Thank you for your interest in this story
To continue reading this article, subscribe to the Stray Ferret for as little as £1 a week
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
20
Aug
Council to pay full costs over Knox Lane planning inquiry
North Yorkshire Council will pay developer’s costs over a planning appeal for 53-homes on Knox Lane in Harrogate
Teeside developer Jomast proposed the plans for the street off Bilton, which were rejected by councillors in September last year.
At the time, the council refused the scheme over concerns that it would harm the landscape, local road network and biodiversity.
However, the developer took the decision to the government’s Planning Inspectorate after it said the plans were recommended for approval by council officers on four separate occasions.
A public inquiry into the refusal was held at Harrogate’s Civic Centre in July. But, council officials decided not to contest the appeal after receiving legal advice.
Instead, residents from Knox Conservation Community Group defended the decision.
The Stray Ferret reported on Monday that Mark Sturgess, the planning inspector who oversaw the appeal, had approved the housing scheme.
Now, Mr Sturgess has also awarded full costs for the appeal against North Yorkshire Council.
Jomast applied for costs as part of its appeal application after it said the authority had “demonstrated unreasonable behaviour” during the planning process.
In a decision notice, Mr Sturgess acknowledged that the council had argued that councillors were “not bound to accept the advice of its officers in making planning decisions”.
He also noted that the authority offered no defence at the inquiry and it had cooperated with the developer since it decided not to defend its decision.
However, Mr Sturgess awarded full costs against the council due to the appeal incurring “unnecessary expenditure” on the developer.
He said:
The council have chosen not to defend the appeal and offered no evidence at the inquiry. This has meant that the applicant has had to present their case at the inquiry through the submission of proofs of evidence, the attendance of counsel and expert witnesses.
Whilst this has reduced the sitting time of the Inquiry, thereby mitigating to a certain extent the expense incurred, it has meant that the applicant has incurred costs in defending the appeal at the inquiry which should not have been necessary, had the council adopted this position prior to the decision to refuse the planning application.
Mr Sturgess added:
The council’s decision not to defend the appeal at the inquiry is tantamount to acknowledging that it had no case when it made the decision to refuse the planning application at committee.
1