Landowner's barrister calls for local plan process to halt as battle over housing and employment needs continues

The draft local plan for the county is being subjected to a line-by-line examination of policies this week before a second stage will run the rule over individual proposed sites.

A hugely contested issue is whether Shropshire Council has done enough to help neighbouring authorities in the Black Country to help it with its demand for housing.

"The planning process should stop here," said Matthew Reed QC, who was speaking on behalf of landowner Bradford Rural Estates. They have put forward revised proposals for a mixed use, sympathetic development of land, which they say would be one of Britain's first "net-zero settlements," generating 10,000 jobs and 2,900 homes.

Mr Reed said Shropshire Council has "failed to consider appropriately what can be appropriately met."

Ian Culley, representing Wolverhampton Council, told inspector Carole Dillon that authorities in the Black Country welcomed the fact that Shropshire Council has recognised that it needed to make a cross-border contribution. Councils in the Black Country say they are not able to meet their own housing needs.

Mr Culley said a contribution of 1,500 homes being provided to help the Black Country fill a 28,239 hole was not considered to be the "end of the matter."

He said that the eastern part of Shropshire would be best placed to meet such needs.

Laurence Holmes, of L&Q Estates, said the 1,500 figure "did not go far enough."

He said another 2,000 homes would be "entirely achievable"

Representatives of Shropshire Council said the council's target to build 30,800 new homes in the county in the next 16 years had been increased by 4,900 (16 per cent) to get to that figure.

The council decided to go for a "high growth strategy" instead of other calculations which would have given a lower figure.

"Shropshire is not an island and recognises a duty to co-operate," he said.

Hugh Richards, for the council said the numbers used by Shropshire planners are "not a fiddle".

Charles Green, for countryside campaigners CPRE, challenged the council's 30,800 figure as too high. He said: "It's not justified and is unsound. It's adding on things that are not needed."

He added that the plans were also unsound because of the impact on climate change.

Mr Green slammed the council for not listening to the public.

"The public wanted a lower option. They heard what the public said and ignored it," he said.

But council representatives said: "We do not ignore consultation responses. They are one element in our considerations." The council has provided the inspectors with pages of details of how it has consulted with the community.

A representative of Much Wenlock Town Council said: "We cannot agree that Shropshire Local Plan for meeting the needs of the Black Country is justified in respect of all its locations."

Gerald Kells, another CPRE speaker, said: "The fact of the matter is the people who move out of the Black Country to Shifnal, Albrighton, and Much Wenlock would not be people who are struggling to survive in the Black Country. It will be highly skilled people who can afford to move out to these places."

The council was picked up by the inspector for not identifying particular sites for taking Black Country needs. The council says it has a target to provide a certain number of homes, and will be monitoring the numbers that are built in Shifnal, Albrighton, Bridgnorth and Shrewsbury.

"We can monitor what is being built in Bridgnorth and Shifnal," a council representative said.

And Mr Richards said the Black Country councils haven't given an target for their needs.

And he said: "We will continue to co-operate around their plan, when it emerges."

He added that only recently seven sites have been added as potential housing sites in Walsall, which may change the level of 'unmet needs."

Campaigners in Shifnall say that they believe the issue has been 'pre-determined'.

A spokesman for the campaign group said: "Right from the offset Shifnal Matters were of the understanding that these plans would vary very little regardless of any feedback given throughout the consultation process.

"Meaning that residents and community groups that responded have not and would not have been listened to. ”

They say that Shropshire Council's drive to develop Shifnal can be found in the fact that it has been meeting with the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA). The council has what is known as a 'duty to co-operate' with its neighbours.

Tony Jemmett, from Shifnal Matters, said in a statement: "It's no surprise that Shifnal was targeted for huge development of both with the expectation that the unmet need from the West Midlands would also land here too .”

Shifnal Matters was formed in November 2018 to fight Shropshire Council's proposals for the development of Shifnal as they are considered to be disproportional and unnecessary for local growth.

Mr Jemmett said: “The group are horrified that this ‘unmet need’ is being thrust on Shifnal and its residents with no proof that this is needed.

"Shropshire Council need to take a step back with accepting this allocation of housing until the West Midlands have completed their own local plan review."

Shifnal Matters claims that South Staffordshire and Shrewsbury are "viable options" for taking unmet needs, not releasing Green Belt in Shropshire.

Mr Jemmett said: “Regardless of the amount of houses that are required we should not be taking the West Midlands unmet need into Shropshire. Telford was built as the overspill for the West Midlands and is still yet to reach its full capacity and the fact that they are unwilling to accept either the West Midlands or Shifnal’s housing needs just shows that they don't feel that this need is justified."