Agenda item

This application was for the erection of 3no. detached dwellings and communal building for shared plant room on the former Builders Yard, Barrack Lane, Lilleshall, Newport, Shropshire.

This application was before Planning Committee at the request of Councillor A Eade, Ward Member.

Councillor D Shaw, spoke on behalf of the Parish Council who raised concerns regarding the loss of a greenfield area, the outstanding enforcement notice, the strength of feeling of the local community, the need for recognition of the local Neighbourhood Plan during decision making, it went against policy as it was not an infill plot, did not contribute to the village or fit within the local character.  Access was over private land with a farm track and there would be adverse impact on the neighbouring properties and the nearby farm.   It was also felt that largescale development works may destabilise neighbouring properties and there was a possibility of claims by landowners which was a key consideration of policy BE1.  He urged Members to refuse the application to enable the enforcement notice to return the area to its former use as green space.

Councillor A Eade, Ward Member, gave a short history on the site relating to multiple attempts to build houses on the site being refused and endorsed by planning inspectors, together with the refusal of the land for storage and the ongoing enforcement action.  He hoped that Members would not inflict this design on the Borough and he felt that Policy HO10 was being used to circumvent refusals.  It was felt that design was subjective and he was of the opinion that this was not an exceptional design.  There were 80 objections and he did not believe that this was an exception to Policy BE1 or HO10 on policy grounds as it did not enhance the local built area, natural environment or topography.  He felt that if it went to appeal the Council would not lose or incur costs.

Mr S Locke, a member of the public, spoke against the application on behalf of local residents who felt that the land should be restored to its former green status, the land was situated in the countryside and was not well related to other dwellings as there would be 3 houses and the relevant access.  It was not an infill plot as it was surrounded by woodland.  Policy HO10 paragraph 80 referred to “exceptional” and “truly ground breaking” and he questioned whether it was unique and innovative and that it needed to have an independent impact land assessment.  The Design Review Panel raised concerns regarding sustainability, costs, access and the living concept.  The criteria had not been met and it did not positively enhance the skyline or village setting.  It was not a secure environment and encouraged isolation and did not consider mine workings.  He felt that there were inaccurate drawings a lack of acknowledgement of the footpath and would impact the nearby houses and the dairy farm.

Mr J Warrington, a member of the public, spoke in favour of the application.  He lives in the parish and liked local features such as the 1844 hunting lodge, cobbled floors and wooden stalls but he felt that Lilleshall lent itself to be at the forefront of the Industrial Revolution and improvements to living standards.  But with progress comes change and this conflicted with sentiment and people were attracted to Lilleshall for the Duke of Sutherland style buildings.  This application was modern housing with modern materials and was progress for the next generation.  The village had undergone much change with the shops now gone as well as two farms and a wine merchant and so too had the shearing shed.  The junior school in the hunting lodge had been bulldozed for retirement flats.  This did tug at the heart strings but it brought progress and prosperity.  Historians will look back again and see that it was at the forefront of solving tomorrow’s challenges and I see what is in the heart of this application.

Mr A Chetwynd, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in favour of the application and understood the concerns as he lived in a rural village.  His client’s intention was not to upset the community but to contribute to the future of Lilleshall.  The development had been through a rigorous procedure through the Design Panel who had deemed the proposal to be of exceptional quality and innovative design.  It had met strict guidelines and passed the bar of requisite standing.  It fited into the unique rural landscape which had mixed heritage and it reflected the industrial archaeology and fitted the context with the emphasis on material which was robustly referenced within the report.   The overriding policy is HO10 criterion 3 and was a proposed small micro development with three highly sustainable houses, set within re-wilded landscape with a green approach with sustainable homes for the future.   There was methodology to tackle climate change due to the climate emergency and the application was in line with the Council’s forward thinking green agenda.

The Planning Officer informed Members that this was an unusual site with a long planning history.  It was a triangular site on Barrack Lane, an unadopted highway, near to fields, Old Coppice Lodge and adjacent to a Tree Preservation Order and was along the Hutchison Way near to New House Farm.  Previous refusals were detailed in the report which set out reasons for refusal.

The Planning Officer pointed out that planning inspector’s refusals set a benchmark against which to assess future applications.  The application was in the rural area but had ‘nil’ use as a result of the certificate of lawfulness determination but was not a greenfield site due to previous usage.  Since the Inspector decision in 2017 Lilleshall had now been identified as a rural settlement and although this was not an infill plot, it received the same services and transport as Fernlea so was not materially different in terms of sustainability and accessibility.  In respect of Policy HO10 criterion 3 sought exceptional quality or innovative design and it was not felt that this opened the floodgates for further development as this was assessed on a case by case basis and this application had the support of the Design Review Panel and the design had been strongly influenced by the local lime kilns and landscape and this gave the development its distinctiveness.  This was a small unique development which respected the setting in a bespoke way and would address the inspector’s concerns.  Noise, odour and pest reports were sufficient to overcome concerns.  The Geotechnical Specialist and Environmental Health Specialists were satisfied subject to conditions.

During the debate some Members raised concerns regarding the condition of Barrack Lane and asked if there were any plans to make improvements.  Other members raised concerns regarding the design and it not being in keeping with its surroundings, the ongoing enforcement action, watercourse, pests and noise from the nearby farm and if this had been undertaken at different times of the year and the objections.  It was also felt that the Neighbourhood Plan needed to be taken into consideration.

The Planning Officer confirmed that Barrack Lane was unadopted and improvements would need to be undertaken by private agreement.  The design has been before the Design and Review Panel twice to ensure that it achieved the policy in the Local Plan and its design took in environmental credentials such as lower carbon and had less energy consumption.  There was also mechanical ventilation and solar gain and had a natural cowl shape that pulled up warm air to be reused inside the dwelling.  The visual impact of the development was limited and it was enclosed between the trees.  With regard to the enforcement notice, there were a number of parts to the notice and with the exception of two parts the rest had been complied and deferring determination of a planning application in such circumstances was common practice.  The Panellists had made an error with regard to the watercourse who had been advised twice that there was not a watercourse.  It was for Members to decide what weight was given to the material considerations within the application and the Neighbourhood Plan had not been disregarded.  There had previously been commercial and residential use on this site and this was a material consideration. The noise monitoring had taken place and the consultant had confirmed that this was acceptable.

Upon being put to the vote it was a tied vote.  Upon the Chair’s casting vote it was:-

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant planning permission subject to the conditions contained within the report (with authority to finalise conditions and reasons for approval to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager).