1,500 homes planned for Shrewsbury
Monday 19th July 2010, 10:30AM BST.
More than 1,500 homes could be built in two areas of Shrewsbury alongside major plans to create two new business and employment districts in the town.
An area next to Shrewsbury Town FC’s Greenhous Meadow has been earmarked as a designated strategic employment site, with 22 hectares of land already reserved under Shropshire Council’s Core Strategy.
About 900 new homes could also be built either side of Oteley Road, near to the stadium, as well as a four hectare extension of Shrewsbury Business Park off Thieves Lane.
A report to this week’s meeting of the council’s cabinet also outlines proposals for 700 homes to the north of Welshpool Road, further along the town’s bypass, along with 12 hectares of additional employment land.
Dave Wallace, team leader for communities and housing policy at Shropshire Council, said the figures related to development that would take place over the next 26 years.
He said: “At this stage in the process it’s not so much developers so much as the promoters of land who are acting on behalf of the landowners in putting forward these sites.
“Every bit of land on the bypass of Shrewsbury has been promoted by landowners and it is basically a case of take your pick assessing things like transport infrastructure, landscape character, accessibility to services and the relationship to the existing built-up area.
“Also, because we are looking at employment land we have had to take into consideration the balance of employment sites.
“A lot is in the north of the town and the advice from our consultants is that it would be advantageous to have employment land in the south as well because of its good links to the A5.”
Mr Wallace said members of the council’s cabinet and full council would consider the Core Strategy final plan this week to decide whether to submit it for examination to the West Midlands Regional Spacial Strategy with hopes it could be adopted by Spring.
By Russell Roberts
UK News
Most Commented
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Shrewsbury’s broadband speed one of slowest in UK
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
Was the area around the football ground supposed to be marked greenfield not for development in the county plan?
Report abuse
Andy,
Land can not be retained as ‘Greenfield’ for ever more, as towns will always need to expand and this is the purpose of reviewing the “plan” every few years.
Towns have to grow and this land is not protected by any other statutory designation (that I’m aware of) and it links well with existing commercial and residential facilities.
Hopefully the growth/revitalisation of this area will also help the golf course which seems to be going downhill!
Report abuse
SO BUILD ON THE BROWN SITES AROUND THE TOWN THAT STAND EMPTY AND DO SOMETHING WOTH THE FLAX MILL IN TERMS OF HOUSIONG, THIS SUCKING UP OF GREEN FIELDS CANNOT GO ON
Report abuse
Why do towns ‘have to grow’ ??
When will they stop growing – when they’ve all joined up into one massive suburb ?
STOP – think – fight back. Don’t accept this is ‘inevitable’
Report abuse
Nope.
Report abuse
Why do towns always need to expand ? Can they not be successful without constant growth ? Surely we have to stop sometime – otherwise the whole thing is an unsustainable ‘Ponzi Scheme’ (just like the UK population)
Report abuse
Of course towns wouldn’t need to expand if we had both a stable/shrinking population and a stable/shrinking economy. But we don’t.
Report abuse
The population of the UK is shrinking if you look at the figures its just that we have enough migrants coming in to fill the gap.
Report abuse
No, Matthew, if you looked at the national statistics (rather than the headlines of the Daily Fail) then you’d see that the British population is increasing through natural increase (more births than deaths) as well as net immigration.
Report abuse
Brilliant news as long as they are quality and contain small numbers of affordable homes.We also need small developments in our villages and ignore the nimby arguments they are required build them.
Report abuse
The history of urban sprawl is a history of ‘small’ developments – every inch given up can never be taken back.
Travel down south some time and see how ‘development’ has ruined whole areas. You get previously attractive towns and villages surrounded by vast soulless red brick housing estates. If you love England and the countryside you’ll leave in tears.
Report abuse
The problem with affordable homes are the creatures that inhabit them. Check out Luton, M.K. and Telford. Go and live there if that’s what you aspire to.
Report abuse
Mike clearly you are unaware what an affordable home is , educate yourself .
Report abuse
number is too high = too much i.m.o.
Report abuse
thiers always one … winge winge winge
Report abuse
Not to sound condescending but how do you know it’s too much? Have you conducted any local need surveys? because I’m pretty sure the Council have.
Report abuse
I said this would happen way back when the new stadium location was being decided on.
Back then there was strong arguments for building the stadium near the sports village in sundorne with better road links. Instead they built the stadium on greenfield land just so they can open up prime land for development. This is disgusting.
Report abuse
Are you a nimby local then??
Report abuse
No, I’m not opposed to development when its required. The location of the stadium was purely to open up the building opportunity for that area so the likes of Alaska developments and their ilk can sneak in via the back door.
Why ruin our countryside for housing that isn’t requied – supply is out stripping demand in this country. Shrewsbury business park and battlefield for that matter are littered with offices and warehouses that they can’t get rented! What is the point?
I think its terrible that the municipal golf course is also earmarked for potential development.
Try commenting something useful rather than using your Daily Mail buzzwords like ‘NIMBY’
Report abuse
its too high a figure, shrewsbury is being over developed, ruined by too much growth, it is or was a pretty medieval quiet rural town and now its too much concrete
plant more trees and get people to live more in shared houses and couples instead
Report abuse
Spot on. But as long as there are big profits to be made from putting housing in ‘good’ areas and on greenfield sites the pressure will always be there. The developers present themselves as some sort of force for social good providing ‘affordable homes’ (ha ha) but they’ll be ramming as many houses as possible in, and selling them at the maximum price atainable – often to ‘incomers’ who’ll then add traffic to the roads commuting back out of town again every day.
Report abuse
Yes it was a medieval town… in the medieval period! As for it being rural – it’s a town of 70,000 people. Not Rural!!
Report abuse
i agree with the concept of rebalancing employment land to the south also, the problem (mistakes of past SABC planners) in my opinion is to stick all the jobs in the north and all the houses in the south and then complain about the commuting traffic and suggest we need to bypass shrewsbury through the tranquil fields of Berwick and coton hill
its been done so badly its created problems and i think shrewsbury expanding to be a city is inevitable and the main plus is that atleast it can get out of shropshire council and become self governing again like for the past 1000 years
Report abuse
v good point
Report abuse
If they were buildings with character that added something to the town and there was a firm promise that these developments were the last to infringe on the greenfield land, then it may be acceptable. However, they are almost sure to be bland generic estates and they will continue to cut away at the beautiful Shropshire countryside over the coming decades until the whole county is conecreted over.
Report abuse
i do not think you need to worry to much up there unless the funding is coming from business. down here in devon a new town of cranford nr exeter has been put on indefinite hold by devon county council because the coalition government do not have the funds to develop the site. 3000 homes were to have been built.
i would have thought oteley road was a natural boundary to the town, and is the wrong area for infilling
Report abuse
not good
Report abuse
This will keep the benefit scroungers happy then with some new housing for them, we may as well start taking in people from that camp outside Calais too….
No jobs for them but plenty of benefits and council housing, sheltered byt the government while the good hard working honest tax payers pay for your xmas and living.
What a waste of land!
Report abuse
Darren we have no council houses in shrewsbury??. Plus the majority of the houses to be built will be much needed and private with a small amount signed over to to houseing association for part/rent buy, and full rental plus anyone can apply from local area . Darren stop reading tabloids such as the mail it is not good . Benefits for the non genuine are over so behave and get real .
Report abuse
You really don’t get it then, we do not need more houses that no one can afford, there is double dip recession on the way because nick clegg gave in to the tories. This town is ruined no wonder businesses are leaving or closing down and people are re-locating. The council needs to get a grip and fast.
Report abuse
1,500 homes is not that many really, thats probably a minimum at so called urban extensions. It might not count all the other developments that might come forward. I’d guess that virtually all the land inside the bypass will eventually get built on.
Report abuse
Sara or Nimbys as they are known will be have coronary’s at this news. They fought for years to stop the developments of the football club, now 900 homes on their patch.. Hilarious…
Report abuse
Not as hilarious as watching the shrewsbury town fines having to hike to the ground in the rain! What a shame they can’t park, never mind, there aren’t that many fans anyway – never come close to filling the Otley road white elephant – 10,000 seats, talk about wishful thinking. Hope they enjoy ANOTHER season in league 2!
Report abuse
The club has grown considerable in recent years, going up a few leagues is highely likely over the next few years as is filling the stadium every week. White elephant you say, you must be a bitter Telford fan or a bitter memeber of SARA. Building these houses will make the area far more accessable for public transport maybe even a small railway station built to serve to new 900 homes, the retail park, the football stadium as well as the communities of Bayston Hill and Meole Brace.
Report abuse
Pull the other one, apparently shrewsbury have been ‘favourites’ for promotion the last few years and then limped to the end of the season mid table. Teams don’t take turns for promotion you know, you actually have to win some games!
Train for the retail park – yeah I can imagine a lot of people catching the train to do the weekly shop!
Report abuse
this is rediculously high number of houses when so many brownfield sits stand idel
Report abuse
The population – indigenous, transient and immigrant is expanding – and that is a fact. Towns like Shrewsbury have always needed to expand. At the same rate that expansion and development is required there will be an equal and opposite complaining reaction. How selfish of some who are currently housed to want to deny homes to those in need. Such homes will mainly go to the sons and daughters of current townsfolk. Presumably the NIMBYs object to that too.
Report abuse
to be fair with the golf course and the park on the sutton mere there is still alot of greenspace in this area so it should be Ok, traffic will be a problem though i think so more sustainable transport will be needed, what about a bike lane down wenlock road and a request train stop at Meole by the footie ground as compensation for the development ?
there should also be some improvements to access to the footpath around Bayston Hill Quarry and more work for wildlife there, this will mitigate the development then
Report abuse
Ere, we don’t like outsiders round these parts..
Report abuse
Another 1,500 homes is ok as an idea but it depends what those homes are. If they’re yet more ‘luxury appartments’ that are so expensive the average or even higher earners in Shrewsbury can’t even afford then it’s a ridiculous idea.
There’s so many of these luxury appartments that litter Shrewsbury – the old hospital at St Mary’s, the old TSB site, the back of the old cinema, down greyfriars, the old radbrook hall, copthorne road, opposite the station, benbow quay, elesmere road, belgravia court, underdale road, the old brewery in longden coleham, the development over the railway line in elesmere road, battlefield etc. The list gos on and on.
As a long time Shrewsbury resident who earn’s over £25k and been looking to buy for sometime I simply a. don’t want to live in an apartment, I want a house, and b. I can’t afford the £150,000 minimum that these places go for, or the 50% shared ownership option, with a £200+ a month rent on top of the mortgage. THIS IS NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING!!
Report abuse
May I ask where do you expect the children of village people to go and live then?, small developments do NO harm lets be honest look at the stand alone houses being built in the country by small developers and farmers in your words “soulless red brick housing” you can’t just say that is a village and how it should look forever . Final question where do you house people then ? do you only let the wealthy&old live in villages? and the young etc live in towns and cities?
Report abuse
What we want is well designed houses not more of the same fake period rubbish put up pretty well everywhere in the country today and we want properly designed layouts.
The millenium village in Ketley is a good example. We want that sort of quality so the houses are nice to look at, live in and for children to grow up in.
Report abuse
i quite like some old style ones though those tudor looking ones are betterthan just plain brick
Report abuse
If 900 homes are to built by the football ground then a new railway station to serve those homes, the retail park, the football ground along with bayston hill and meole estate will be needed.
Report abuse
agreed! i could be linked to park and ride, why not park and rail ????
Report abuse
“If 900 homes are to built by the football ground then a new railway station to serve those homes, the retail park, the football ground along with bayston hill and meole estate will be needed”.
Why? What makes this area uniquely different and requiring of a railway link when compared to other parts of the town?
Report abuse
1500 new homes, is that all?
Report abuse
owch! that will hit house prices and ruin the look of the area, more cheap council houses no doubt, still better here than in my back yard though
Report abuse
Snob! and what is wrong with social housing if it is built in keeping with other housing? There is a demand for them but no supply at the moment, so bring on the building of new homes for the younger generations…..
Report abuse
I totally agree!!
Report abuse
this will ruin the town
Report abuse
How?
Report abuse
Should such development occur it must be done entirely at the cost of the Developers and that means not just the housing cost but the full infrastructure costs and continued roading and landscaping costs. It is so easy for the shortcoming costs of developers to end up on the ratepayers of the whole community.
The next question or maybe the first question is with such a large quantity of houses to be built, how many building companies will be involved and how many of these are going to go into liquidation to get out of their poor building woes and to come back again under a new name still with their ill gotten gains, leaving the householder holding a house that no one wants to buy and a council that is too discredited to own up to not having done their building surveys correctly because it is going to cost the ratepayers telephone numbers to put right and also some councillors and staff to lose their jobs? I know, it happens!
Report abuse
Instead of negative comments how about putting forward possible solutions, if a planning process takes place? People don’t want excuses before it has even began, they want solutions to all perceived issues learnt from previous developments.
Report abuse
That is so right Observer.
I have seen our councillors scoff at the Homezone policy at planning meetings.
To make homes fit for the future we need the housing standard brought back that Mrs Thatcher got rid of in the early 1980s.
Since then houses have got a lot smaller, lower ceiling heights and bathrooms with no windows for example.
People want pseudo period style dwellings but in reality get poor imitations of the quality materials easily available over a century ago.
Irrespective of the house styles however which can be by and large a matter of taste there are criteria that must be met.
These are that cars do not take precedence and streets belong to people again. Communal areas are created not only for waste and recycling but landscaped areas for recreation which helps bring people together.
Allotments, play areas and traffic speed restrictions all help to provide a community rather than bland estates.
Good public transport and a good quality of life will surely enhance Shrewsbury Town itself which will benefit form expansion if itaceive the quality these sites should be able to offer.
Report abuse
Darren going on your first statement a rather silly sweeping one at that .
We need affordable housing end of argument on that one .No council houses in Shrewsbury or surrounding villages.A little about people who live in associations homes a surprise for you many do work and very hard I am sure.
They pay a rent 3 beds around $420 a month yes a little lower than private rental that is why it is an affordable home.
They pay the same amount in water rates as you or I . Their council tax is exactly the same amount as you or I or as anyone who lives in a private property no cheaper.
We need affordable homes made available to teachers and all essential workers in Shropshire as it is now offered down in London as these people cant even afford to buy homes any more.
I would also add many of these homes will still sell even in the hard times some still have money .
Darren you need to get over yourself business is in fact coming to Shrewsbury more than Shrewsbury is looseing it . Your double dip is not going to happen , benefits claiment abusers will be dealt with so darren get a grip mate.
Report abuse
Trouble with affordable homes is that if they are affordable to locals they are MORE affordable to incomers from urban areas (particularly the South East where the average grotty 3 bedroom box goes for about £300k)
Even if you specify 20% og new build must go to locals the remaining 80% will be incomers – who will have kids who’ll then want to live locally …and so the problem continues.
Report abuse
To be honest if Shrewsbury expects to be the location of the main hospital when/if Telford PRH is shut/reduced then it is only fair that Shrewsbury increases in size to take the pressure of Telford.
I would advocate building 25000 new house’s in Shrewsbury plenty of room on the fields outside the ring road.
Report abuse
i support the expanded business park for jobs but think there is too much brownfield land still in telford and shrewsbury which must be used first before green fields get lost
Report abuse
this will be good for business, in the pub trade we are really struggling so i know others small and medium enterprises in shrewsbury will agree with me than more land for development will help create jobs and sustain local retail and hospitality businesses too
Report abuse
A previous poster asserted out that the UK population is rising due to natural birthrates and not immigration.
This is not the case.
The UK population is increasing due to immigration and also due to the high birth rates of the immigrants already here.
The population would fall to a sustainable level were it not for immigration and the current levels of building on greenfield sites is an unfortunate by-product of the UK’s failed immigration policy.
It’s time to shut the door – Britain is full.
Report abuse
i agree with you mate
Report abuse
Immigration is not a problem in shrewsbury take a look at people looking for affordable homes in shrrewsbury and atcham area not many immigrants there.
Report abuse
I would expect little else from a BNP activist and erstwhile failed candidate. Isn’t it strange how often the greatest fear of immigration comes from those areas least affected by it such as Shropshire. The population is expanding for many wholly home grown reasons too. Simple maths would suggest that if a family has two childern and they in turn have two children etc then eventually the population will increase. But rather than accept that simple truth the purveyors of racial hate blame any scapegoat that takes their convenient fancy. I wonder what solutions they would offer. Forced sterilisation and abortion or a state in which our borders are guarded by the military with the power to kill “undesirables”. It’s a lovely vision of a BNP future isn’t it?
Report abuse
“Simple maths would suggest that if a family has two childern and they in turn have two children etc then eventually the population will increase”
Eh ? That’s not right. That would just maintain a constant population. The parents are simply ‘replacing themselves’ with no inherent growth.
Report abuse
the tories in oppostion promised us they would abandon labours unpopular housing targets, its too many houses being forced on us we dont want them here
Report abuse
“We don’t want them here”. Should you not rephrase thet to “I don’t want them here” for to my knowledge you have not canvassed the majority view of Shrewsbury residents and therefore you merely offer your own opinion.
Report abuse
And you believed them?
Nothing much will change it will just, at our expense, be put to us in a different way. Probably to a greater advantage to a limited sector of us however.
Report abuse
The lies the council have told us all, the new stadium and the land around it was reserved for sport,not housing, the land they vacated after giving up a governence order on it stands empty, the flax mill that could be converted to homes as so many warehouses have been around the country satnds empty, all the brown field sites around Shrewsbury that stand still, what Shrewsbury need is a council thats has the guts to make developers move and keep promisses, as for the old meadow, if building is not started within the next 6 months the governance should be returned and the land returned to the people as it was originbally given to many years ago.
Report abuse
What Shropshire council wants is Paul the Octopus, at least it made decisions
Report abuse
More profit for the developers building on nice greenfield sites.
Report abuse