THERE will be no appeal to the High Court against the decision of a planning inspector to allow 140 new homes to be built on the outskirts of Ludlow.

Members of the southern planning committee had thrown out the application to build the homes on land adjacent to Foldgate Lane.

The scheme was rejected despite the fact that a quarter of the homes are designated as being for rent or shared ownership.

However, the developer when to appeal and the development was allowed by the planning this inspector.

This upset both Andy Boddington, the Shropshire Councillor for Ludlow North and Vivienne Parry who represents Ludlow south on Shropshire Council.

Vivienne Parry had also hoped that Shropshire Council would seek a judicial review into the decision of the planning inspector.

However, Shropshire Council has decided to take no further action although Ian Kirby, the Planning Services Manager, maintains that the inspector got it wrong.

He set out a number of reasons but said that in the end it had been decided not to mount a legal challenge as there would be risks that could include costs against the Council.

“The Council has decided not to formally challenge this decision even though there are clear flaws with it,” said Ian Kirby.

“Understandably there is a question as to the potential precedent that the Foldgate Lane decision might set for other sites outside the development plan.

“Again this is an issue that this been considered carefully and the Council’s view is that the decision letter cannot be relied on to support similar sites for two reasons.

Firstly there are the clear flaws in the Inspectors reasoning. Secondly since the Foldgate Lane decision the Council has received a number of other appeal decisions for housing sites not compliant with the Councils development plan.

“These more recent decisions are properly made in accordance with planning law and policy and support the Councils development plan and interpretation of its policies.

“Therefore while the Foldgate Lane decision is clearly a disappointing outcome for Ludlow communities and the Council it is not considered that it will set a precedent.”