Outline planning application for mixed residential and employment development (all matters reserved).

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location and layout.  With reference to paragraph 4.10 of the report he stated that it should refer to five objections and not 46. He 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.

Councillor I Pickles, representing Broseley Town Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Jean Jones, as local Member, made a statement against the proposal, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.   During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         The development would occupy ground which was outside the development boundary or had been designated as employment land.  Very few employment sites had been identified in Broseley.  The provision of public transport was poor and local residents struggled to travel outside the area for employment;

·         Would further impact on the already poor road network;

·         Further housing provision was not needed and land outside of the development boundary should remain as a greenfield site;

·         Both the housing and industrial elements should have separate access provision; and

·         Would put pressure on the existing services in the town.

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 and noted the comments of all speakers.  In response to questions, the Principal Planner explained that the emerging SAMDev Plan had stipulated that access to the employment land should be off Avenue Road; the deliverability of the employment land might be dependent upon this being a mixed-use site; and access to the employment land off Pound Lane could be considered but might not be appropriate given the character of the road and the location of the nearby five-way junction.

RESOLVED:

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

·         The Committee acknowledge that the housing proposed would be in a sustainable location, contributing economically and socially by boosting the housing supply, and would also provide limited support for the existing services in the town.  However, these factors are outweighed by the following harm: The proposed housing development would fall outside of the development boundary for Broseley shown in the adopted and emerging Development Plan where Core Strategy policy CS5 restricts new housing development to dwellings to house essential countryside workers and to meet identified local affordable housing need.  No such need has been demonstrated in this case.  In addition, the proposed development would result in the loss of part of the Broseley employment land allocation in the emerging Development Plan, which is close to adoption and to which significant weight can be given.  The serviced access to the smaller area of employment land that the proposed development would provide is not considered to be a material consideration of sufficient weight to justify a departure from present and emerging Development Plan housing policy or a reduction in the size of the employment land allocation in the emerging Development Plan.  Furthermore, weight was given to the fact that the proposed development is not plan led in accordance with paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy policies CS5, saved Bridgnorth District Local Plan policies S1 and H3, policy S4 of the emerging Site Allocations and Management of Development Plan and aspirations of the Broseley Town Plan 2013 to 2026.