Homebuilder wins planning battle with ‘unreasonable’ council
AUTHORITY WILL HAVE TO PAY COSTS AFTER ‘ANECDOTAL’ OBJECTIONS THAT DELAYED PROJECT ARE OVERRULED
DEVELOPERS have won their planning appeal against Anglesey Council after being “unreasonably” refused permission to build 36 homes.
With the planning inspectorate describing the council’s defence as “anecdotal in nature”, the decision will also result in the authority having to pay the applicant’s costs after submitting outline plans for 32 open-market and four affordable homes at Cae Rhos on Porthdafarch Road, on the outskirts of Holyhead.
In September 2020 the outline plans received principled backing by the county’s planning committee, pending successful negotiations with the developers.
Developers resubmitted the plans following talks over a new one-way road system to accommodate the estate.
But in December councillors went against the advice of authority planning officers and refused the plans in their entirety, citing road safety fears.
The move led to an appeal being lodged with the Planning Inspectorate, resulting in officers overturning the authority’s refusal while also instructing them to pay the costs of the applicants, Mr and Mrs David, Tom and Barbara Nevin and Earnshaw.
Judging that the proposal would not be detrimental to the transport network or highway safety, inspector Declan Beggan noted in his costs award report that Anglesey Council had “failed to produce adequate and reasonable evidence in defence of their case”.
He added: “The refusal reason ran contrary to the submitted technical evidence of not only the applicants, but also significant aspects of the coun- cil’s own appointed external highway consultants, and subsequent advice of the council’s professional officers.
“The council’s appeal statement did not have substance, was chiefly anecdotal in nature, and lacked any significant or meaningful technical evidence to support their case in terms of the alleged harm or challenge the supporting evidence presented by the applicants.” He concluded: “The council’s behaviour in regard to their refusal reason has delayed development which should clearly have been permitted, having regard to it being in accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material considerations such as the submitted technical evidence. “The council’s stance in refusing the proposed development has resulted in the applicants incurring unnecessary and wasted expense addressing the sole reason for refusal.
“I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified.”
The amount has not yet been formulated, with the two parties expected to reach an agreement.
Eight letters of objection had been submitted by members of the public, citing concerns over an increase in construction and operational traffic, specifically along Arthur Street and Mountain View where it is said there are already issues due to the width of the road and visibility available due to parked cars along the street.
But Rhys Davies of Cadnant Planning, who represented the applicants, said that while they were pleased at the decision, it was “regrettable” that so much time had been lost in delivering “much needed” housing.
He added: “The applicant made huge efforts in this case to negotiate with the council with numerous offers to help improve what councillors regarded as an existing road safety issue.
“All of the suggestions put forward were turned down by planning committee members after months of discussion.
“Anecdotal comments by committee members such as ‘these roads were built for the horse and cart’ simply don’t hold water when technical evidence from the applicant and the council’s own external highway consultants and professional officers are all ignored.
“Regrettably in this case, the consequence of the planning committee’s actions means that the development will still go ahead but without any funding towards traffic improvements and with a £55,000 reduction in the agreed contribution towards local schools; plus the council will now have to pay the appellants costs which will run well into five figures for having to pursue the appeal in full.”
Anglesey Council was approached to comment.