Erection of six residential dwellings.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application and confirmed Members had undertaken a site visit that morning and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, revised site layout and elevations.  He explained that a request for deferment had been received from local residents in order that they could obtain professional advice regarding the recent comments made by Shropshire Council’s Flood and Water Manager.  In response to this request, he explained that Shropshire Council Drainage Officers had deemed the drainage to be acceptable and a satisfactory solution had been provided by the applicant.

Members noted the additional information as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting, and which detailed additional conditions as suggested by the Shropshire Council’s Flood and Water Manager.

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Full Council held on 27 February 2014, and his declaration of interest as set out in Minute No. 19, Councillor Tim Barker, the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room and took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         This was a complex and controversial application and would be contrary to SAMDev.

Ms K Halstead, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council's scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The development could cause flooding and put additional pressure on existing drainage system;

·         In heavy rain her property became saturated;

·         An unsatisfactory drainage report had been submitted by the applicant; and

·         There was a duty to ensure flood risk was not displaced elsewhere.

Cllr Ms S Mackay, representing Condover Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council's scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The proposal would be contrary to SAMDev and Ryton had countryside status;

·         It would be necessary to travel by car to access all services – so proposal would not be sustainable;

·         She expressed concerns with regard to the disposal of both foul and sewage water.  An unsatisfactory drainage plan had been submitted;

·         Water had suddenly started flowing in a ditch that remained dry most of the year;

·         There was no agreement in place to utilise parking at the local village hall during events and functions held at the public house;

·         Roadside parking would not be an option in Ryton; and

·         If planning permission granted the public house would close.

Mr J Owen, the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council's scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         There was a need for small affordable and open market houses not only in Ryton but countrywide;

·         The proposal would be sustainable and would address the housing imbalance in village;

·         It would not affect the viability of the public house;

·         The provision of parking would be more than adequate;

·         There was an agreement in place for any overspill parking that would be required during events and functions;

·         He had submitted a comprehensive drainage scheme, which had been approved by Drainage Officers; and

·         Watercourses had been filled in by local people.

In response to questions and comments from both speakers and Members, the Senior Drainage Engineer provided clarification on drainage and disposal of both surface water and foul water.  The Area Planning and Building Control Manager drew Members’ attention to paragraphs 6.6.5 and 6.6.6 of the report which indicated that the parking arrangements would be adequate and the proposal would ensure the protection and retention of an existing community facility. 

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments and concerns of all the speakers and expressed their own concerns with regard to the drainage.  Members acknowledged the need for affordable housing in rural areas but questioned the sustainability of the proposal and held differing views with regard to the design and the appropriateness of the development.

RESOLVED:

That this application be deferred in order that further details can be provided detailing how the drainage and disposal of both surface water and foul water drainage will work and be managed to a satisfactory standard.