Developer fails to win over locals with controversial housing scheme near Shrewsbury despite reduction in number of planned homes
A developer has failed to win over locals over a controversial housing scheme after making amendments.
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.
The full planning application also includes open space and infrastucture with access from Lyth Hill Road, while there is a separate outline proposal for up to four serviced self-built plots.
The initial scheme was 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 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 and Caroline Dodd, a member of the public, filed complaints to the Monitoring Officer about how the meeting was handled.
Neither complaint was upheld, however the Monitoring Officer acknowledged 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,” said a Shropshire Council spokesperson.
Since the meeting, Redrow has submitted several revised drawings, including its parking strategy, highways adoption plan, and how the affordable houses would look.
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% 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.”
Out of 623 comments that have been lodged since the scheme was validated in March, a huge 597 are in objection.
Councillor Teri Trickett, who represents Bayston Hill, said: “While the developer has reduced the scheme by six homes, the changes do not meaningfully address the concerns previously raised regarding density and lack of public open space.
“The overall layout remains highly congested. The removal of six homes is negligible within the scale of the development and does not improve the sense of overdevelopment or provide sufficient breathing space between dwellings.
“The revised plans still fail to provide usable, central community space.
“The majority of the green areas are pushed to the edges of the site, where they serve as boundary buffers rather than functional open spaces for residents. Small pockets of planting scattered between houses cannot be considered meaningful public open space.
“Without accessible open space, the development will not meet the needs of families, children, or older residents. The design prioritises maximum housing yield over quality of life, contrary to local planning policy objectives that emphasise sustainable and balanced communities.
“The revised plan is virtually identical to the original and does not overcome the reasons for deferral.”
You can find out more about planning applications and planned roadworks where you live by visiting publicnoticeportal.uk
