PLANNERS have decided not to contest an appeal over controversial plans for 280 homes in a village.

The controversial plans for 280 homes, a primary school and nursery and offices on a 44-acre site south of Thorpe Road, Weeley, were refused by planners in November.

But Tendring Council has decided not to defend the decision after applicants Brian and Eileen Lumber and David Weeley lodged an appeal earlier this year.

Residents claimed the plans, which include a new primary school, 56-place early years nursery, offices and public open space, would “dramatically” change the feel of their village.

A spokesman for Tendring Council said it will not contest the appeal following independent legal advice from a QC, which was given in a behind-closed-doors session of the planning committee.

The committee ruled that the council should withdraw opposition to the appeal due to insufficient evidence to support the refusal.

Will Lodge, Tendring Council’s communications manager, said it had been an unusual step for the planning committee to not meet in public, but the decision was considered in private due to the confidential nature of the legal advice.

“This move was taken for legitimate reasons, to protect the legal advice given to the council which not only impacted upon this case, but has the potential to be relevant for other planning matters in Tendring,” he said.

“Considering the independent legal advice given on the application for Thorpe Road, Weeley, and the realistic prospect of defending the appeal – and the significant cost to the taxpayer of defending a public inquiry against legal advice, which could well then see the developer’s costs awarded against us – the committee made the tough decision to not defend this appeal.”

Ward councillor Jeff Bray said he was “very disappointed” at the situation as residents had preferred an alternative site in the village to be earmarked for development and were waiting for a ruling from the local plan inspector.

“The vast majority of Tendring councillors were against this development as they demonstrated by refusing permission a few months ago,” he said.

“However, it would be foolish for anyone, including the council, to ignore the advice of their own independent legal advisors, particularly since the potential costs incurred would have to be paid by the public purse.

“While its easy to blame the council or even the law, it remains the case that it was the developers who forced the issue.”

“They could easily have waited until the local plan inspector had made a decision, but chose instead to use considerable resources to force the issue legally.”