Outline application for residential development (up to 215 dwellings); public open space; highways works; access roads and pedestrian footbridges; and a Neighbourhood Store (Class A1 Retail) not exceeding 300 sq.m internal floorspace, associated engineering and accommodation works (Resubmission).

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, indicative layout, landscape and access.  He advised that there were no outstanding objections from technical consultees.  He further advised that, in response to objections, the applicant would be willing to amend the scheme and remove the proposed footbridge over the River Corve into Fishmore View from the proposal.

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.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Andy Boddington, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         He was not totally against development on this site but this site was less than perfect.  There were many brownfield and greenfield sites in Ludlow all of which had limitations by virtue of their topography and historical core;

·         Too many houses would mean overdevelopment of the site.  A smaller development would be more suitable;

·         The only road access was from the A49;

·         The development would look outwards from the town and would encourage people to drive away from Ludlow;

·         The proposed footbridge to Fishmore View would create a thoroughfare which would change the whole character of Fishmore View.  The footbridge would not provide a link to local amenities because there were no amenities; and

·         There had been limited engagement with the Town Council and residents.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans, noted the comments of all speakers and expressed differing views.  A Member proposed the scheme subject to the deletion of Fishmore View footbridge but on being put to the vote this proposition was lost.  Some Members commented that the site would not be suitable for the number and tenure of homes proposed by virtue of its proximity to the River Corve and railway and its associated dangers. They questioned the need to build homes that would require the installation of insulation to protect against noise and fumes, commented on the limited disability access and questioned how primary school children would get to and from school.

In response to comments and concerns, the Principal Planner and Solicitor reiterated that this was an outline application with access being the only matter for consideration at this stage and all other details would be the subject of a Reserved Matters application; the submitted layout was purely indicative; and as there had been no objections raised by technical consultees, including from highways, drainage, ecology and public protection, an appeal would be difficult to defend. 

RESOLVED:

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

·         The proposed development is considered to be unsustainable for the following reasons:

°         The close proximity of the site to the A49, the River Corve and the railway line would pose a safety risk for children occupying the properties and noise from road and rail traffic would be detrimental to the amenities of residents.  Accordingly the site is not suitable for small family homes and/or affordable dwellings;

°         The site has poor accessibility with just one vehicular entrance and limited pedestrian and disability access.  It is also a significant walking distance from the main amenities in Ludlow town centre and is therefore considered to be an unsuitable location for residential development; and

°         Residential development in this location is not in accordance with the Development Plan (Core Strategy and South Shropshire Local Plan) or the emerging Site Allocations and Management Development Plan. 

Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Policy CS6 Sustainable Design and Development Principles of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy.  It would also fail to comply with Paragraph 17 (point 4) of the NPPF in that the benefits of the proposal in terms of the contribution to housing supply would be significantly and demonstrably outweigh by the adverse impacts.