There is a smell around the Wain Homes development at Mile Bank, Whitchurch.

And no, this is not just another drainage joke, although the file has done its level best to earn one.

This is the former dairy site at Mile Bank, linked to planning references 13/03481/OUT, 18/00552/REM and 25/01781/VAR. It is now surrounded by questions about visibility splays, alleged interference with private land, drainage warnings, sewerage arrangements, planning-portal integrity, Welsh Water correspondence and the response of West Mercia Police.

That is not local grumbling.

That is a planning file with its shoes smoking.

And when a file starts smoking, the correct response is not to pat it gently, send it to the Housing Ombudsman and hope the public gets bored before the paper trail reaches the curtains.

This Is Not Anti-Housebuilding

Let us get the usual insult out of the way early.

This is not anti-development. It is not anti-housing. It is not anti-progress. It is not a case of awkward neighbours refusing to bow before the sacred arrival of executive homes, glossy brochures and the soothing music of reversing construction traffic.

The question is much simpler.

Was the Wain Homes development at Mile Bank handled transparently, safely, lawfully and in the public interest?

That is it.

Were the planning conditions properly dealt with?

Were the visibility splays achievable without relying on land belonging to others?

Was the drainage evidence properly tested?

Was the sewerage infrastructure properly authorised?

Were the planning documents complete and stable?

Were residents, councillors, statutory consultees and potential purchasers given the full picture?

These are not emotional questions. They are the sort of basic public-interest questions that only become difficult when someone does not want to answer them.

Visibility Splays: Road Safety, Not Decorative Shrubbery

One of the central issues is the visibility splay.

For readers who have sensibly avoided becoming amateur planning archaeologists, a visibility splay is the clear line of sight needed at a road access so vehicles can enter and leave safely. It is not a design flourish. It is not landscape theatre. It is road safety.

The evidence raises a sharp question: could the required visibility be achieved within land controlled by the developer, or did it depend on land owned by others?

That matters because if a planning condition required visibility that could only be achieved by affecting third-party land, someone needs to explain exactly how that was lawfully resolved.

Not considered.

Not addressed.

Not noted.

Resolved.

The statement submitted to West Mercia Police makes the point plainly. The issue is not simply whether vegetation was cut. The issue is whether anyone knew the planning condition could not be lawfully achieved on land controlled by the applicant, whether any boundary or visibility position was misrepresented, and whether contractors or agents were caused or encouraged to interfere with third-party property.

That is not a neighbour whingeing about a hedge.

That is potentially a police matter.

Which makes the reported police response so spectacularly unhelpful. Apparently, concerns involving land interference, build, sewage and alleged document forgery should be referred back to the council and the Housing Ombudsman.

The council is part of the concern.

The Housing Ombudsman is not a criminal-investigation body.

This is like reporting a suspected hit-and-run and being advised to contact the Parking Meter Appreciation Society.

Drainage: Where the File Starts to Gurgle

The drainage evidence is where this case stops sounding like a local objection and starts sounding like a warning siren with paperwork attached.

A 2019 warning from D. R. Swain & Son reportedly said the existing horseshoe drain was historic land drainage, not a storm drain, and that development storm water entering that system could damage the drain and flood downstream land.

That should have been a red flag.

Not a pale pink perhaps someone should glance at this after lunch flag.

A red one.

Then comes WSP.

WSP is an engineering and consultancy firm. In this case it appears in connection with drainage and Lead Local Flood Authority matters. The Lead Local Flood Authority, usually shortened to LLFA, is the body responsible for certain local flood-risk management functions. Because naturally, even water now needs a committee structure before being allowed to run downhill.

WSP reportedly asserted in November 2019 that the downstream piped system had been repaired to accept flows without obstruction.

That assertion now needs to be dragged into the daylight and made to show its papers.

Where are the inspection records?

Where are the repair records?

Where are the photographs?

Who did the work?

Who inspected it?

Who calculated the capacity?

Who signed it off?

Who relied on it later?

We were satisfied is not evidence. It is a phrase. And a phrase does not become proof because it is wearing a council badge and carrying a clipboard.

NAV, S104 and the Joyless Ballet of Sewerage Acronyms

Now we arrive at sewerage, always the glamorous end of civic accountability.

Two terms matter: NAV and S104.

NAV means New Appointment and Variation. In plain English, it is where Ofwat appoints another company to provide water and/or sewerage services in a defined area instead of the usual regional water company. A NAV company takes on statutory water or sewerage responsibilities for that appointed area.

S104 means a Section 104 sewer adoption agreement under the Water Industry Act 1991. In practical terms, it is the legal agreement dealing with adoption of sewerage infrastructure. Not a nice extra. Not a decorative bow on the pipework. The legal machinery that should be in place before everyone starts pretending the drains will sort themselves out by positive thinking.

