A PROPERTY developer is fighting a decision to refuse permission to build on a derelict chapel site.

Steggles Property Ltd has cited concerns over the behaviour and judgement of Wrexham Council's planning committee in refusing full planning permission for nine new homes at the former Engedi Chapel site in Brymbo.

Planning permission was granted in October 2017 on the condition that Steggles Property Ltd paid £35,000 towards education in the area.

The developer raised concerns with Wrexham Council that the contribution would render the project unviable.

But a planning committee meeting in February refused an amended application for permission be granted without the contribution.

The committee stated that the lack of a financial contribution would have a detrimental impact on community infrastructure and the capacity of local schools to accommodate the development.

In an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for Wales, the developer said: "The appellant is seriously concerned about the behaviour and judgement made by the planning committee, without reasoned justification or recourse to any evidence of its own to back up its reason for refusal.

The appeal claimed that planning committee had voted against the qualified professional view of its planning officer, surveyor and education department.

Planning control manager David Williams told members at the February meeting that the profit margins for the project were extremely low even before Section 106 contributions were taken into consideration.

He added: “Education are prepared to follow our advice and waive the fee on this occasion.

It the request was not accepted, there was a significant danger the site would "sit there and deteriorate", Mr Jones added.

But, while stating that the site had become an eyesore, Brymbo councillor Paul Rogers called on committee members to refuse the application.

“I can’t accept the developer getting away without paying Section 106 contributions – it would be a step too far.

“It concerns me we could end up in a situation where the education department cherry picks which d

developers have to contribute.”

The site has been vacant since the chapel closed in 2003, has fallen into disrepair and its unsafe, the developer said in its appeal.

It added that the development would yield a profit of £61,651.24 before tax, resulting in a seven per cent potential return - well below the 20 per cent of Gross Development Value that a developer would expect.

The educational contribution would take the return to three per cent, the developer added.

The company said that the absence of a financial contribution towards any shortfall in education provision would not have a detrimental impact upon existing community infrastructure or the capacity of local schools.

It added: "There seems to be little awareness and understanding of viability testing shown by the planning committee and, in this case, it appears like a very politically focussed decision has been made with little tolerance or fairness afforded to the appellant, who has borne significant costs and delays as a result on as scheme that is clearly marginally viable, but yet which would deliver sustainable development."