Decision:

That, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

• The Bishop’s Castle community had overwhelmingly rejected sites on this side of the town for housing development during a rigorous SAMDev consultation exercise because of access problems to the town’s hinterland.  Other more appropriate sites had been identified;
• A need for affordable housing had been identified in the area and the contribution of this application to the affordable housing stock would be minimal; and
• This proposal would exacerbate the already significant traffic problems that exist along Kerry Lane.  To exit the proposed development site and the town, traffic would have to use Kerry Lane, which, in places is a single track road, has no footpath in places, has five junctions within close proximity, and is already unsuitable for existing residents and businesses. The deficiencies in the local road network would not achieve a good standard of amenity for existing occupants of the area and the occupants of the proposed dwellings.

Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Core Strategy policy CS6 whereby the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Hazeck, The Mines, Broseley, Shropshire, TF12 5QY (14/01341/FUL)  Erection of two single storey extension to side elevations; increase in roof height to allow for first floor accommodation to include insertion of dormer windows and rooflight to front and rear roofline (amended description).

Decision:

That, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

The proposed development, by reason of its massing and inappropriate design and the loss of trees would result in overdevelopment of the site, would detract from the character and appearance of the built and historic environment and would have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenities.  The development would therefore be contrary to Shropshire Core Strategy policies CS6 and CS17.

Fox Studio, King Street, Much Wenlock, Shropshire, TF13 6BL (14/01397/FUL)  Proposed extensions and conversion of existing studio building to form four residential units and one commercial unit; including demolition of part of boundary wall (amended description).

Decision:

That, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

The proposed development, by reason of increased scale through extension and the insertion of the proposed pedestrian access within the existing stone boundary wall would result in overdevelopment of the site and would have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area and public safety.  The development would therefore be contrary to Shropshire Core Strategy policies CS6 and CS17 and paragraph 17 of the NPPF.

Bradley Farm, Farley, Much Wenlock, TF13 6PE (14/02127/FUL)  Construction of an equestrian centre to include: main facilities building incorporating reception, offices, changing rooms, therapy room, toilets, boiler room, viewing area, stables, stores and indoor arena; outdoor manege; carriage track; paddocks; two field shelters; vehicle parking, package treatment plant; surface water attenuation pool and associated drainage; formation of access and highway improvements; and landscaping.

Decision:

That this application be deferred to enable further consideration to be given to highway issues in relation to access to and from the development site.

Land West of Lavender Bank, Bishop’s Castle (14/02632/OUT)  Outline application for a mixed residential development (to include access).

Decision:

That, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

• The Bishop’s Castle community had overwhelmingly rejected sites on this side of the town for housing development during a rigorous SAMDev consultation exercise because of access problems to the town’s hinterland.  Other more appropriate sites had been identified;
• The site was not sustainable as evidenced in SAMDev; and
• This proposal would exacerbate the already significant traffic problems that exist along Kerry Lane.

Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to Paragraphs 14 and 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Core Strategy Policy CS6 whereby the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Land North of Henley Common, Henley Lane, Acton Scott (14/02807/FUL)  Continued use of land for agricultural purposes and the installation of up to 6.5 MW of solar photovoltaic panels and ancillary works.

Decision:

That, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

The proposal would have a detrimental and visual impact upon the environment, character and landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Paragraphs 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Core Strategy Policies CS6 and CS17 whereby the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Land at Whitton, Caynham, Shropshire (14/02873/FUL)  Erection of ground mounted solar farm along with associated infrastructure, landscaping and ancillary structures on agricultural land.

Decision:

That, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

The development site was in close proximity to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would have a detrimental and visual impact upon the environment, character and landscape of the area.  Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS5 and CS17 whereby the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Little Beck House, Lion Lane, Cleobury Mortimer, Kidderminster, DY14 8BT (14/03611/FUL)  Erection of a new single storey sun room (replacing an existing side utility).

Decision:

That planning permission be granted as per the officer’s recommendation and subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the report.