Housing plan for former Shropshire Council office block refused on appeal
A plan to build 30 houses on a former council office site in Bridgnorth has been thrown out by a planning inspector.
Although the inspectorate saw many benefits from the South Staffordshire Housing Association plans, its inspector believed seven of the homes on the Westgate site would cause an "unacceptable risk to road safety."
"It is my judgement that for most of the seven properties proposed, cars would not be able to enter and leave the associated front driveways/gardens in a forward gear," said the inspector's letter.
"I therefore consider it to be inevitable that cars would very often have to reverse out of most of the plots onto Ludlow Road, a manoeuvre that would be carried out with restricted visibility, even if vehicles were prevented from parking on the road in front of the proposed dwellings.
"For this reason, I believe the proposed access, turning and parking areas of the proposed dwellings that would front Ludlow Road would cause an unacceptable risk to highway safety, for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers."
South Staffordshire Housing Association, a part of Housing Plus, appealed after Shropshire Council threw out the plans on January 20. The housing association South Shropshire Housing Association are both a part of Housing Plus.
Plans would have meant the demolition of existing buildings, works on the highway and the felling of trees.
The inspector, who held a hearing and a site visit on November 25, considered that the scheme would have many economic benefits.
And other objections, including that it was out of keeping in the area, were also thrown out.
On an objection over the loss off access to suitable open space, the inspector said there Crown Meadow is less than a 10-minute walk away.
In conclusion the inspector said: "I consider the benefits outlined do not overcome the unacceptable harm I have found with regard to highway safety."
The South Staffordshire Housing Association Ltd also applied for costs to be awarded against the council unreasonably refusing the plan. Councillors had gone against the recommendation of their own planning officers but the inspector ruled that this was not unreasonable.
"There has not been any unreasonable behaviour which caused the applicant to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process," the inspector said. "I therefore conclude that a full or partial award of costs is not justified."
