Developers win permission for 100 homes on outskirts of Wem after two refusals

Shropshire Council had refused Metacre Ltd's application for the land off Lowe Hill Road in March 2020 because of harm to the landscape and biodiversity, before throwing out a revised application in October last year.

But the developer provided more information during the course of an appeal hearing to overcome the council's objections.

Now planning inspector Martin Chandler has given the scheme the go ahead.

The developers and the council also launched appeals for costs against each other, which the inspector refused.

But Mr Chandler ruled that the council was not unreasonable in digging its heels in, while also ruling that developers were not unreasonable in appealing the original decision.

In his decision letter dated January 28, Mr Chandler said all the interested parties, including Wem Town Council "have had the opportunity to fully appraise this information"

"Accordingly, I am satisfied that the additional evidence provided by the appellant should be accepted to aid my assessment of the appeal, and that in taking this course of action, interested parties have not been compromised," he said.

"The additional information is thorough and has been suitably scrutinised, including by a qualified ecologist on behalf of the council.

"I note the ongoing concerns presented by Wem Town Council, however, no substantive or compelling evidence to challenge the agreed findings of the appellant and council has been provided."

A gas pipe crosses the site and this would mean that there is a no-build zone where nothing can be built on 15 metres on either side.

On highway safety and volume of traffic he said it did "not present a compelling case that the proposal would give rise to harm in relation to these matters.

"The proposal has been suitably scrutinised by the Highway Authority and no objection has been raised subject to the imposition of certain conditions," he added.

He did not have any substantial evidence of an adverse effect on schools, doctors and dentist practices.

On the two appeals for costs he ruled: "I am satisfied that in holding out for the information, the council did not exhibit unreasonable behaviour."

The council considered that the appeal was unnecessary and unreasonable action by the developer.

But the inspector said the developer's costs application "presents a wholly untenable case".