Outline Application for the erection of 2No dwellings (to include access).

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location.

Members had undertaken a site visit that morning and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

Members noted the additional information as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed further comments from the Planning Officer and objection comments from members of the public.

Ms S Mackay, 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:

·         During the SAMDev consultation process Ryton had expressed a wish to be designated as countryside;

·         Facilities and services would have to be accessed by car;

·         This proposal would add to the existing imbalance in Ryton and would offer no community benefit;

·         Would be contrary to NPPF, CS5 and SAMDev, be socially unsustainable and encroach into open countryside;

·         Significant weight could now be afforded to SAMDev and Shropshire Council could now demonstrate a five year land supply; and

·         The proposal failed to satisfy the three dimensions to sustainable development defined within the NPPF, namely the economic, social and environmental roles.

Councillor David Lane, 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:

·         Condover Parish Council was in favour of development but had been targeted by developers;

·         Ryton was designated as countryside, so proposal would be contrary to SAMDev;

·         The two four-bedroomed dwellings would not meet the housing needs of the village and he questioned how they could be considered sustainable; and

·         He drew attention to the recent dismissed appeal for Dorrington.

Mr D Richards, the agent, spoke for 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 in accordance with the NPPF, was in accordance with guidelines and had been assessed by Officers;

·         Would result in a visual enhancement of the site;

·         Landscaping, design etc. would be addressed at the Reserved Matters stage;

·         Highways had raised no objections;

·         Sustainable location;

·         The only objections had been from the adjacent householder and the Parish Council; and

·         Would provide additional housing.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 65 and by virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Full Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillor Tim Barker, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote. During his statement the following points were raised:

·         He reiterated that Shropshire Council could now demonstrate a five years land supply and this would be an “on balance” decision and drew Members’ attention to the three dimensions of sustainability as set out in the NPPF. 

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members held differing views and in acknowledging that Shropshire Council could now demonstrate a five year land supply and this area was designated as open countryside some Members recommended refusal.  In response the Solicitor advised that a refusal on the grounds being proposed might not be defensible if challenged.  Therefore, in accordance with Part 5, Section 17.4 of the Constitution it should only be a “minded to” decision and would be brought back to the next relevant Planning Committee so further advice could be given on the proposed reasons and legal implications.  A motion to defer with minded to refuse was defeated and a motion to approve was then tabled.

RESOLVED:

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

·          A Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the provision of off-site affordable Dwellings; and

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