Committee and date Item

North Planning Committee

12 11 th December 2012 Public

Development Management Report

Responsible Officer: Stuart Thomas email: stuart.thomas@.gov.uk Tel: 01743 252665 Fax: 01743 252619

Summary of Application

Application Number: 12/04031/OUT Parish :

Proposal : Outline application for the erection of 7No dwellings (all matters reserved)

Site Address : Land At Upper Bank Chirk Bank Shropshire

Applicant : Mr P.L. Speake

Case Officer : Mark Perry email : [email protected]

Grid Ref: 329162 - 336869

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Shropshire Council 100049049. 2011 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made. North Planning Committee – 11 th December 2012 – Chirk Bank 12-04031-OUT

Recommendation:- Refuse subject to the following reason:

Recommended Reason for refusal 1. The proposed development is located within an area of defined as open countryside for planning policy purposes and accordingly would lead to sporadic and unsustainable development that would undermine the "rural rebalance" approach to development. Accordingly the proposal is considered contrary to adopted Polices CS1, CS4, CS5 and CS6 of the Shropshire Core Strategy, and to Government advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (in particular paragraph 55)

REPORT

1.0 THE PROPOSAL

1.1 The submitted application seeks planning permission for a proposed residential development. At this stage the application is for outline planning permission with access, appearance, landscaping, layout, scale all reserved for later approval. As such, at this stage the applicant only wants to establish the principle of the development on the site.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION

2.1 The application site is a rectangular parcel of land measuring 0.43 hectares is size. The land is currently rough grassland and is not used. The parcel of land is the southern end of a larger field which wraps around a large detached property to the north named Bryn Derw; this property is not owned by the applicant. Access into the site is currently through a metal farm gate.

2.2 The edges of the site are defined by a mature hedgerow along the road frontage and a mix of trees and hedgerows along its eastern and southern boundaries. Beyond the northern edge of the application site the land climbs steeply towards Bryn Derw.

2.3 Existing development in Chirk Bank can be clearly defined into two distinct areas. Firstly there is the liner development along the northern side of Oaklands Road and secondly there is a denser from of development to the western side of Upper Chirk Bank where there is a 1970/80’s housing estate of primarily bungalows and chalet style dwellings. To date the eastern side of Upper Chirk Bank and the southern side of Oaklands Road has remained largely undeveloped as the land has not been included within the development boundary.

2.3 The village of Chirk Bank falls within the ‘buffer zone’ for the Pontcysyllte World heritage site.

3.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEEDETERMINATION OF APPLICATION

3.1 The Parish Council have supported the application which is a view contrary to officers. The local member has also requested that the application be referred to the Planning Committee.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 11 th December 2012 – Chirk Bank 12-04031-OUT

4.0 Community Representations

- Consultee Comments Parish Council- support the application as they consider it a suitable location for infill development.

Tree Officer- There are a number of significant, mature trees on the boundary of the site. These are important in the landscape and amenity of the area and every effort should be made to ensure their long term retention. The trees would not prevent the land from being developed to some extent and would therefore raise no objection in principal to this outline application. Any application for full planning permission and or where size, scale, housing density and access routes are to be consider, this must be supported by a full arboricultural implication assessment and tree protection plan.

Affordable Housing- It is proposed that 3 of the dwellings (43%) will be transferred to a housing association for occupation by people on an affordable, 'Shared Ownership' basis. This arrangement exceeds the current planning policy requirement for developer sites to deliver 13% affordable housing in accordance with the provisions of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on the Type and Affordability of Housing.

Drainage- Percolation tests and the sizing of the soakaways should be designed in accordance with BRE Digest 365 to cater for a 1 in 100 year return storm event plus an allowance of 30% for climate change. Or, soakaways should be designed for the 1 in 10 year storm event provided the applicant should submit details of flood routing to show what would happen in an 'exceedance event' above the 1 in 10 year storm event. Flood water should not be affecting other buildings or infrastructure. Full details, calculations and location of the percolation tests and the proposed soakaways should be submitted for approval along with details of the proposed surface water drainage system for the estate road should also be submitted for approval.

Highways- No objection in principle to the development proposals subject to conditions and informatives. In order to improve pedestrian safety within the vicinity of the site it is recommended that the existing footway link that currently terminates outside Mount House is extended to provide a link between the proposed development site and the junction with Telford Avenue. It is also noted that a bus stop is located in close proximity to the access to the site and will need to be relocated.

Ecology- Additional information is required relating to potential additional ponds not identified in the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal with regards to Great Crested Newts and Grass snakes.

