Council liable for planning appeal costs three times
CARMARTHENSHIRE Council has only been liable for planning appeal costs on three occasions.
Most planning decisions are determined in the first instance by council officers.
Larger and more contentious ones tend to be handled by councillors on a planning committee, who are guided by officers but are not bound by their recommendations.
Applicants can appeal decisions, which are either upheld or dismissed by Welsh Governmentappointed planning inspectors, who can also award costs if they judge that the council’s decision was made unreasonably.
In a response to a Freedom of Information request, Carmarthenshire Council said none of its planning decisions were subject to costs in 201718, but two were the following year.
These two related to the former Cartref Tawelan care home site in Carmarthen, where a planning inspector overturned a committee decision and allowed permission for a new Co-op and two other retail units.
The committee had gone against the advice of planning officers, but planning inspector Clive Nield said the council had subsequently failed to provide “reasonable evidence to support its case”.
It resulted in the authority having to pay £4,500 costs. The other decision related to land adjacent to Laugharne Primary School, but the council said it had no record of an application for costs being forwarded by the appellant.
During 2019-20 the council said it faced just one appeal, relating to a drive-through McDonald’s and Costa coffee shop scheme on land by the St Clears roundabout on the A40.
The application by Draycott Investments and Developments was turned down by the planning committee, and then overturned on appeal.
Planning inspector Alwyn Nixon awarded costs, saying the committee’s decision had offered “no planning grounds for departing from the clear professional advice of its officers”.
The council said the final application for costs remained outstanding.
Planning committee chairman councillor Alun
Lenny said: “If I get a feeling from debates that members may go against officers’ recommendations, I will remind members at least once before the vote is taken that I will need firm, material planning reasons for their decision. Once the vote is taken, I will ask for these.
“I will emphasise that if we don’t have firm reasons we could face substantial costs on appeal.”
Mr Lenny added that planning committees fulfilled an important democratic function, with members often aware of strong local feelings about a particular application.
“But they must not be bound by that,” he said.
Mr Lenny said he had spoken at one appeal hearing which the council went on to lose, but where the planning inspector said they were satisfied that the committee’s decision had been taken in a reasonable manner.