Erection of 68 dwellings to include on-site open space provision.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application for the erection of 68 dwellings to include on-site open space provision and drew Members’ attention to the schedule of additional letters and an additional representation that had been circulated at the meeting.

Brian Udal, local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which a number of points were raised including the following:

·         Over 60 local residents with concerns attended a meeting in relation to this application;

·         Flooding occurred on the site every year;

·         The proposed attenuation ponds were a danger to children;

·         The site was not included in SAMDev; and

·         The primary school was under pressure; and

·         It would take children over 20 minutes to walk to the school.

Councillor Geoff Elner, Ellesmere Town Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which a number of points were raised including the following:

·         There were applications for over 700 new houses in Ellesmere which would swamp the Town;

·         The Town was not able to cope with this amount of development;

·         The site flooded on a regular basis;

·         The Town Council would prefer development on other sites; and

·         Development in this area would have an adverse effect on economic development.

Penny Bicknell, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which a number of points were raised including the following:

·         The proposed site was taken forward as a preferred option site;

·         The proposal was in a sustainable location;

·         The land was in the same ownership as the Teal Drive development and was a logical extension to Ellesmere;

·         The application was not speculative and would be completed in a short timescale;

·         The site was not in a flood risk zone and a flood risk assessment had been completed; and

·         The development would provide affordable housing.

The Chairman read out the following statement from the Local Ward Councillor, Councillor Ann Hartley, who was unable to attend the meeting:

As local member I strongly object to this application.  In Ellesmere we are not against new housing development in fact we welcome more housing recognising the vibrancy and economic value.  At present we have applications for 10 in Church Street, 57 at the Railway Yard, 68 in Teal Drive, 250 for the Wharf Development, 40 in Elson Road – 45 McCarthy & Stone and 280 are being phased in the Canal Development.  However we are very mindful of all new developments being sited in the right place for the future of the town.  These must not be in the town centre as the roads are not suitable for any more traffic pressure. 

The area that is unanimously supported by the Chamber of Commerce, the Town Council and the vast majority of the community and myself is the Wharf and Canal area.  The proposal for a newly constructed road linking the Wharf to the Oswestry Road makes this by far the most sensible proposition.  The proposed Teal Drive development is not in the SAMDev and was not even in the North Shropshire Local Plan Development Boundary.  The proposed site and surrounding area has severe flooding and is a greenfield site.  We have enough site allocations identified for Ellesmere without including this dubious application.  I urge the committee strongly to reject the application.

In response to concerns raised by Members in relation to flooding issues, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the site was not in a flood zone and explained that conditions had been included to address the issues identified by the Drainage Engineer.

Having considered the submitted plans Members of the Committee unanimously indicated that the harm resulting from the development would outweigh the benefits of the proposed development and expressed their objection to the proposal.

RESOLVED:

That Members were minded to refuse Planning Permission against the Officer’s recommendation.  The Committee were concerned at the cumulative impact the development would have on the Town and gave greater weight to the emerging SAMDev Policies and saved local plan policies which classified the site as being within open countryside.  Concern was also raised in relation to the impact on the road network and drainage issues.

A further report, on reasons for refusal would be considered at a future meeting of this Committee, in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Constitution.