Outcome of wrangle over 10cm of land near Nottingham Road, Southwell, costs Newark and Sherwood District Council taxpayer £60,000
The outcome of a wrangle over 10cm of land was a bill to the taxpayer just shy of £60,000, earning a rebuke to members from a council planning manager.
A planning application by Springfield Eco Ltd for 38 homes and conversion of an existing property to 12 supported-living units on Nottingham Road, Southwell, and an access road, was approved by Newark and Sherwood District Council in 2017.
That’s when a land ownership dispute complicated things.
An amendment to the approved access junction to Springfield Bungalow on Nottingham Road was submitted to the council and recommended for approval by the authority’s professional planning officers.
But the planning committee refused the application over concerns about the minimum visibility splay, which is the distance a driver needs to be able to see to the left and right at the junction with Halloughton Road.
The amendment offered visibility of 2.3m by 43m, instead of 2.4m by 43m, because of the land ownership dispute at the frontage of the site.
The council had said in its reasons for refusal: “In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority given the location and design of the access constructed at the junction with Halloughton Road, together with the quantum of residential development it would serve, any relaxation in road standards would be both detrimental and unacceptable from a highway safety perspective.
“The proposed variation of conditions would result in a departure from both Nottinghamshire County Council reported highway standards and from a previously approved scheme in terms of both kerb radii and visibility splays. Such a compromise in standards is considered unacceptable.
“There are no other material planning considerations that would be considered to outweigh this identified harm. The proposal therefore amounts to a detrimental impact on the highways safety of the area.”
The applicant took that decision to appeal and a government planning inspector upheld the appeal, saying the council had acted unreasonably, and therefore ordered the full costs of the appeal against the council.
A planning inspector ruled the lesser visibility of 2.3m by 43m was acceptable, as long as vegetation on adjoining land is kept cut back.
In reporting the costs incurred to last week’s planning committee, Lisa Hughes, business manager — planning, reminded members the decision to refuse was against the recommendation of officers.
“If when looking to overturn any recommendation, if I argue vociferously against it is because I am concerned about the financial impact to the council,” she said.
Committee chairman Roger Blaney said that while the council had gone against the recommendations of officers that night, he did not think a situation such as Springfield Bungalow would result from those decisions.
He said that he understood members would be receiving further training on the reasonableness of refusals.
Generally the parties involved in a planning appeal are expected to cover their own expenses in proceeding with or defending an appeal.
When a party (which could be the council, appellant or consultee) has behaved unreasonably, and this has caused another party to incur unnecessary or waste expense in an appeal, they may be subject to an award of costs, which in this case was £59,751.90.
While the council holds insurance that covers ‘compensatory damages’ and ‘wrongful acts’ the decision by the committee did not fall within their scope or any other part of the insurance held.
The costs therefore have to come from the council’s reserves.