stage to ensure the issues of drainage, density and type of dwelling were addressed.

Responding to the comments made by the speakers, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the issue of house type was not relevant at this stage but pointed out that it was not appropriate to insist on bungalows across the whole site.

In the ensuing debate, Members continued to express differing views. Some Members continued to support refusal of the application and considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. Other Members continued to support approval as per the reasons set out in the report. On the casting vote of the Chairman, it was

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to:

·      The applicants entering into a S106 agreement to secure the affordable housing contribution;

·      The conditions set out in Appendix 1;

·      The description of development being amended to read “up to 15”; and

·      The application for Reserved Matters being considered by the North Planning Committee.