That, following the submission of an appeal against non-determination, the Committee gave a resolution that, had a decision been required, it would have been minded to refuse planning permission as per the amended Officer’s recommendation as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters for the following reason:

In the absence of the agreement to make a contribution towards affordable housing provision, the proposed dwellings would be contrary to Policy CS11 of the Shropshire Council’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy and to Shropshire Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on the Type and Affordability of Housing.

That, as per the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be granted as a departure, subject to:

• A Section 106 Legal Agreement relating to affordable housing provision; and

The conditions as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

That, as per the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be granted as a departure, subject to:

• A Section 106 Legal Agreement requiring the removal of the buildings in the event of the rehabilitation use permanently ceasing; and

The conditions as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

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

• The Committee acknowledged the that the housing proposed would contribute economically and socially by boosting the housing supply, including open market and affordable housing, and would also provide limited support for the existing services in the town to which weight was given. However it was considered that these factors are outweighed by the following harm: The proposed development would fall outside of the development boundary for Broseley where Core Strategy policy CS5 restricts new housing development to dwellings to house essential countryside workers and to meet identified local affordable housing need. No such need has been demonstrated in this case. In addition the application site, by reason of the openness of the eastern site boundary defined only by a post and wire fence, the topography and the open views in an easterly direction, would not be visually contained and would lead to further urbanisation of this edge to the Town, detracting from its landscape setting. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy policies CS6 and CS17 and would conflict with the environmental role of sustainability set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Furthermore weight was given to the fact that the proposed development was not plan led being contrary to both the current saved Bridgnorth District Local Plan, the emerging policies in the Site Allocations and Management of Development DPD and the aspirations of the Broseley Town Plan 2013 – 2026.

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

The proposals are inappropriate in terms of scale and location and fail to protect and enhance the natural and historic environment and the character and high quality of the local countryside. They are therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS5, CS6 and CS17.　 The proposals also fail to sustain and enhance the significance of the setting of the Neen Sollars Conservation Area and associated heritage assets and therefore conflict with paragraphs 131, 132, 137 and 137 of the NPPF. The renewable energy benefits of the proposals are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts.