Housing scheme at former south Shropshire builder’s merchants turned down

Gough Developments Ltd submitted plans to redevelop Oreton Building Supplies off Oreton Road, Oreton.

The site was originally a builder’s merchant, with a warehouse and office building, filling station and store. However, it has been unused since 2022.

The developer’s proposal included five houses and three bungalows.

Thomas Wade, of FORM.architecture, said the existing hardstanding and scrubland would be replaced with new native grass species, while the back gardens would have 1.8 metre-high closed-boarded fences. All new tarmac areas will formed in “permeable tarmac” to minimise the quantity of stormwater run-off into the existing sewer system, added Mr Wade.

Meanwhile, there would be parking provision for all residents, with the existing access route to be widened and resurfaced.

Mr Wade said the scheme would provide many benefits, including a reduction in traffic and noise, a better use of the site with increased biodiversity, a range of accommodation that suits different budgets, and improved access.

However, six of the seven comments submitted by members of the public were in objection.

“The scale of this development goes against the parish plan planning policy (to only support housing developments for local need using suitable single plot exception sites) and is completely out of character to the area,” said Christopher Bargman.

“There are no local amenities without having to use a car and the nearest B- or A-road is over four miles away along narrow minor roads which are increasingly busy.”

Emily Innes, who lives in Oreton, added: “This is clearly overdevelopment of the site; the scale and density of the proposed properties is disproportionate for the village.

“This would harm the visual character of the village. One or two bungalows would be adequate; this could provide level access accommodation for local people who need it, and not have such an impact on privacy for neighbouring properties.”

Planning officers at Shropshire Council refused the application, saying no affordable housing was proposed, and it would not be well designed.

Submitting the decision notice, Tabitha Lythe, planning and development services manager at the council, said the proosal would be an overdevelopment of the site, adding that plots 1, 6, 7 and 8 lack the minimum one-metre separation distance to their curtilages.

She said: “The bungalow plans provided do not reflect the site layout as depicted for plots 6 and 7, whilst the provision of Juliet balconies to the two-storey properties would result in the unacceptable overlooking of adjacent properties’ private garden amenity, particularly in respect of plot 6.”

Ms Lythe added that insufficient information had been provided in respect of the root protection areas of the existing trees on the site’s northern boundary, given the site’s significant potential for contamination from its former use as a builder’s merchant and filling station.