According to the evidence, Welsh Water correspondence in early 2026 recorded that foul drainage appeared to be under construction. Wain Homes reportedly replied that it was using a NAV and would not submit a Section 104 application to Welsh Water. Welsh Water then stated that, if the NAV was not in place, Welsh Water remained the statutory undertaker and the adoptable sewerage constructed was unauthorised.

Welsh Water’s Compliance No 104 letter reportedly stated that adoptable sewerage had commenced before an adoption agreement and required the laying of adoptable drainage to cease until the proper agreement was in place.

That is not a clerical sneeze.

That is infrastructure.

If the NAV was in place, prove it.

If Welsh Water’s concerns were resolved, prove how and when.

If purchasers were protected, prove what they were told.

The public may be old-fashioned enough to expect the legality of sewerage to be sorted before homes are built, marketed, connected or occupied. Wild concept, I know. Civilisation does keep asking for the moon.

The Planning Portal: Now You See It, Now You Demand the Logs

Then there is the planning portal.

The evidence alleges that 21 public planning documents disappeared from the planning portal between 9 and 27 October 2025 during a live planning process, including drainage and hedgerow material.

If that allegation is wrong, Shropshire Council can kill it quickly.

Publish the audit trail.

Show the upload history.

Show the removal history.

Show the replacement history.

Show who did what, when, why, and under whose authority.

Planning portals are not decorative websites. They are the public record. They are how residents, councillors, consultees and sometimes purchasers understand what is being proposed, challenged and approved.

If documents can disappear during a live process without a transparent explanation, consultation becomes theatre.

Bad theatre.

The sort where Act One vanishes, Act Two is rewritten, and the audience is told to stop moaning about the performance.

West Mercia Police: The Referral to Nowhere

The police response now deserves its own spotlight, though not necessarily a flattering one.

West Mercia Police were not being asked to decide a planning application. Nobody was asking them to become substitute planning officers. That would be cruel to the police, the planners and any remaining furniture in the room.

They were being asked to consider whether the evidence raised possible criminal or evidential issues requiring preservation, review and proper investigative assessment.

The submitted statement identifies possible investigative areas including criminal damage, possible false representations, possible abuse of position, possible public-record suppression and possible sewerage-related regulatory breaches. It also asks for preservation of planning-portal logs, document histories, internal emails, Teams messages, Welsh Water records, WSP records, Homes England material and developer-related records.

That is not a neighbour complaining about a fence panel.

That is a request for evidence preservation.

If West Mercia Police believes there is no criminal matter, it should explain how that view was reached after reviewing the full evidence.

If the full evidence has not been reviewed, then the public deserves to know why the matter was apparently pushed towards the council and the Housing Ombudsman.

Referral ping-pong is not investigation. It is what happens when public bodies keep passing a problem around until the citizen gives up, dies, or develops a working knowledge of administrative law out of pure rage.

The Names Now in the Frame

This is where we stop hiding behind the phrase the council.

The council did not write the reports.

The council did not handle the conditions.

The council did not manage the drainage file.

The council did not publish, remove or replace planning documents.

The council did not decide whether to look properly at the evidence or wave it towards the wrong complaints body.

That is how accountability disappears: everyone points at the institution, the institution points at the process, the process points at the policy, and by the time the public asks who actually touched the file, the answer has vanished into a spreadsheet called continuous improvement.

No.

There are names now in the frame.

Not guilty names.

Not convicted names.

Not hang them at dawn names, tempting though some bureaucratic performances may make that feel.

They are the names of responsibility, record-holding, oversight and explanation.

At the developer end, the file points towards Wain Homes / Wain Group, Central & Country Developments Limited, and their agents, consultants and contractors. They should be able to answer simple questions. Who controlled the visibility-splay works? Who instructed contractors? Who checked the land boundary? Who dealt with the drainage route? Who handled the NAV/S104 position? Who knew what Welsh Water was saying, and when?

If everything was clean, lawful and properly handled, this should be the easiest exercise in corporate transparency since someone invented the word compliance and charged £900 an hour for it.

At Shropshire Council’s political level, the public-facing responsibility runs straight to Cllr Heather Kidd, Leader of the Council; Cllr David Walker, Portfolio Holder for Planning; Cllr David Vasmer, Cabinet member for Highways and Waste; and Cllr James Owen, whose housing brief becomes relevant if purchaser, occupation, housing standards or housing-impact questions arise.

These councillors are not being accused of personal wrongdoing.

They are being asked to do something far more dangerous in local government.

Lead.

At officer level, the file points towards Tanya Miles, Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service; Tim Collard, Monitoring Officer at the relevant time; and John Bellis, Drainage and Flood Risk Manager, who is recorded as remembering the site, describing the drainage network as complex and difficult to unpick, and saying he would discuss the matter with police if criminal activity was involved.

Good.

Then discuss it.

Because complex and difficult to unpick is not a reason to stop unpicking. It is the reason to start.

The police statement also identifies Mark Perry, John Bellis, Richard Cheal, Mark Wootton, Heather Jones, Charlotte Morrison, Tracy Darke and Brendan Mallon, plus officers involved in planning-portal publication and audit functions, as people whose records may be relevant.

Again, that is not an accusation of guilt.

It is a demand for preservation.

Keep the emails.

Keep the Teams messages.

Keep the notes.

Keep the portal logs.

Keep the file histories.

Keep the metadata.

Keep the things that usually become not held five minutes after the public asks the right question.

Then there is West Mercia Police.

The response reportedly came back as if the issue were a routine planning irritation that could be bounced towards the council and the Housing Ombudsman. That will not do. The force line of responsibility runs to Chief Constable Richard Cooper, while the public accountability line runs to Police and Crime Commissioner John Campion.

If West Mercia Police says this is not a police matter, then let someone senior put their name to that conclusion after reading the full evidence.

Not the summary.

Not the polite complaint.

Not the thin version squeezed into an online reporting box designed by someone who clearly believes serious allegations should fit between lost bicycle and noisy neighbour.

The full evidence.

If the police have reviewed it properly, say so.

If they have not, stop pretending the referral is a decision.

It is not.

It is a punt.

And the public have seen enough punts from public bodies to know when the ball is being kicked into long grass.

Wain Homes and the Wider Pattern

There is also the wider public-confidence issue around Wain Homes.

A Facebook group called Wainhomes Victims has been brought to attention. That does not prove wrongdoing at Mile Bank. It does not prove defects. It does not prove a pattern.

But it may provide intelligence leads.

It may identify people with relevant experience, records, photographs, complaints, snagging reports, drainage concerns, sewerage issues, boundary disputes or developer correspondence.

Social media is not evidence. But it can point to witnesses. Witnesses can point to documents. Documents can point to patterns. And patterns are exactly what official explanations often dislike most.

Anyone with relevant experience of Wain Homes developments should preserve the boring things: emails, photographs, completion packs, sales particulars, snagging lists, warranty correspondence, council replies, drainage complaints, planning screenshots and developer responses.

The dull material is often the dangerous material.

That is why it so often develops legs.

The Questions That Now Need Answers

Shropshire Council should now answer these questions in writing.

Was Condition 3 lawfully discharged, and what document proves it?

Were the visibility splays achievable without using, affecting or relying on third-party land?

What evidence supported the assertion that the downstream piped drainage system had been repaired and could accept flows?

What did the council do with the 2019 Swain drainage warning?

What did the council do with the later warning about site pumps and drainage capacity?

When did the council first know about Welsh Water’s S104 / NAV concerns?

Was a NAV actually in place at the relevant time?

Was any adoptable sewerage constructed before the proper agreement was in place?

Were residents, councillors, purchasers and statutory consultees told the full position?

Who removed, replaced or altered the 21 allegedly missing planning documents?

Where is the portal audit trail?

What did officers tell councillors?

What did officers tell the public?

What did officers tell the police?

And why did this development keep moving while so many warning lights were flashing that the file must have looked like a Christmas tree in a power surge?

Final Thought

Mile Bank now needs names, records and daylight.

Not reassurance.

Not lessons will be learned.

Not another damp little paragraph about taking matters seriously, the official phrase usually deployed just before everyone involved takes them somewhere quiet and forgets them.

If Shropshire Council is confident that everything was lawful, recorded, consulted upon and properly handled, publish the audit trail.

If Wain Homes is confident that the development was properly authorised, properly explained and properly delivered, welcome the scrutiny.

If Welsh Water’s concerns were resolved, show the documents.

If West Mercia Police believes there is no criminal matter, explain who reviewed the evidence, what they reviewed, and why they reached that conclusion.

And if none of them can do that, then the public are entitled to draw the obvious conclusion: this is not a file being responsibly managed. It is a file being survived.

Because Mile Bank is no longer just about one development.

It is about whether planning conditions mean anything.

Whether public records mean anything.

Whether statutory consultees mean anything.

Whether police triage means anything.

Whether councillor oversight means anything.

Whether officer accountability means anything.

And whether ordinary residents are expected to do the work of planners, regulators, auditors and police because the people paid to protect the public appear to find the evidence terribly inconvenient.

At Mile Bank, the question is no longer whether something looks wrong.

The question is who knew, who signed, who checked, who ignored, who removed, who approved, who redirected, and who now has the nerve to stand in daylight with the file open.

We are not asking for miracles.

We are not asking council officers to discover a new continent, councillors to split the atom, or West Mercia Police to solve a locked-room mystery in Latin.

We are asking them to do their jobs properly.

Preserve the records.

Read the evidence.

Ask the obvious questions.

Explain the decisions.

Protect the public.

That is not a revolutionary demand. It is the job description.

At Mile Bank, the smell is no longer coming from the drains. It is coming from the silence.