Appeal over plans for 15 new homes in Penley upheld after potentially ‘misleading’ comments made at meeting

An appeal over the refusal of proposals to create 15 new homes in a Wrexham village has been upheld.

It comes after an inspector said comments made during a planning meeting were “potentially misleading”.

An application by Primesave Properties to build on greenfield land at the back of Brookfield Close in Penley were rejected in January.

It followed concerns being raised about the level of development in the village near the Shropshire border, where more than 100 houses have been built recently.

However, the company later lodged an appeal after questioning the fairness of the decision by Wrexham Council’s planning committee due to comments made about alternative housing sites in the area.

An inspector appointed by the Welsh Government has now decided to overturn the refusal by councillors, as well as awarding costs against the local authority.

In a report, Kay Sheffield said: “Although neither the reason for refusal nor the council’s statement of case relies on the availability of alternative sites, the council has confirmed that possible alternative sites were discussed at the meeting.

“Whilst it would be expected in a case of this type that possible alternative sites which might be available for development within the settlement would be discussed, in doing so it is important that the information imparted should be accurate.

“It would appear that some details given to the meeting were vague and therefore were potentially misleading.”

She added: “I do not consider that the council has satisfactorily demonstrated that it had reasonable planning grounds for taking a decision contrary to the advice of its professional advisors or that it has produced relevant evidence sufficient to justify its decision.

“I therefore conclude that the council has acted unreasonably having regard to the advice contained in the annex and an award of costs is justified.”

The scheme, which the developers said would cater for people looking to buy their first home, had received the backing of the council’s chief planning officer.

However, local councillor John McCusker told January’s meeting he supported the view that the village had already been extensively developed.

He said: “Penley has been so over built over the years you would not believe it.

“I have never seen so many objections from the community council since I’ve been on the planning committee.

“Besides that, they’ve had 35 houses passed in the not too distant future and a lot of those haven’t even had a brick laid yet.”

The committee backed a motion to refuse the plans by 14 votes to two because of the site being located outside of the current development boundary for Penley.

In a statement outlining the grounds for appeal, consultants acting for the developers said they had been left “very unhappy” with the way comments were made by councillors.

They said: “Whilst the appellant understands and respects the councillors’ rights to comment on the application, it does appear that there were concerted efforts by at least two councillors to unfairly discredit the application.

“At the beginning of the debate, one councillor refers to the village having ‘only three buses a day, when it has a total of eight.

“The same councillor lists the services and facilities in the village, but then concludes by saying that the village ‘has no services at all.’”

In her report, Ms Sheffield said no substantive evidence had been submitted by the council to support its claims regarding the effect of the development on local services.

The firm has now been invited to submit an application for costs after she reversed the authority’s decision.

By Liam Randall – BBC Local Democracy Reporter