Complaints about how controversial 114-home Bayston Hill planning application was handled not upheld

Redrow Homes wants to build 114 homes on land west of Lyth Hill Road in Bayston Hill, with 28 of them classed as affordable. The scheme also includes open space, infrastructure, and access with the developer also seeking outline permission for four serviced, self-build plots.

However, the scheme has been met with opposition, with nearly 500 objections made ahead of a meeting in August.

Issues highlighted include the local GP surgery and dentist being beyond capacity, the primary school being full, Lyth Hill Road being too narrow, surface water flooding overflowing drains, the destruction of habitats, the loss of mature tree and hedgerows, and the negative impact on wildlife.

Residents made their feelings known at a Northern Planning Committee in Shrewsbury on August 19 with a protest held prior to the meeting outside the Guildhall.

The scheme did, however, receive the backing of 20 members of the public, who said it could help meet local housing needs, provide larger family homes and support economic growth.

There were also no objections from Shropshire Council’s technical consultees.

Councillor Carl Rowley (St Martins) proposed that the application be refused due to its density, saying that there are too many houses in that area. His motion was seconded by Councillor Gregory Ebbs (Whitchurch South).

However, before it went to a vote, development services manager Charlotte Morrison advised the committee about procedural matters, saying she had concerns about the council being able to defend an appeal, plus the costs involved. Ms Morrison asked for the decision to be deferred rather than refused, but informed the committee that it likely wouldn’t go back to committee because Redrow had made an intention to appeal on non-determination grounds.

In response, Councillor Rowley said the committee’s decision-making was being taken away from them, even when it seemed everyone was “on the same page”.

However, he eventually agreed to change his proposal for the application to be deferred so that officers can open negotiations with the developer. That was agreed by five of his colleagues, with two voting against and one abstaining.

Following the decision, Bayston Hill Parish Council (BHPC) and Caroline Dodd, a member of the public, filed complaints to the Monitoring Officer about how the meeting was handled.

“We maintain that this application is wholly inappropriate due to material planning matters as listed in our objection and the objections of nearly 500 residents,” said BHPC clerk Julie Hodgkiss.

“Given the deferment, it was implied that the officers would now negotiate with the developer, despite the overwhelming wishes of residents, BHPC, Councillor Trickett and indeed initially the Northern Planning Committee themselves that this be roundly rejected.”

However, the parish council has been informed its complaint has not been upheld and it has no recourse to escalate it.

“The full council will be deciding what their response will be, if any, in due course,” said Ms Hodgkiss.

Ms Dodd confirmed she also filed a complaint.

“The officers saying they were given a notice from Redrow that they would appeal for non-determination was a bit strange because [the vote] was all about determining the application,” she said.

However, even though her complaint has also not been upheld, she has been given the opportunity to escalate it.

A Shropshire Council spokesperson said: “Shropshire Council has responded to two complaints about how the planning application for the Redrow development at Bayston Hill was handled by the Northern Planning Committee.

“One complaint came from Bayston Hill Parish Council, and the other from a member of the public.

“While neither complaint was upheld, the Monitoring Officer did acknowledge that Redrow’s notice of intention to appeal, based on non-determination, could have been shared with committee members earlier.

“He also noted that best practice is to keep committees informed of any major developments while an application is under review, although in planning terms it was not essential information before a decision could be made.

“Both complainants have received formal responses to their concerns. The individual complainant has also been informed they have the option to escalate the matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if they choose to do so.

“Shropshire Council remains committed to transparency and good governance in all planning matters.”