81 letters of objection have been received commenting on the following issues: Site is not within the village boundary Impact on drainage system Increase traffic Chirk Bank has limited local amenities Impact on the landscape

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 11 th December 2012 – Chirk Bank 12-04031-OUT

Site is within the buffer zone of the Pontcysyllte World heritage Site The application is premature Limited bus service

5.0 THE MAIN ISSUES

Principle of development Siting, scale and design of structure Visual impact and landscaping Impact on Neighbours

6.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL

6.1 Principle of development 6.1.1 Chirk Bank is identified by saved policy H6 of the Oswestry Local Plan as being a ‘Smaller Settlement’. Such settlements are deemed to be suitable for “limited scale of housing development” and that, “within these settlements, housing development will be limited on allocated sites and on suitable infill sites within the development boundaries”. However, the application site itself falls just outside of the development boundary. The development boundary runs along the northern, western and southern boundaries of the application site. Accordingly the location of the application site is considered to be in the countryside for planning policy purposes.

6.1.2 The prevailing policy for proposals in countryside locations currently applicable to settlements such as Chirk Bank is Core Strategy Policy CS5 Countryside and Green Belt. Policy CS5 prevents residential development outside identified settlements (including hubs and clusters) other than to meet specific needs such as affordable dwellings or agricultural workers dwellings.

6.1.3 At this present time the village of Chirk Bank has not yet been formally designated as a Hub or a Cluster. The SAMDev Preferred Options document produced in March 2012 did not include any reference to how or if Chirk Bank would be designated. Since that date the Parish Council have stated that they wish Chirk Bank to be considered as a ‘cluster’ although no details have yet been formulated on where housing development would be located or where any development boundaries would be positioned.

6.1.4 The SAMDev Plan preparation process is on-going. In situations where there is a consensus of opinion regarding the emerging policies for a settlement and development proposals are supported by the community within which they are being proposed, some weight can be given to the emerging SAMDev Plan policies. In settlements where policy issues remain unresolved and development proposals come up against objections from the local community, or mixed views, then existing policy must prevail. In this particular instance the Parish Council have supported the application as they consider it to be a ‘suitable location for infill development’. Despite the support of the Parish Council the scheme has attracted 81 letters of objection from residents; although it is recognised that a significant proportion of these are identical letters from differing addresses. Due to the conflict of local opinion, significant weight must continue to be awarded to the current adopted planning policies which are to restrict new residential development in those

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 11 th December 2012 – Chirk Bank 12-04031-OUT

locations that are outside the defined development boundaries.

6.1.5 In this instance it is considered that the proposed scheme is premature pending the outcome of the SAMDev process. Accordingly it fails to comply with the adopted planning policies which aim to restrict residential development in countryside locations. As such, the principle of the development is not considered acceptable as the location of future housing development should be considered through the SAMDev process rather than through the submission of a planning application. There are however other material planning considerations which must be considered and awarded weight accordingly, in particular the provision of affordable housing that is being suggested by the applicant. This is referred to later in this report.

6.2 Siting, scale and design of structure 6.2.1 Although only at an outline application stage, the applicant has provided an indicative layout of the site. The plan shows seven detached dwellings which would include two bungalows, one pair of semi-detached dwellings and three detached properties. The erection of 7 dwellings on the site would be of a density that is in keeping with that of neighbouring developments.

6.2.2 The precise design and layout of the development would be fully considered a part of any subsequent reserved matters application. However, it is considered that although the proposal would result in the loss of an open and green space within the village, the site is of sufficient size to accommodate 7 dwellings without resulting in its over development and that there would not be any detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the locality.

6.3 Impact on the Pontcysyllte World Heritage Site 6.3.1 The site is located within the buffer zone for the world heritage site. The purpose of the buffer zone is not to impose a blanket conservation approach to the entire area but to encourage contextual awareness to conserve and enhance the World Heritage Site. In this instance the size of the development proposed and its location would not have any impact on the views either into or from the World Heritage Site or impact upon any historic building or structures associated with it.

6.4 Ecology 6.4.1 In support of the application the applicant provided an independent preliminary ecological appraisal of the site. The report did identify a smooth newt on the site but as this was found to be nearly twice the survey requirement guide distance of 100 a survey for Great Crested Newts was not required. The report did recommend that construction works are carried out between October and February to avoid harm to nesting birds, grass snakes and smooth newt.

