The Southern Planning Committee of Shropshire Council is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, 16 December 2025, to discuss a proposed residential development in Albrighton and to note the schedule of appeals and appeal decisions. The meeting will also cover standard agenda items such as apologies for absence, confirmation of the minutes from the previous meeting, public question time and declarations of interest.

Proposed Residential Development in Albrighton

The committee will consider a report regarding an outline application for a mixed-use development on Patshull Road, Albrighton for which Boningale Developments Ltd is the applicant. The application, reference 24/02108/OUT, includes access details, with all other matters reserved, for:

• Up to 800 dwellings of mixed type and tenure
• A care home of up to 80 units
• A secondary school
• A local centre with associated access, infrastructure, landscaping and drainage. The planning officer's recommendation is to refuse the application.

The proposed 48-hectare site is located in eastern Shropshire, spanning an area from the southern point of Albrighton to the A464, and is entirely within the Green Belt.

Reasons for Refusal

The planning officer's report recommends that the committee refuse the application on the grounds of policy and Green Belt considerations.

Policy

The report states that the proposed development site is:

wholly located in Green Belt countryside outside of any settlement development boundary which is not safeguarded or allocated land, and is not regarded as being grey belt.

It goes on to say that the development would be incompatible with the principles of sustainable development and would conflict with several policies of the adopted Shropshire Council Core Strategy and the Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan¹, as well as policies within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)². The report also notes that the adverse impacts of the location would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development.

Green Belt

The report states that the Local Planning Authority has accorded substantial weight to the high level of harm which would result from the loss of this 48 hectare section of the West Midlands Metropolitan Green Belt through the proposed development. The report notes that the proposed development site:

is within a parcel of Green Belt characterised by agriculture, tree lines and cover, and an absence of urbanising influences which make a strong contribution to checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and to assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

The report concludes that the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and does not constitute any of the exceptions identified in the NPPF. The circumstances advanced in the application are not considered to amount to the very special circumstances required to overcome an objection to the high level of harm identified.

Community Representations

The report pack includes a summary of the representations received from statutory consultees and the public.

Consultee Comments

• SC Planning Policy objects to the proposal, stating that it does not conform with the strategy for Albrighton in Core Strategy Policy CS3 and SAMDev Plan Policy S1.1, as the site is outside the established development boundary and within the Green Belt. They also state that no very special circumstances have been identified that would justify departure from planning policy.
• SC Affordable Housing considers the scale and type of development proposed to be inappropriate, harmful to the Green Belt and contrary to national planning policy and adopted Local Plan Policies CS6 and MD6.
• SC Highways does not raise a formal highway objection at this stage, based on the information submitted.
• Staffordshire CC Highways is satisfied that the development trip impact at the two junctions within Staffordshire CC jurisdiction can be suitably mitigated, subject to a condition relating to the completion of off-site highway works.
• SC Drainage recommends a pre-commencement condition relating to the submission of a foul and surface water drainage scheme.
• Severn Trent Water has concerns regarding the impact of the additional flow that the proposed development will generate, but does not object to approval being granted.
• SC Environmental Protection recommends the provision of additional information in relation to noise impact and land contamination.
• SC Waste Management states that it is vital new homes have adequate storage space to contain wastes and that there is regard for the large vehicles utilised for collecting waste.
• SC Learning and Skills states that the proposal has not been factored into any current school place requirements and that if permission were to be granted, 800 houses would generate considerable pupil numbers.
• SC Leisure states that funding for the improvement of current sports facilities serving Albrighton and for new build facilities there should be secured through a Section 106 Agreement³ or CIL⁴.
• SC Green Infrastructure states that Albrighton is below the county average for provision of Public Open Space (POS) per 1000 population and for provision for Children and Teenagers per 1000 population.
• SC Landscape does not consider that the responses/actions tabled in the Landscape and Visual Clarification Note adequately respond to their original concerns.
• SC Trees accepts the findings and recommendation of the Arboricultural Assessment (AA), but considers that the road alignment could be adjusted slightly to avoid the loss of one category 'B' mature English Oak tree.
• SC Ecology states that as the BNG includes off-site gains and the on-site gains are considered to be significant, a S106 will be required to secure the BNG for 30 years including a monitoring fee of £41,227.
• SC Conservation generally concurs with the submitted Heritage Impact Assessment which concludes that the proposed development will result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the Boningale Conservation Area and Grade II Listed Lea Hall and Barn.
• SC Archaeology recommends a pre-commencement condition requiring a programme of archaeological work (WSI).
• Sport England considers that it would be appropriate to secure a financial contribution via a Section 106 Agreement of £1,795,653 for investment in playing pitches.
• Active Travel England recommends approval of the application, subject to the agreement and implementation of planning conditions and/or obligations.
• Shropshire Fire and Rescue states that it is vital a robust Swept Path Analysis is undertaken throughout this development, in order to accurately track the suitability of access for fire appliances.
• Environment Agency comments that there is a monitoring borehole for groundwater levels within the application land for which access was lost in 2015 when it covered with soil, and that they would like to be able to reinstate it and carry out monthly monitoring visits.

