Shropshire Star

Refused: Plans to demolish former community hall in Telford to build two bungalows dubbed 'cramped and contrived'

Telford & Wrekin Council planners have rejected plans to demolish a former community hall and build two bungalows on the site.

Published

Watch more of our videos on ShotsTV.com
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565

Plans to demolish the former Saint Christophers Hall on Station Road in Admaston near Wellington were submitted in August. 

Agents Seven Design Build on behalf of applicant Richard Edis, proposed that two bungalows, a single garage and a double garage be built on the site. 

The application attracted a mixed response from residents, including an objection submitted by Wrockwardine Parish Council.

While one neighbour, Mr Hunt, argued there was a need for bungalows due to the aging population, the parish council argued the area had been subject "to significant residential development over the last two to three years" which resulted in a "massive increase in traffic".

The former Saint Christophers Hall on Station Road in Admaston. Photo: Google
The former Saint Christophers Hall on Station Road in Admaston. Photo: Google

Their objection continued: "Further major residential development is still ongoing and is likely to continue for the next two years which will add significantly to the number of vehicles passing through. 

"This application for two detached bungalows, each with two bedrooms and a study which in future could be used as a third bedroom would increase the potential number of occupants and vehicles and add further to the increased traffic passing through. 

"There would also be further pressure on the infrastructure, GP surgeries, hospital, dentist and schools."

Rejecting the plans, Telford & Wrekin Council planners said the scale and layout of the proposed dwellings would "result in a cramped and contrived form of development" that would "have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area".

The officers also ruled that the development would result in "significantly detrimental harm" upon the neighbouring home and there had been insufficient evidence provided in terms of the potential impact on trees and highways.