Agenda item

TWC/2020/1056 Land North East of Stirchley Interchange, Nedge Hill, Telford, Shropshire

Minutes:

This application was for the erection of up to 350 new dwellings (Use Class C3) with all matters reserved on land North East of Stirchley Interchange, Nedge Hill, Telford, Shropshire.

 

A deferral of this application had been agreed at Planning Committee on the 15th December 2021 to allow Officers to negotiate with the Applicant in respect of concerns relating to the impact on the local highway network, the impact on the existing riding centre and the lack of on-site facilities and the sites proximity to the existing local centre.  These concerns had been addressed in the report and the recommendation remained for approval.

 

Councillor N England, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application as he felt that previous concerns had not been addressed.  He was not satisfied with the roundabout and highway safety and the distances to the local facilities and he remained of the opinion that the development should be refused.

 

Miss L Cooper spoke on behalf of Mrs K Curtis, who was unable to attend the meeting, as a member of the public.  She raised concerns regarding the clarification of the ownership of the land, the 51 additional dwellings above the Local Plan allocation, the impact on the highway network, lack of communication, the impact on neighbouring properties, the ability of large farm machinery to use the highway, the access, lack of off-road parking and parking spaces.  There needed to be uninterrupted access to Nedge Farm and concerns were raised regarding the buffer zone, recreational grazing and the access to the riding centre for the benefit of the local community.

 

Mr D Stengel, the Applicant’s Agent, spoke in favour of the application.  Further negotiations had taken place with Planning Officers to clarify the concerns raised by Members.  The agent confirmed that it was a residential site which was allocated within the Local Plan.  The stables did not form part of the application site boundary, although the fields that were used for grazing were.  The Lease on the fields with Homes England would end in 2023 and Telford and Wrekin Council had met with Nedge Farm to agree licence terms and the agent advised that they would not have to close the riding stables. There would be a buffer zone between the dwellings and the farm house.  Services or health care were not required on site and the highways impacts had been assessed against the transport model.  There would be S106 contributions towards education, highways, landscaping and 25% affordable housing, if Members were minded to approve the application.

 

The Area Team Manager addressed Members and advised that the expiry of the lease for the riding centre was a civil matter and was outside planning control.  The key point was that the land forming this application was allocated however land to the side of the farm house was leased from Homes England and the licence had been discussed with Nedge Farm and was awaiting signature.  The stopping up of the access was under a separate piece of legislation and an alternative access route, through the development, was accessible by the riding centre.  The proposed access was a minimum width of 5m and was better than the existing highway giving greater accessibility to larger vehicles.  The site was not considered large enough to require a convenience store as this could impact the Stirchley local centre by taking business away and leaving empty units.  With regards to highways, future growth had been considered and a cumulative transport assessment undertaken with 80% of the traffic travelling along the M54 and A442 and the capacity of Stirchley Interchange had been assessed up to 2031.

 

During the debate some Members raised concerns regarding the lack of consultation with residents, the impact on Stirchley Medical Practice for 350 new homes, the lack of facilities on site together with the distance to the local centre for older residents and young families.  The proposed walking and crossing route was on a dangerous main road and it was felt that it could not be supported by some Members.  Other Members raised that nothing had really changed and that there was no mention of grazing rights to the north of the plot as this would have helped mitigate concerns regarding horse grazing.  Questions were raised as to whether the applicant would consider reducing the number of houses and what would be the impact on available school places.

 

The Area Team Planning Manager confirmed that due to the local services this had been thoroughly modelled and tested.  With regard to the riding centre if Homes England wished to remove the lease and then apply for permission that was not a material planning consideration.  Details accessibility was not being considered under this application as it was a separate piece of legislation that was required to stop up the access.  Retail policy meant that planning cannot intervene in competition and there was a Town Centre first approach.  It was unknown how many school places were available, but Education had asked for contributions and based on a formula a sum of approx. £1.65m for primary and approx. £696k had been requested for secondary education.  An extant permission to build under the New Towns Act 1981 could have been carried out, and consultation had taken place on this during previous Local Plan reviews.

 

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

 

RESOLVED – that Delegated Authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant outline planning permission (with the authority to finalise any matter including conditions, legal agreement terms, or any later variations) subject to:

 

a)    the applicants/landowner entering into a Section 106 agreement with the Local Planning relating to the following (subject to indexation from the date of committee with terms to be agreed by the Development Management Service Delivery Manager):

 

i)             On-site provision affordable housing (25%);

 

ii)            Financial contribution towards primary education provision, at a cost of £4,737.15 per dwelling (the total sum being no more than £1,658,004.00);

 

iii)          Financial contribution towards secondary education provision, at a cost of £1,988.12 (the total sum being no more than £695,842.00);

 

iv)          Financial contribution of £121,328.00 towards the Telford Transport Growth Strategy;

 

v)            CCTV Provision at a cost of £42,500.00 along Nedge Lane ;

 

vi)          Financial contribution of £10,000.00 towards the Green Routes Strategy;

 

vii)         Travel plan monitoring at a cost of £5,000.00;

 

viii)       Financial contribution towards off-site sports provision (figure TBC dependent upon number and mix of housing at REM - £650/dwelling for 2bed or larger)

 

ix)          Financial contribution of £32,700.00 towards woodland management at Halesfield 1;

 

x)            Financial contribution of £70,200.00 towards woodland management and safety surveys/management at The Nedge;

 

xi)          S106 monitoring fee (1% of the total value of S106 contributions, or capped at £20,000.00)

 

xii)         Implementation timetable for the on-site LEAP provision

 

xiii)       Implementation timetable for on-site NEAP provision, or financial contribution towards either a partial or entire off-site enhancement towards local NEAP provision (figure TBC dependent upon number and mix of housing at REM - £350/dwelling for 2bed or larger as a partial on-site NEAP provision, or £650/dwelling for 2bed or larger as an entire off-site contribution); and

 

b)     the conditions contained within the report (with authority to finalise conditions and reasons for approval to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager).

Supporting documents: