CONCERNS have been raised over a decision not to send anyone to represent councillors at a planning appeal over a controversial new estate on the edge of Worcester.

Councillors originally went against the advice of planning officers and refused permission for 187 homes to be built at Earls Court Farm, off Bromyard Road, St John's after hearing that only 30 per cent of the homes would be affordable.

After an appeal was lodged the decision was taken not to send an officer. However, the appeal was later withdrawn. Since then, a new application has been approved in which developer Hallam Land Management has agreed to a 40 per cent level in return for the number of homes being increased from 187 to 214.

At a planning meeting, Councillor Paul Denham said: "If officers will not then represent us at an appeal, which means we will inevitably lose and costs, what is the point of such items coming to the committee at all? If the only permissible outcome is to vote in favour of the officer's recommendation then it seems to me we are wasting our time discussing it in the first place."

However, planning committee chairman Councillor Robert Rowden said: "Having expressed a view, I can understand the officers saying we can't go and support another view. He said an alternative was for councillors to go to appeals.

Legal and democratic services manager Doreen Porter said, in the past, when there was a disagreement between members and officers, the preferred course of action was to bring in consultants.

She said: "Otherwise, at an enquiry it's far too easy for the solicitor representing the developer to say, this is your view isn't it? You disagree with the committee don't you?

Ms Porter said that, in this case, the council could not get a consultant who felt they could support the committee's view but she did not think it was desirable for members to give evidence at an inquiry.