Officer uses powers to defer application for 175 homes in Wem

An officer used her powers to defer a controversial planning application after a councillor wanted to reject it.

Bellway Homes outline proposal is on land between Aston Road and Church Lane in Wem.

The site is made up of relatively flat agricultural fields surrounded by hedgerows, and covers12.96 hectares.

It is outside the town's settlement boundary, and what is considered 'countryside'. However, because Shropshire Council does not have a five-year land supply, senior planning officer Andrew Huntley's recommendation was that the proposal should be approved.

The application was considered by the council's Northern Planning Committee on Tuesday (July 21).

Councillor Gary Groves (Lib Dems, Wem) said an appeal for 50 homes was dismissed at appeal in 2017 due to issues related to the location, accessibility to services, and transport considerations.

"Having reviewed the evidence, I remain unconvinced that this scheme is correct for this site," he said.

"Access to Wem town centre, and to Shrewsbury and Telford, is also severely compromised by a narrow, blind bend to the level crossing."

An agent from Marrons, who was representing Bellway Homes, said the developing was proposing double the amount of affordable housing that is proposed, and the application focuses on the principal of residential development.

He added there are no technical objections, it is in sustainable location with a wide range of services nearby, and the developer is willing to offer financial contributions to local public transport.

The chair of the committee, Councillor Julian Dean, said he struggled to see how that corner of Wem is suitable for development, given the scale of houses being proposed.

He added that achieving a proper pavement "could be tricky" and asked if that could be achieved at the reserved matters stage that would be acceptable to Travel England.

Mr Huntley said that Travel England is not a statutory consultee, and only provide guidance.

"In historic towns and villages, you're not going to get two-metre wide pathways and cycleways everywhere," he said.

"There's got to be a balance in what is physically achievable. And we have to look at a wider planning balance as well. There are physical constraints that we have to accept."

Councillor Ben Jephcott (Lib Dems, Bagley) proposed the committee reject it on the grounds of access.

"I really do not think it is sufficient and does not meet the requirements that we expect," he said.

"It will have a severe impact on local safety."

However, development manager, Charlotte Morrison, said that, while there is "a lot more work to do", what the committee is being asked is to consider, in principle, an outline application.

"We can take away what you've said and form it as part of the reserved matters [application]," she said.

"I can't guarantee that we can bring back the reserved matters [application] because of the national scheme of delegation.

"I'm very concerned about a refusal, and the fee implications at appeal, especially on grounds of active travel which is at reserved matters territory.

"I would then use my powers under the constitution to stop that decision, and that would turn into a deferral. Officers would then comb back to committee to try and offer that reassurance."

Councillor Dean said that the proposal changed to a deferral regarding issues around active travel.

In response, Councillor Jephcott said: "If you go with a deferral on specific grounds, all your other potential grounds are deemed no longer to exist.

"And we have to be content with that. My suggestion is that there are a number of grounds for refusing this development, and I have outlined one of those. I'm concerned about access to Church Lane and active travel, and also about paving.

"I'm concerned about a deferral because that implies we're content with all the other grounds we've discussed, which we're not."

Councillor Ed Potter (Con, Loton) said that, while he hears what people are saying, a lot of what has been talked about can be dealt with by officers at the reserved matters stage.

"Looking at the principle of development, I would be proposing for approval," he said. Councillor Potter's proposal was seconded by Councillor Brian Evans (Reform UK, St Martins.)

Councillor Jephcott was asked to reframe his proposal.

He said: "I'm proposing rejection on grounds of access, both to the north and to the south, and with regards to active travel. and pedestrian access at the south side. There's a very busy access to an industrial site that has 100 lorries coming out of a day."

His proposal was seconded by Councillor Andy Davis (Lib Dems, St Oswald).

However, a solicitor who was part of the meeting agreed with Ms Morrison, saying a rejection won't be defensible, and advised that the committee deferred it.

"I understand that, but we're talking about a tilted balance and that's your interpretation," said Councillor Davis.

Councillor Dean explained it had been deferred and the committee will debate it again.