Outline application (all matters reserved) for the erection of 5 dwellings with garages.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 30, Councillor David Roberts left the room during consideration of this item.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, drew Members’ attention to the location and layout, and confirmed that the applicant had signed the S106 Legal Agreement.

Members had undertaken a site visit that morning 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 Ted Clarke, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement, left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement the following points were raised:

·         This application had first been considered during a very challenging climate at a time when the Site Allocations and Management Development Plan (SAMDev) had not been scheduled for examination and Shropshire Council could not demonstrate a five year land supply.  The recommendation at that time was a balanced one in view of the building being outside the development boundary in a prominent position in the long established “green wedge” between Bayston and Shrewsbury;

·         The Planning Inspector had now undertaken a full public examination, following which no alterations to the blue-print plans for Bayston Hill had been suggested;

·         Various appeal decisions had confirmed that Shropshire Council did now have in excess of the required five year land supply;

·         Other similar opportunistic applications which sought to breach the long established development boundary for Bayston Hill had been refused under delegated powers, including one for farm land off Gorse Lane directly adjacent to the site to be considered at this meeting;

·         Although this application was just for five houses, the proposed new access road layout did lend itself to future development right across the rising ground;

·         Would be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS1, CS4 and CS5 and the adopted Policy S8.2; and

·         The economic benefit achievable from this development would be outweighed by the very damaging visual impact on this prominent open countryside location, currently in valuable arable agriculture use.

Ms Emma Kay, representing Bayston Hill Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mr S Thomas, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans, noted the comments of all speakers and held differing views.  Some Members supported the proposal but others considered that, given the current situation, more weight could be afforded to SAMDev and there was no longer a need to develop outside the development boundary; there was no need for this type of housing in Bayston Hill; and the proposal would intrude into the open countryside.

RESOLVED:

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

·         The site has not been identified as a site for residential development within the emerging SAMDev Plan and, in view of the stage the plan has now reached, significant weight can be given to this.  The potential benefits that housing would bring are acknowledged and given weight but it is not considered that these benefits, or any other material considerations, would outweigh the emerging plan; the policy support for a plan led approach or the harm caused by the intrusion into open countryside contrary to the environmental role of sustainability.  As such the development of the site would be contrary to saved Policy HS3 of the SABC Local Plan, Policies CS1, CS4 and CS5 of the Core Strategy, policies S8.2, S16.2(ii), MD1 and MD3 of the SAMDev Plan and the NPPF.