Site for erection of 40 dwellings 1, 2, 3 and 4 bed units and associated parking. 

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation, with modified conditions.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes. 

He added that additional photographs had been submitted showing the discharge of water onto the road in the village.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr B Corbett, of Weobley Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr J Andrews, a resident, spoke in objection.  Mr M Harris, the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor MJK Cooper, the local ward member, spoke on the application.

He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He endorsed the concerns expressed by the Parish Council.

·         There was local concern about the rate of change in the village the development would bring and its impact. 

·         The junction serving the development could not be improved because it was lined by historic buildings and an increase in traffic could therefore cause problems.

·         Drainage was a concern.

·         If the development proceeded he asked if the hedgerow fronting the development could be restored following the construction of the development

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         A number of Members expressed concern about the absence of any detail of how foul and surface water drainage issues would be managed and indeed whether they could be managed satisfactorily.  The current system was itself clearly inadequate. The Development Manager commented that the existing system in the village was considered acceptable by Welsh Water who had not objected to the proposal.  He added that all new applications were expected to have a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme.  New legislation was expected specifically dealing with this aspect.  Welsh Water was insisting on conditions and he reminded the Committee of the full wording of condition L04.  The detailed proposals would come forward when the reserved matters were considered.  Drainage proposals would have to be approved by Welsh Water. 

·         In relation to the concern about the pace of development in the village, the Development Manager commented that it should be borne in mind that the developer would build at a gradual rate.

·         The expert advice provided to the Committee supported the application.  There were no strong grounds for refusal.  However, it was to be regretted that the developer was not presenting an application that offered anything such as energy efficient, state of the art housing to enthuse the Committee and encourage it to welcome the application.  It was to be noted in considering the quality of the development that the village was a tourist attraction. 

·         It was suggested that whilst there may be no grounds for refusal the developer could be made fully aware of the concerns within the village and encouraged to make the development one in which the community could take pride. 

·         Development did carry with it some benefits for community sustainability.

·         The Development Manager noted that the Planning Team worked to national guidelines in relation to the energy efficiency of developments.  Building Regulations were becoming increasingly stringent with regard to this aspect.

·         There was concern about the impact of the additional traffic the development would bring.

·         In relation to the access to the development the Principal Planning Officer commented that the Traffic Manager was satisfied that appropriate visibility could be achieved from the proposed access.

·         It was noted that for practical reasons the hedgerow fronting the development site might have to be removed during the construction phase. However, there seemed to be no reason why it could not be reinstated in part at a later date.  The Development Manager commented that the replacement of as much of the hedge as possible could be discussed with the developer as part of the reserved matters.

In conclusion the Legal Officer commented that Welsh Water had confirmed that concerns about drainage could be addressed by condition and she could not consider this issue as a satisfactory ground for refusal.  Similarly there was no evidence to support refusal on traffic management grounds.  She considered that there was a risk of costs being awarded against the Council if the application were to be refused and the matter went to appeal.

The Development Manager commented that the developers would make a number of contributions to the community including, for example, traffic calming measures.  He informed the Committee that, mindful of the Committee’s expectations, officers did seek to work with developers to bring forward exemplary schemes and he expected that increasingly applications coming forward would be of an improved standard as the work of the Major Planning Team progressed.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated concerns about traffic management and drainage issues and welcomed the action to seek to retain as much of the hedgerow fronting the development as possible.

RESOLVED: That officers named in the scheme of delegation be authorised to issue planning permission subject to:        

1.         The completion of a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the Heads of Terms appended to this report, as amended in accordance with the Committee Update to include reference in the Draft Heads of Terms Agreement to St Marys RC High School; and

2.         The conditions set out in this report and any varied or additional conditions considered necessary by officers:

INFORMATIVES: