A local council has been instructed to reimburse a developer after a planning inspector deemed the council’s initial rejection of a housing project as “unreasonable”. The dispute revolves around an application for 15 new homes in Spaldwick, which was initially turned down by the council, resulting in significant appeal costs for the developer.
The planning inspectorate’s ruling follows the council’s initial refusal last year, which was based on concerns about road safety and the risk of flooding. The council had argued that the developer did not provide sufficient information to address these issues. However, the planning inspector found that the council could have requested additional details to resolve these concerns.
The developer, who had initially faced substantial costs in challenging the council’s decision, submitted a second application for the same number of homes on the same site. This application was eventually approved by the council, despite receiving more than 100 objections from local residents. The approval came after the appeal process for the initial refusal had already begun.
In reviewing the appeal, the planning inspector criticised the council’s decision, stating that the reasons for refusal were inadequately justified and that the authority’s conduct was “unreasonable”. The inspector highlighted that the concerns could have been addressed through planning conditions rather than an outright refusal. The lack of effective communication and engagement with the developer contributed to the additional expenses incurred during the appeal process.
The inspector’s report pointed out that the council’s handling of the application did not align with national planning policy, which advocates for a collaborative approach between local authorities and developers to resolve issues and make timely decisions.
Generally, developers are responsible for their own costs when appealing planning decisions unless it is proven that the local authority acted unreasonably. In this instance, the inspector ruled that the council’s actions were unreasonable, leading to the directive for the council to cover the developer’s appeal costs.
In response, a spokesperson for the council reiterated that the original refusal was made with good intentions, based on the concerns outlined in the decision notice. The spokesperson emphasised that the council’s approach to pre-application advice and decision-making adheres to the National Planning Policy Framework, which advocates for minimal reliance on amendments during the planning process. They also noted that the planning inspectorate’s decision to overturn the initial refusal and approve the revised application was made independently.
This case highlights the critical importance of clear communication and cooperative engagement between planning authorities and developers. The inspector’s findings suggest that improved procedural practices could help avoid costly disputes and streamline the planning process.
As the council begins the process of reimbursing the developer’s costs, attention will likely focus on how future planning applications are handled and whether reforms might be considered to prevent similar issues. The case underscores ongoing discussions about balancing stringent planning standards with the need for efficient and fair decision-making in the development sector.