Public Comments

The report pack notes that 1157 public representations have been received, including from Albrighton Parish Council, the Local Member, Badger Parish Council, Albrighton Village Action Group (AVAG), Albrighton Development Action Group (ADAG) and several representing solicitors. The majority of the comments are from Albrighton residents raising objections to the proposed development, however, there are twenty-eight support representations received from a wider area between Shifnal and Bridgnorth.

Albrighton Parish Council strongly objects to the proposal, stating that it will have a seriously detrimental impact on the village and its community due to:

• Loss of Green Belt
• Loss of village character
• Strain on infrastructure
• Sustainability issues
• Public opposition

Albrighton Village Action Group (AVAG) and Albrighton Development Action Group (ADAG) have combined to create a stronger resident's organisation to be known as ADAG. ADAG intends to submit additional documentation in support of the conclusions by Shropshire Council that the site is Green Belt, not Grey Belt.

Public objections include concerns about:

• Impact on village character and community
• Environmental and ecological concerns
• Infrastructure and services
• Traffic and road safety
• Flooding and drainage
• Economic impact
• Sustainability and government policy
• Consultation and transparency

Supportive comments note that:

• The housing is urgently required.
• There is not enough affordable homes in the country.
• Albrighton has excellent transport connections.
• The village is sustainable with a train station and links to Telford and Wolverhampton.
• A secondary school would relieve pressure on schools in Shifnal and Codsall and reduce travel distances.
• It would create employment.

Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions

The committee will also review the schedule of appeals and appeal decisions as at 16th December 2025. This includes decisions on appeals against the council's refusal of planning permission for:

• Signage at Katrinas, Cheapside, Shifnal. The appeal was dismissed.
• Glamping cabins to the south of Hamperley.
• A roof extension to the front elevation at 23 Green Acres, Ludlow. The appeal was dismissed.
• A single storey side link extension and conversion of garage to residential at Fox House, Quatford. The appeal was dismissed.
• An extension at Menage View, Craven Arms Road, Aston On Clun.
• A cross subsidy housing scheme comprising of 4 affordable houses, 6 open market dwellings all with garages, construction of new access road and alterations to existing field access at land south of A458 off Oldbury Road, Bridgnorth.
• A proposed car park south of B4380 at Atcham. The appeal was dismissed.

The committee will note the Appeal Schedule and the appeal decisions which are included in the report pack.

Dismissed Appeals

The report pack includes the decision notices for the appeals that were dismissed.

Mr Richard Carless - 25/02296/ADV

The appeal by Mr Richard Carless against the decision of Shropshire Council to refuse express consent for signage at 1a-1b Cheapside, Shifnal was dismissed. The advertisement proposed was described as:

the advertisements displayed will be mainly local businesses in addition to local charities and community groups, schools, the church, and other events. All advertisements used will be purely content from local businesses who are signed up with our business: Visit Shifnal, which promotes and raises awareness for local businesses, community groups, charities.

The main issue was the effect of the proposed advertisement on amenity, including the Shifnal Conservation Area. The inspector, Gary Deane, found that the proposal would cause harm to visual amenity and the character and appearance of the CA would not be preserved.

Mr Ben Brown - 25/01986/FUL

The appeal by Mr Ben Brown against the decision of Shropshire Council to refuse planning permission for a single storey side extension and garage conversion at Fox House, Quatford was dismissed. The main issues were the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of Fox House, and whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Quatford Conservation Area. The inspector, Alexander O'Doherty, found that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of Fox House, and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.

D Sturman - 24/04428/FUL

The appeal by D Sturman against the decision of Shropshire Council to refuse planning permission for a car park south of B4380, Atcham was dismissed. The main issues were whether the proposal would fail to preserve the significance of the nearby designated heritage assets by reason of its impact on their setting, and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape. The inspector, Helen Smith, found that the proposal would fail to preserve the heritage assets by reasons of its impact on their setting, causing less than substantial harm to the significance of each of these designated heritage assets, and would also have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape.