Council says Stoke Heath homes at the centre of asylum row were never reserved for Shropshire residents

Shropshire Council has clarified the planning restrictions on homes at the centre of a north Shropshire controversy, insisting the rules never required the development to be reserved for local residents.

The authority issued the statement amid concerns over the future of the new-build properties on Dutton Close in Stoke Heath, after a change to the development’s planning permission.

The properties attracted widespread attention earlier this year when it emerged that Serco planned to use 21 of them to accommodate asylum seekers.

But, after local opposition and the Home Secretary's intervention, the plans were scrapped in July.

Earlier this month, Shropshire Council revealed that Enfield Council was eyeing the new-builds for families on its housing waiting list.

Shropshire Council said it had written to the London council to raise “significant concerns” over the idea, arguing the site was “poorly connected” with limited public transport options, local services and community facilities.

Last week, the local planning authority approved an application from the current owner to remove a condition on the original planning permission.

That condition had required three of the 25 homes to be provided as affordable housing - either for sale at a discount or for social or affordable rent.

But the landowner argued that providing them was financially unviable and that housing associations had shown insufficient interest in acquiring them.

In a statement published on Thursday, Shropshire Council said there had been “some misunderstanding” about the restriction, with some thinking the original agreement only allowed for the homes to be rented or sold to local families.

“The Section 106 agreement did not restrict all homes at Dutton Close to sale or rent only to local Shropshire families,” the council said.

It explained that the agreement required three properties to be provided as affordable housing as part of planning policy requirements, while the remaining market homes were available for general sale.

The authority also stressed that affordable housing status did not mean a property could only be occupied by a local resident, explaining that such homes were intended to be allocated to eligible households.

On the decision to remove the affordable housing requirement, the council said a full review of the evidence provided by the developer had demonstrated that the three properties could no longer be delivered as affordable homes under the Section 106 agreement.

It added that the decision was consistent with its approach to similar requests elsewhere.

The council said the approval did not amount to removing a condition that had previously reserved all the properties, or the development as a whole, for Shropshire residents.