The Southern Planning Committee of Shropshire Council met on 25 November 2025 to discuss several planning applications, including residential developments in Shifnal and Cruckton, and planned improvements to a leisure centre in Bishops Castle. The committee was also scheduled to review a schedule of appeals and appeal decisions.

Proposed Residential Development in Shifnal

A report pack included a proposal for residential development on land north of Watts Drive in Shifnal, where applicant Mr Andrew Timbrell sought permission to build 34 dwellings with associated parking and public open space.

The planning officer's report recommended that planning permission be refused, citing concerns over design, layout, access, parking, pedestrian access, connectivity and noise. The report stated that the proposed housing mix was not compliant with the Shifnal Neighbourhood Plan or with the Shropshire Core Strategy.

The report also noted a holding objection from National Highways, pending further information on local air quality and the impact of acoustic fencing.

Other issues raised in the report included:

• The lack of community facilities on the site.
• Highways safety.
• Biodiversity net gain.
• The impact on existing trees.
• Sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS).
• Noise mitigation methods.

The report stated that Shifnal Town Council had adopted a neutral stance, but raised material considerations, and that a considerable number of public objections to the scheme had been received.

Proposed Residential Development in Cruckton

A report pack included a proposal for residential development on land north of The Old Hare And Hounds in Cruckton, where applicant Mr Andy Rutter sought permission for the erection of 5 open market and 5 affordable dwellings, with garages and a new access road.

The planning officer's report recommended that planning permission be refused. The report stated that the site was not allocated for residential development and that its development would be contrary to the policies of the Core Strategy, the Council's SAMDev Plan, and the policies of the Pontesbury Neighbourhood Plan. The report argued that the site is in the open countryside, is not located within the settlement of Cruckton, nor in an otherwise sustainable location, and that the development would have an urbanising impact that would harm the visual amenity and rural character of the area.

The report also stated that insufficient information had been provided in respect of highways, and that it had not been demonstrated that there was an adequate safe pedestrian route to and from the development such that public transport may be safely accessed.

The report noted that Pontesbury Parish Council supported the application, but that this representation was received after the agreed timescale had expired.

SpArC Bishop Castle Leisure Centre

A report pack included a proposal for works to be carried out at SpArC Bishop Castle Leisure Centre, where Shropshire Council sought permission for:

• The replacement of roof weathering to the swimming pool roof.
• The provision of a new insulated render system to the external walls of the swimming pool.
• The provision of external air source heat pumps.
• The provision of a new electrical sub-station.

The planning officer's report recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions. The report stated that SC Public Protection had no objection to the proposed works, and were satisfied that a hit and miss fencing compound would offer sufficient residual noise mitigation. The report also stated that SC Flood and Water Management and SC Ecology had no objection to the proposed works.

Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions

The committee was scheduled to review a schedule of appeals and appeal decisions for the southern area. The schedule included details of appeals against the council's decisions on planning applications, including the appellant, the proposal, the location, the date of the appeal, the appeal method, the date of the site visit, the date of the appeal decision, whether costs were awarded, and the appeal decision.

The schedule included the following decisions:

• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/W/25/3366740 - 16 Meadow Close Bridgnorth - Appeal Dismissed¹
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/W/25/3363781 - Land north of Station Road, Woofferton - Appeal Dismissed²
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/W/24/3358093 - 29 Sycamore Road, Broseley - Appeal Allowed³
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/W/25/3364715 - Existing manège building, Cosford Grange, Cosford - Appeal Allowed⁴
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/W/24/3354893 - Land Northwest of B4364, Wheathill - Appeal Part allowed Part dismissed
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/D/25/3368938 - Wrekin View Eaton Constantine - Appeal Allowed
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/C/24/3354893 - Land To The South Of Tong Forge, Shifnal - Appeal Allowed
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/FUL/25/01534 - 35 The Caravan Tong Forge - Appeal Allowed
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/D/25/3368504 - 23 Green Acres Ludlow - Appeal Dismissed
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/W/25/3368599 - 34 Dunval Road Bridgnorth - Appeal Dismissed
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/PIP/25/02789 - Land West Of The Chestnuts Cruckton - Appeal Awaiting decision
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/W/25/3367780 - Proposed Temporary Agricultural Workers Dwelling North Of B4364 Wheathill - Appeal Dismissed
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/Q/25/3364874 - Saltmoor Railway Cottage Ashford Carbonell - Appeal Dismissed
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/DSA106/24/03427 - The Grange Berrington - Appeal Dismissed
• Appeal Ref: APP/L3245/DIS106/25/00864 - The Laurels Beamish Lane Albrighton - Appeal Dismissed

The committee was also scheduled to consider cost decisions relating to appeal decisions.