Agenda item

This application was for the erection of 1no. dwelling on land adjacent to Davenport Drive, Admaston, Telford, Shropshire.

The Development Management Service Delivery Manager had requested that this application be determined by the Planning Committee due to the nature of the representations from the members of the public.

An additional letter of representation have been received which gave details regarding vehicular access, loss of privacy and open space which had previously been addressed in the report.

It was asked that delegated authority be given to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to approve the application subject to conditions and informatives if members were minded to grant the application.

Mr C Bray, member of the public, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding Policy CS15 urban design and the impact on the local identity and environment, loss of green network buffer and the lock wildlife corridor and that it did not meet the six functions with regard to ecological habitats, separation from the urban boundary, loss of connection to the Silkin Way, poor mitigation by adding bat and hedgehog boxes.  The Ecological statement was carried out by a third party and did not demonstrate the true picture of the green network land.  He raised further concerns regarding Policy UD2 as the car park being created did not enhance the appearance of the site and was extremely close to the Silkin Way and would cause a nuisance.  There was no clear benefit as the development was not affordable housing and highway danger would increase.

Mr K Davies, applicant, spoke in favour of the development and explained that he had looked carefully at comments raised and had addressed the feedback, amended the application and resubmitted this.  The design and build embraced the character of the surrounding buildings and would contribute to the Council’s housing targets.  Access to the site was acceptable with a car park sufficient for three vehicles.  The house would have a low carbon footprint and in line with the green agenda with no use of fossil fuels, south facing solar panels to rear of property, air source heat pumps and electric charging vehicle points and enhancements to the green network.  An additional hedge would be planted together with wild flowers/native species borders, bat and bird boxes, bee bricks and hedgehog housing.  He asked that Members considered the sustainability and ecological benefits to the green network.

The Planning Officer confirmed that Policy NE6 had been considered in relation to the impact on the green network with any harm being caused by the development being outweighed by the gains with the planting of native hedgerow, bat and bird boxes, solar panels, aluminium windows, air heat pumps and solar panels.  The Ecology Officer had considered the land to be low value in regard to biodiversity.  The siting of the dwelling would not have an impact on the Silkin Way, it was well designed with adequate parking and 17.8 dwellings per hectare.  It was considered there was no loss of light or privacy and it was recommended for approval.

During the debate some Members felt that this application had been thoroughly explained by the officers and ticked all the boxes.  Other Members asked questions with regards to the felling of 90 trees, why this area was not built on when the development was first built and if this was a buffer area for the Silkin Way, the size and shape of the proposed dwelling the impact on the existing habitat which would take several years to reinstate and the impact on the Silkin Way.  Some Members further asked about the position of the parking space, the access point, the impact of construction traffic and to residents at number 20 and if this had been assessed by Highways Officers.  It was also asked why the Ward Member had not called in the application and if no 18 and 20 owned a proportion of the driveway would they need to give permission for access.  Some Members did not consider this site to be a “windfall”.  Further concerns were raised with regard to the drainage plan and if soakaways were not provided what would be the alternative and if the area was suitable for large vehicles to drive in with children playing.

The Planning Officer informed Members that not every site within the Green Network was assessed from the ecological perspective and the green network was only built on in certain circumstances.  The ecology survey confirmed that there was low ecological value on this site and officers assessed that the ecological credentials outweighed the detriment on this site.  The land was privately owned with hedgerows and trees having value and would be enhanced with a new native hedge.  The grass itself was of low ecological value.  With regards to the trees, it was unknown when these were removed but as they were free from condition and were not under a Tree Preservation order (TPO) the landowner had a right to remove them.  If the current owner built on the site the construction vehicles would part on the highway and this often happened with infill plots.  The occupants drive over highway land and the applicant owned the adjoining land highlighted by the red line.  With regard to “windfall” this was not in relation to a lucky thing but it was terminology that came forward when unexpected infill plots came forward for development and was a housing policy definition.  A foul and water main should be available but there would be pre-commencement conditions with details of drainage being submitted and passed prior to commencement of any work.  It was confirmed that the road was an adopted highway and refuse vehicles used the highway and there was no weight limit.

The Chair confirmed that a request had been received by an adjacent ward member to call in the application, but as no residents were affected in the adjacent ward permission was not given.  The Ward Councillor was satisfied with the application and did not feel it necessary to call in.

Upon being put to the vote it was, by a majority:

RESOLVED – that the application be refused.

The Development Management Service Delivery Manager asked Members how they wanted to move forward and asked for the reasons for refusal.

Following a discussion it was proposed and seconded and by a majority:

RESOLVED -  that the application be refused for the following reasons

The benefits of the development did not outweigh the adverse impacts on the Green Network and its functions including the loss of separation between the built up area and the Silkin Way Public Right of Way and the adverse impact on biodiversity.