'We don’t want this, we don’t need this' - Objections to plans for 25 homes on edge of North Shropshire town
A councillor has declared plans for 25 new homes on the edge of a north Shropshire town is not 'wanted or needed.'
Shrewsbury-based Fletcher Homes wants to develop land to the south of Almond Drive in Ellesmere, as a “logical” extension to the town.
The firm says Ellemsere is falling well short of the 800 new homes it has been earmarked for.
Planning agent Berrys, also of Shrewsbury, has told Shropshire Council’s planning department that the 3.1 hectares of land is currently rough pasture with some trees and mostly in a zone ‘least likely’ to flood.
The agents said that Shropshire as a whole does not have a five-year housing supply.
This, they added, “triggers” national policies that apply the “tilted balance” in favour of house building.
The agents wrote: “Shropshire Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and, as a consequence, adopted Local Plan policies are out of date and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, is engaged.”
However, 12 objections have so more been lodged via the council’s planning portal (reference 26/00061/FUL) with none in support.
Ellesmere Town Council discussed the application on Monday (March 2).
At the start of the meeting, Mary Thompson, who is 85 and lives in nearby Magnolia Drive, shared her concerns about the disturbance that increased traffic could cause.
“We’re concerned about the strain on things like the surgery and schools, and the sewerage system,” she said.
“But the main concern is the surprise that you would consider putting 25 houses on to land, the south end of which already floods.
“The Newnes Brook backs up, and I believe it goes through a culvert underneath the A495. A local engineer has suggested, if there’s any blockage to the Newnes Brook, it would back up even more.
“I have read there will be soakaways, but they will bound to be draining into the ground in that field. So I don’t see who they will not increase the flooding at the south end.”
Councillor Geoff Elner said the town council should object – highlighting concerns about infrastructure, sewage, drainage, and traffic.
“We don’t want this, we don’t need this, it’s not safe and we should object on material planning grounds,” he said.
His proposal was seconded by Councillor Pete Jones, and unanamously approved by all other members.
