Erection of 68 dwellings to include on-site open space provision. (Report to Follow).  

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. It was explained that the application had been considered at the previous meeting held on 16^th December 2014 at which Members had been minded to refuse the application. Further information had been provided in the relation to concerns that Members had raised and was contained in the Officer’s report which recommended approval of the application.

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:

·         He was speaking on behalf of 100 local residents directly affected by this application;

·         Development should accord with an up to date development plan;

·         The application was a departure from the development plan and contrary to CS5;

·         Too much weight had been given to other considerations;

·         The preferred Wharf development offered employment and other benefits to the town;

·         The site scored positively for flood risk despite regular flooding occurring; and

·         The traffic issues had not been properly addressed.

Councillor Alan Clark, 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:

·         He had been a Councillor for 22 years and had seen many changes and development to the Town;

·         The Town Council had looked at planning for the Town in the long-term;

·         This development would create the type of problems that the Town Council were trying to eradicate such as flooding and traffic issues; and

·         He asked the Committee to support the Town Council’s long-term plans for Ellesmere.

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:

·         A highway network assessment was submitted with the application;

·         SAMDev could only be given limited weight;

·         Ellesmere was a key town for growth in North West Shropshire;

·         This was the first full application for Ellesmere;

·         The application was not excessive or inappropriate and was in a sustainable location; and

·         Development would be able to start on site in Spring this year.

In accordance with Rule 6.1 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in Part 4 of Shropshire Council’s Constitution, Councillor Ann Hartley addressed the Committee as the Local Member, during which a number of points were raised including the following:

·         The proposal was not a minor application and would double the size of the existing development;

·         Development was needed in the right place for planning for the future;

·          SAMDev should be given more weight;

·         The Wharf site was the preferred site for development in Ellesmere; and

·         Planned development should be taken into account.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that there were unresolved objections in relation to SAMDev and it could only be given limited weight until adoption. It was added that the Wharf development was a long-term plan where housing would not be delivered until a later phase, however, this application would be delivered quickly.

During the ensuing debate the majority of Members repeated the concerns expressed at the previous meeting and considered that greater weight should be given to the emerging SAMDev Policies and saved local plan policies.

The Solicitor gave advice to members about the need to give clear and precise reasons in the event they were minded to refuse the application and these reasons should be capable of being evidenced. The Solicitor then outlined the potential implications that could ensue in terms of a substantial costs award being made against the Council where the reasons were not evidenced or lacked clarity.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the following reason:

It was acknowledged that the housing proposed by the development would contribute economically and socially by boosting the housing supply including open market and affordable housing and highway improvements to which weight was given. However it was considered that this was outweighed by the harm identified. The Committee were concerned that the development would result in a unacceptable harm to the open countryside and furthermore weight was given to the fact that the proposed development was not plan led being contrary to both current saved policies of the North Shropshire Local Plan H5 and emerging policies in the Site Allocations and Management of Development         DPD, which classified the site as being within open countryside contrary to Shropshire Core Strategy CS4, CS5 and CS6.