6.4.2 On the boundary of the site there some mature trees which do make a positive contribution to the character of the area. The trees are worthy of being retained but they are in positions which would have prevent the land from being developed. As such as part of any subsequent reserved matters application should be accompanied by an assessment of the trees which in turn should inform the layout of the development.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 11 th December 2012 – Chirk Bank 12-04031-OUT

6.5 Highway Safety 6.5.1 Access to the site is one of the items that is reserved for a later approval. At this outline stage the Planning Authority must be satisfied that an access can be created which would not impact upon the safety of highway users. The application site is set behind a hedge which is in turn behind a small highway verge. The road in both directions is on the outside of a slight bend which will allow good levels of visibility to be provided in both directions, although this may require the cutting back or the removal of some sections of hedgerow. The Council’s Highways Section has no objection to the scheme subject to providing a pedestrian footpath across the frontage of the site to ensure the safety of pedestrians.

6.6 Affordable Housing 6.6.1 The scheme for seven dwellings proposes that three will be ‘affordable’. The details submitted show that one would be a 2-bed shared-ownership bungalow and two would be 3-bed shared ownership semi-detached dwellings. The proposed percentage of affordable dwellings would be 43%, this significantly exceeds the current policy requirement of just 13% as set by policy CS11 of the Core Strategy. At 13% the applicant would only need to make a financial contribution as it would equate to only 0.91 of an affordable unit on a overall development of seven dwellings. The applicant has stated that the four open market dwelling would help to subsidise the provision of the affordable units; without which the scheme would be unviable.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The annexe to the NPPF makes it clear that Policies adopted post 2004 should be given full weight in determining applications for 12 months from publication of the NPPF. As Chirk Bank has not yet been formally designated as a hub or cluster its potential designation can only be given little or no weight. The prevailing policy therefore currently applicable to Chirk Bank is Core Strategy Policy CS5 Countryside and Green Belt where the application site itself is classified as open countryside.

7.2 It is considered, on balance, that the community benefits of providing the three affordable dwellings and the support given to the scheme by the Parish Council does not outweigh the harm that is caused by allowing the premature development in a location which is currently outside the defined Chirk Bank development boundary. Accordingly to use the proposed site for a residential development would be contrary to the aims and requirements of adopted Polices CS4, CS5 and CS6 of the Shropshire Core Strategy, and to Government advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

8.0 Risk Assessment and Opportunities Appraisal

8.1 Risk Management

There are two principal risks associated with this recommendation as follows:

• As with any planning decision the applicant has a right of appeal if they disagree with the decision and/or the imposition of conditions. Costs can be awarded irrespective of the mechanism for hearing the appeal, i.e. written representations, hearing or inquiry.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 11 th December 2012 – Chirk Bank 12-04031-OUT

• The decision may be challenged by way of a Judicial Review by a third party. The courts become involved when there is a misinterpretation or misapplication of policy or some breach of the rules of procedure or the principles of natural justice. However their role is to review the way the authorities reach decisions, rather than to make a decision on the planning issues themselves, although they will interfere where the decision is so unreasonable as to be irrational or perverse. Therefore they are concerned with the legality of the decision, not its planning merits. A challenge by way of Judicial Review must be made a) promptly and b) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose.

Both of these risks need to be balanced against the risk of not proceeding to determine the application. In this scenario there is also a right of appeal against non-determination for application for which costs can also be awarded.

8.2 Human Rights

Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community.

First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact on residents.

This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

8.3 Equalities

The concern of planning law is to regulate the use of land in the interests of the public at large, rather than those of any particular group. Equality will be one of a number of ‘relevant considerations’ that need to be weighed in Planning Committee members’ minds under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.

9.0 Financial Implications

There are likely financial implications of the decision and/or imposition of conditions if challenged by a planning appeal or judicial review. The costs of defending any decision will be met by the authority and will vary dependant on the scale and nature of the proposal. Local financial considerations are capable of being taken into account when determining this planning application – in so far as they are material to the application. The weight given to this issue is a matter for the decision maker.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665

North Planning Committee – 11 th December 2012 – Chirk Bank 12-04031-OUT

10. Background

Relevant Planning Policies

Central Government Guidance: National Planning Policy Framework

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies:

Core Strategy and Saved Policies:

CS4- Community Hubs and Community Clusters CS5- Countryside and Green Belt CS6- Sustainable Design and Development Principles

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY :

11. Additional Information

List of Background Papers (This MUST be completed for all reports, but does not include items containing exempt or confidential information)

Cabinet Member (Portfolio Holder) Cllr M. Price Local Member

Cllr Trevor Davies

Cllr David Lloyd MBE

Appendices

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665