Inspectors throw out plans for 29 Shropshire homes

The inspectors backed Shropshire Council's decision to object to the plans to create homes in Baschurch and Pipe Gate, near Market Drayton.

The unitary authority ruled that homes north of Stony Yard in Baschurch would cause more harm than good.

It was proposed to build up to 20 affordable properties there.

In March the council ruled that outline proposals for up to 20 affordable homes north of Stony Yard in Baschurch would cause more harm than good to the area.

But applicant WLR Gwilt appealed the decision after claiming the scheme supports local planning policy and the site is currently "underutilised" agricultural land.

The inspector, Gareth Thomas, ruled the proposed development would not be sustainable.

In his report, Mr Thomas said: "The location of the appeal proposal would not provide a suitable location for housing having regard to the principles of sustainable development."

He added: "It is acknowledged that up to 20 new homes in this location would result in moderate economic benefit through the economic activity associated with the development's construction and subsequent occupation.

"Occupiers of the new houses would be likely to support local businesses and services of neighbouring towns and villages."

Meanwhile, outline proposals to create nine new homes to the south of the A51 in Pipe Gate were thrown out by Shropshire Council in January. Planning officers said the site is in a countryside location and outside the settlement of Pipe Gate where new housing is not supported.

But a statement on behalf of the applicant, Dawn Hart, said creating family homes would accommodate families wishing to be part of rural communities, and additional housing would help support local services.

The inspector, G Fort, ruled the proposed development would have a lack of "environmental stability".

In his report, Mr Fort said: "The proposal would have economic benefits, emanating from construction activity, both through direct employment and the supply of materials and related services.

"However, this could be said of any housing development, and would not in itself serve to justify development in this particular location.

"Furthermore, the harmful effects to the area's character would subsist long after the benefits of employment associated with construction had faded away. In the longer term, additional spending in local services arising from nine new households would be beneficial, but again due to the limited scale of the proposal would be of a something of a modest benefit."