30 holiday lodges on side of Telford valley would be ‘intrusive’ inspector rules

Telford & Wrekin Council had supported the tourism business in putting 12 lodges on the site off Buildwas Road, in Ironbridge, in October last year but it refused a later application for 30.

Telford Four Ltd, based at Halesfield 7, took its case to the Planning Inspectorate but its inspector, Bhupinder Thandi, has now sided with the council to reject the proposal.

The inspector wrote this week: “I have been made aware of the planning history of the site which includes permission, granted by the council, for the change of use of the site for the siting of 12 holiday lodges.

“Whilst this is a consideration I must give weight to in coming to my decision I have assessed the proposed development on its own individual merits.”

The inspector ruled that it is “evident that a development of up to 30 holiday lodges would be a prominent feature in views across the valley and clearly distinguishable to users of the public footpath in localised views”.

“They would be intrusive features within the landscape and would have a detrimental impact on the rural and open character of the site.”

The site straddles the boundary of Telford and Wrekin and Shropshire but the inspector found that no cross-boundary planning application had been submitted to the neighbouring authority.

The site forms part of a grassed clearing which is surrounded on three sides by dense woodland and which gradually rises to the north, with views across the valley.

The inspector said its “undeveloped and green nature positively contributes to the surrounding landscape”.

The ruling also considered access from a road leading off Buildwas Road which is also a public footpath, and serves a handful of residential properties and commercial enterprises.

The inspector, who visited the site in July 2025, found that the road is uneven, narrow in places, with high-sided wooded banks and walls restricting its width. It has “limited opportunity for refuge from vehicles” which would lead to pedestrians being “unduly inconvenienced and endangered”.

Plans would have seen 32 two-way movements over a 15-hour weekday period. This, the inspector wrote, would be “likely to lead to conflict between vehicles travelling along it”.

“This increase in the potential for collisions with oncoming vehicles would result in an unacceptable impact upon highway safety.

“It would also be an uninviting and unsafe environment for pedestrians using the public footpath.“

The inspector also ruled that the “comings and goings” of visitors would lead to “the sound of car doors slamming, vehicle engines, conversations, car lights” being “noticeable”.

“The intermittent and arbitrary nature of the activities would likely result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of existing occupiers in terms of noise and disturbance,” the inspector wrote.

There could also be a “degree of overlooking and loss of privacy” for the occupiers of a bungalow.

The inspector concluded: “I acknowledge that the proposed development would support inward economic investment and would be close to established visitor attractions.

“However, these factors would not outweigh the harm that I have identified.“