Hybrid planning application seeking (a) full planning permission for the creation of 114 dwellings, open space and infrastructure with access from Lyth Hill Road and (b) outline planning permission for up to 4no. serviced self-build plots

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the hybrid planning application seeking (a) full planning permission for the creation of 114 dwellings, open space and infrastructure with access from Lyth Hill Road and (b) outline planning permission for up to 4no. serviced self-build plots and confirmed that the Committee had undertaken a site visit that morning to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. Members’ attention was drawn to the information contained within the Schedule of Additional letters.

Councillor Rob Ruscoe, on behalf of Bayston Hill Parish Council spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Teri Trickett, as local ward councillor, made a statement and then left the table, taking no part in the debate or vote on this item.

Jen Towers, Agent on behalf of the applicant spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer clarified the situation with regards to the consultation period for the application.  It was explained that the formal public consultation period had ended, however the council had recently consulted with Active Travel England who had responded to the consultation and their comments were included in the Officer’s report, however the issue was with the consultation date that appeared on the website which related to the reopening of consultation with one specialist consultee and not the wider public consultation period and it had not been possible to update the webpages to reflect this. 

During the ensuing debate concerns that the proposed development was of high density, particularly when compared to the density of the surrounding village.  There were also concerns that the village of Bayston Hill did not have the infrastructure to accommodate a development of this density.   Concerns were also expressed in relation to highways and in particular the A49 junction and for these reasons Members were minded to refuse the application.

In response, the Development Services Manager advised that deferring the application may result in the developer submitting an appeal for non-determination of the application, she also expressed her concern about the defensibility of an appeal and the associated costs arising from any appeal.  The Development Services Manager advised that if the Committee were minded to refuse the application, a deferral may be a more appropriate decision to allow planning officers the opportunity to invite the developer to enter into negotiations to help mitigate some of the concerns expressed. The application would come back to the Northern Planning Committee for determination.  The Council’s Solicitor confirmed and supported this advice.

Having considered the submitted plans and listened to the comments made by all of the speakers and taking into account the advice issued by the Development Services Manager and the Council’s Solicitor, the majority of members supported a decision to defer consideration of the application to allow planning officers to offer to enter into further discussions with the developer.

RESOLVED:

That determination of the application be deferred to allow planning officers the opportunity to open negotiations with the developer in respect of site density, open space, impact on local services and urbanisation of the village.