Planning inspector backs the decision to turn down apartments
A developer has failed in a bid to have planning refusal overturned for two new apartment blocks to be built in Shrewsbury Conservation Area.
The Planning Inspectorate has backed Shropshire Council’s decision to refuse permission for the scheme, behind the former Lord Hill Hotel in Abbey Foregate, saying it would harm the conservation area and impact neighbouring residents.
The decision follows a hearing at Shirehall last month, before government-appointed inspector William Cooper, which saw representatives for the appellant, SY Homes, put forward their case that the development would bring overall benefits.
They said the clearance of the site, including demolition of Wrekin Lodge, a 24-bed accommodation block built in the 1980s, to construct two modern buildings with an extensive landscaping scheme, would “enhance” the setting of the former hotel and wider conservation area.
They also highlighted the provision of housing, with construction of 32 flats including six ‘affordable homes’, as another positive element.
However, council planning and heritage officers did not agree, saying the benefits of the proposals did not outweigh the harm to the Grade II listed hotel and Chaddeslode House, and the conservation area as a whole.
Around 10 neighbours who opposed the development attended the hearing, telling the inspector that the buildings would have an overbearing impact on their homes.
In a decision notice published today, Mr Cooper sides with the council and the residents in concluding that permission should not be granted for the scheme in its current form.
The report says the new apartment blocks would “distract from the historic architecture” of the listed buildings and “would noticeably distract from the conservation area’s historic townscape”.
It adds: “The public benefits are modest in scale and do not outweigh the great weight given to the conservation of the conservation area and the listed buildings.”
Turning to the impact on neighbouring residents, the report says: “Given the combination of height, mass and modernity of block one and its proximity to Chaddeslode House, it is likely that proposed block one would appear overly dominant in various views from several dwellings at Chaddeslode Gardens.”
Mr Cooper concludes that the scheme would “harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants”.
