Council facing planning costs bill criticises ‘confusing’ rulings
Crematorium and homes rejections overturned on appeal
Facing thousands of pounds in costs after losing two planning appeals, Arun District Council has criticised ‘confusing and conflicting’ decisions made by inspectors.
Its decisions to reject plans for a crematorium in Yapton and seven homes in East Preston were overturned by a planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. His ruling could leave the council out of pocket by £33,000.
At a cabinet meeting last Monday members recommended the planning budget be supplemented up to that amount. The decision will be finalised by full council on Wednesday.
While the inspector’s reports accused the council of demonstrating ‘unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessaryorwastedexpense’, members of the development controlcommitteedidnotagree.
Ricky Bower (Con, East Preston) said when it came to the East Preston application, refused in February, the committee made its decision based on the council’s new policyonparkingstandards.The planning inspector chose not to apply those standards.
Mr Bower added: “Planning inspectors are only human and theydonotalwaysgetitright.We have to react to that by taking it on the chin quite often. I accept that there are costs involved here but that is not a matter that we as a planning authority have any control over whatsoever.”
Martin Lury, cabinet member for planning, said appeals varied based on the inspector who was assigned.
While these two cases were rejected by one inspector, another recently ruled in the council’s favour three times in a row.
Gill Yeates, cabinet member for community wellbeing, described the decisions as ‘confusing and conflicting’.
Meanwhile a decision to refuse four new Pagham homes has been challenged by the developer at appeal.
Arun District Council turned down planning permission for the terraced homes on highway land off Manor Park behind the football ground.
The land is currently controlled by West Sussex
County Council under a road adoption agreement. But the application, on behalf of the freeholder, said if permission were granted it would apply for a stopping up order to extinguish the adopted status.
The developer argued the site, which is grassed along with some trees, ‘is not currently required as highway land’.
The council was bombarded with objections as residents felt the green space should be protected and raised issues such as flooding, parking, as well as the impact on services and infrastructure.
Arun refused permission in May last year, with officers arguing the proposals would result in the loss of pleasant open space and was an overdevelopment.
Their report described concerns that the development would lead to a ‘cramped appearance’.