THE DECISION over a 47-home development in Rossett has moved one step closer.

In February Wrexham Council’s planning committee refused to grant outline permission for 47 homes on greenfield land off Darland Road and Gamford Lane, Rossett, following which an appeal over the decision was received by the Planning Inspectorate.

The appeal hearing took place on August 2 at the village’s memorial hall and was completed within a day.

Following the hearing, planning inspector Kay Sheffield requested further information from the parties concerned with the deadline set for today.

A planning inspectorate spokesman said the inspector should be announcing the result on about September 28, if not sooner.

Rossett councillor Hugh Jones, Wrexham Council’s lead member for communities and partnerships, public protection and community safety, attended the hearing. He told the Leader: “Overall the inspector gave everyone the opportunity to put forward their point of view.

“At the outset the appellant tried to introduce a modified flood relief scheme which had been presented to the council after the deadline for submissions and had not been submitted to the Welsh Government, notwithstanding the fact that appellant thought it had.

“At the outset I challenged their right to introduce new material that had not been made available to the objectors.

“Following an adjournment the inspector ruled that the information was not admissible. On a number of occasions they tried to refer to it and I challenged their attempt at introduction with the threat of a judicial review.

“A number of residents made representations and overall I was satisfied that it was a fair hearing.

“My opinion was that the evidence for the Wrexham County Borough Council position to refuse stood up well to scrutiny and I felt that on the basis of this evidence the appeal should be dismissed.

“As always with appeals it is difficult to know what weight the inspector will give to the various pieces of evidence before her.”

At the planning committee meeting in February, members voted unanimously to refuse permission on the grounds that the development area lies outside the settlement limit and in the green barrier, and that the development would ‘represent a significant urbanising change to the existing rural setting and would be detrimental to the landscape character’.

The committee agreed the proposed development is “not considered to be satisfactory in terms of design” and “would not provide sufficient measures to secure a satisfactory form of sustainable development”, particularly regarding disposal of surface water.

They also found there was insufficient information to assess the impact the development would have on protected species.