Minutes:
This application was an outline application for the erection of up to 100no. dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping works on land north of St Georges Bypass, St Georges, Telford, TF2 9LF.
The Application had been brought before Planning Committee due to the significant level of public objection.
An update report was tabled at the meeting and detailed a correction to the committee report in relation to it incorrectly stating “Grant Full Planning Permission.” The application before Members was to consider granting outline planning permission. It also gave details of further representations received.
Councillor A Harrison, St Georges & Priorslee Parish Council spoke on behalf of local residents who had given significant opposition at three Parish meetings. There was a need for new homes but this was not a suitable site for them. Although it was noted that there had been a reduction in dwellings from 120 to 100 it was considered that this had not gone far enough and it was asked that the numbers reduce further. There would be a negative impact on the biodiversity and this was one of the few remaining large green spaces within St Georges & Priorslee. It would significantly impact local infrastructure, schools, residents, doctors and dentists. There were no public transport links to this site.
Councillor T Nelson read out a statement on behalf of Councill R Tyrrell, adjoining Ward Councillor, who was unable to attend at the meeting. Over 300 objections had been received on this application and a previous application on this site had been withdrawn on 29 January 2024. The application did not form part of the allocation within the Local Plan and there was no identified need for the development. The drainage had not been addressed and there was a site of historical interest with a Roman moat immediately adjacent to the site. A desk-based report had taken place rather than site inspections. The Local Plan 2018 acknowledged its own limitations. Other concerns were lack of play facilities, overdevelopment, lack of parking and the impact on local roads. The block of flats was not in keeping with the village style and the application was silent on the property type. Highway safety in relation to the new junction on A5 Telford Way and the busy road at Limekiln roundabout and traffic would use alternative local roads. Priorslee was very busy from development and the rebuild of the secondary school and traffic concerns in relation to this had proved correct. There would be loss of amenity and green space, flora, fauna and wildlife. Quality affordable housing was required but this did not satisfy the need. It was important to protect the green space and heritage.
Mr A Whittle, Member of the Public, spoke against the application and raised concerns in relation to the NPPF and the proposed reforms. He felt the application should be based on current national policy. There had been a huge number of objections and the sentiment was evidence that there a real risk that this development would take place and the perception was that it would be development at any cost impacting long term physical and mental health of residents. It would impact neighbour amenity and privacy as it would back on to neighbouring houses and look directly in. Concerns were raised that the financial contributions would run out quickly and there would be a large demand for services after the pot was empty. The application should be assessed on its individual merits and flaws and to build several hundred homes and shops on a busy arterial road on which large articulated vehicles travelled was overdevelopment. The traffic assessment was from a period that reduced the level of risk and failed to include collision data and was also out of date. In relation to Policy NE1 and net biodiversity gain, there was a shortfall of habitat, and the off-site habitat would not benefit St Georges. The travel plan set out the plan for sustainable travel and Policy C1 promoted alternative travel but it was considered that by providing parking for 250 did not encourage alternative travel. The junction would double the road width to accommodate it. The crossing would cause a bottle neck and a risk to both drivers and pedestrians. It was the last remaining ancient farmland in the area. Archaeological interpretation is favoured but this application would be likely to remove or heavily truncate the archaeological features within its footprint.
Mr PJ Triplow, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in favour of the application and confirmed that they were fully behind the progressive emerging Local Plan which formed a straightforward and uncomplicated opportunity to deliver housing targets. The site lay within the urban boundary and was not part of the green network and this was acceptable in principle. There were no objections from statutory consultees and he was confident that work could be undertaken to ensure that the reserved matters application was workable. The planning process would bring improvements in healthcare and there had been a positive response, together with an opportunity to upgrade school sports pitches, the local doctor’s surgery and housing. The Local Highway Authority supported the controlled crossing on the A5 as this had not previously been in situ and this would make for safer use of the public right of way. He understood it as tough to accept change but outline planning permission gave the flexibility required to shape the application that worked best on the site. Density had been reduced to 100 dwellings and in relation to the moat, the development would be away from the moat as shown in the plans submitted. The applicant would continue to listen to the public and evolve the application as necessary.
The Planning Officer informed Members that this was an outline planning application and they were asked to consider whether the principle of development was acceptable with all remaining matters, including layout, scale, appearance and landscape coming forward later under a reserved matters application should this application be approved. St Georges was in the urban boundary where the principle of development is supported through the Local Plan. The application was not in an allocated housing site, but this was not a reason to refuse in itself. Housing policies allowed for windfall sites which sometimes came forward and these are relied on to deliver the housing targets set for the Council set by the government. There had been a large number of objections and officers recognised the sentiments and strength of feeling. The land is privately owned and not green belt. There is a public right of way accessible across the site and this would be retained as part of the application. The remainder of the site did not represent publicly owned land and therefore could be fenced off either side of the public right of way up to 2m in height around the boundaries if the landowner was minded. The right of way formed a direct link to the public open space known as The Flash. The development brought forward a signalised pedestrian crossing enabling pedestrians to find a safe and continuous route, together with a reduction in the speed limit. Bus and cycle links would also be enhanced. Ecology and Highways raised no objections subject to a Section 106 agreement and conditions relating installation of litterbins and footpath improvements at The Flash and contributions towards Telford Road Strategy. The applicant had agreed the S106 contributions in full.
During the debate, some Members raised concerns that, although this was the first application that had put forward money towards local health services, it would only make surgeries larger and not provide more doctors. It was asked that going forward every application of 50 houses and above engaged with the Integrated Care Board to secure money into the local health service. Further concerns were raised that the application site was not allocated in the Local Plan, the impact on the highway and parking, overdevelopment, drainage, density and the impact on the archaeological site. Other Members felt that as this was an outline application and further details would come forward in the reserved matters application that there was no material reason to refuse.
The Planning Officer confirmed to Members that Severn Trent had issued standing guidance that if they had not replied to an application within 21 days that they had no objections.
Upon being put to the vote it was, by a majority:
RESOLVED – that the application not be approved.
The Chair then sought a proposal outlining the reasons for refusal. Following a debate in relation to the reasons for refusal, it was proposed that an adjournment be taken so that legal advice could be taken and the meeting adjourned for a short period of time.
Upon the re-start of the meeting, the Chair, following legal advice, put forward that the application be deferred.
Councillor Scott proposed that the application be deferred in order for the applicant to consider the density when taken as a while within the wider locality and come back with a more acceptable proposal. It was also an opportunity to address the other issues discussed during the meeting.
The Legal Advisor set out that the deferral had been proposed that the application be deferred in order for officers to have discussion with the applicant in relation to the density on the surrounding area. This was confirmed by Members and seconded.
Upon being put to the vote it was, unanimously:
RESOLVED – that the application be deferred in order for discussion to take place with the applicant in relation to the density on the surrounding area.
Supporting documents: