Controversial Bayston Hill housing scheme back up before committee

Redrow has reduced the number of houses it wants to build from 114 to 108 on land west of Lyth Hill Road in Bayston Hill, near Shrewsbury.

The full planning application also includes open space and infrastructure with access from Lyth Hill Road, while there is a separate outline proposal for up to four serviced, self-built plots.

The previous scheme was initially considered by Shropshire Council’s Northern Planning Committee in August. Members decided to go against the officer’s recommendation for approval, with Councillor Carl Rowley (St Martins) saying there were too many houses in the 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 on procedural matters, saying she had concerns about the council’s ability to defend any potential 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 signalled an intention to appeal on non-determination grounds.

In response, Councillor Rowley said the committee’s decision-making was being taken away from members, 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 and Caroline Dodd, a member of the public, filed complaints to the monitoring officer about how the meeting was handled.

Neither complaint was upheld, though the monitoring officer acknowledged that Redrow’s notice of intention to appeal, based on non-determination, could have been shared with committee members earlier.

Since the meeting, Redrow has submitted several revised drawings, including its parking strategy, highways adoption plan, and how the affordable houses would look. The latest proposal will be considered by the planning committee on Tuesday, December 9.

However, residents who live near the site believe the amendments have not made much difference.

“My understanding of the aim of the deferment was to allow open negotiations with the developer in respect of site density, open space, impact on local services and urbanisation of the village,” said Davina Hamilton.

“I have reviewed the recent updates from Redrow and I struggle to see any meaningful change. I note that there is a 5 per cent reduction in dwellings however it hasn’t been used to generate any open space.

“The small area where tarmac is altered to grasscrete doesn’t really alter anything. The density also doesn’t appear different.

“The development was described as ‘a new development with new access’ however as the proposed layout is rammed up against the existing housing it is very difficult not to compare the existing and proposed plot sizes.”

Planning officer Kelvin Hall said that, since the original committee report was published, the council has received around 235 letters of objection, with only three in support. The objections highlight a wide range of issues, including that the village is being overdeveloped, there is insufficient supporting infrastructure, there will be an impact from additional traffic, and the public transport information is outdated.

Flooding

Objectors also say the layout does not comply with building regulations in relation to the fire appliance access, it is out of keeping with the village’s character, and it lies outside the development boundary. Concerns around flooding, light pollution, and visual impact were also mentioned.

The supporting statements, meanwhile, were from people who are interested in living in the proposed development. None of Shropshire Council’s technical consultees have objected, although some have asked for conditions to be attached and a Section 160 agreement being put in place.

This includes a contribution of £136,800 towards passenger transport to be paid prior to the first home being occupied. Redrow has also ageed to contribute towards highway improvments, including a Vehicle Activated Sign (VAS) on Lyth Hill Road to help reduce speeds.

Mr Hall has therefore recommended that the scheme is approved, subject to the agreements and conditions being met.

“It is acknowledged that residential development of this site is contrary to the adopted development plan,” said Mr Hall.

“[Shropshire’s] draft local plan has now been withdrawn but included the site as a proposed allocation for housing. The current proposal is generally in line with the development guidelines set out in the draft plan.

“The proposal, as amended, would provide 108 dwellings, compared to the 114 originally proposed, against the guideline figure of 100 dwellings which is referred to in the former draft allocation.”

Mr Hall added that, due to Shropshire Council currently being unable to demonstrate a five-year housing supply, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that a “tilted balance” can be applied when considering residential development. This means that permission should be granted, “unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination”.

Mr Hall said: “Officers conclude that the proposed development represents sustainable development and that there are material considerations of sufficient weight to warrant a decision being made which is contrary to the adopted plan.

“The issues raised through the planning process have been addressed through modifications to the design and other improvements and agreement on necessary financial contributions to make the development acceptable.”