Plans for 100 new homes in Wem will go ahead after developers successfully appealed Shropshire Council's decision to refuse planning permission.

Developer Metacre Ltd wants to build the homes on a site off Lowe Hill Road, but had been refused permission.

Reasons given for the refusal included concerns over the landscape and the impact on local bio-diversity which led to the developers providing evidence which they claimed would deal with these matters.

Now a Government planning inspector has overturned the refusal of permission, meaning the homes will go ahead.

Inspector Martin Chandler said: "The council, as well as other interested parties, have had the opportunity to fully appraise this information and in preparation for the planned hearing, the agreed statement of common ground confirmed the council no longer wanted to rely on the first refusal reason.

"I note that there has been objection to the proposals by third parties as well as Wem Town Council.

"However these parties have also had the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence.

"Accordingly I am satisfied that the additional evidence provided by the appellant should be accepted to aid my assessment of the appeal."

The issues of flooding and increased traffic were raised as reasons to prevent the development from going ahead.

Mr Chandler said: "No objection was raised to this matter by the council and subject to a suitably worded planning condition, I am satisfied that flooding and drainage need not cause harm following development.

"I also note the concerns regarding highway safety and volume of traffic.

"Nevertheless, again, the evidence before me does not present a compelling case that the proposal would give rise to harm in relation to these matters.

"The proposal has been suitably scrutinised by the Highway Authority and no objection has been raised subject to the imposition of certain conditions.

"On the basis of the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree with this approach."

Mr Chandler added he'd seen no evidence which suggested the development would impact negatively on critical services like schools, doctors surgeries and dentists.

He said: "I have no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposal would have an adverse effect.

"They are not matters for which the council have sought contributions or to which concerns have been raised.

"Accordingly, based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to consider that the proposal would cause demonstrable harm in these areas."

These reasons led to Mr Chandler's decision to allow the development to go ahead.