THE proportion of successful appeals against planning applications rejected by Peterborough City Council has risen – with one case costing the taxpayer more than £4,000.
Figures which will go before the council’s planning committee on Tuesday (24 April) show that of the 15 appeals that went before a Planning Inspector between October 2011 and March 2012, seven – or 47 per cent – were successful.
This is a big rise on the 25 per cent of successful appeals between April 2011 and September 2011, and the 33 per cent of successful appeals in the entire year between April 2010 and March 2011.
In one case, in which the council rejected plans from Stamford Homes, now Linden Homes, to build 52 homes in Manor Drive, Gunthorpe, the council ended up paying £4,000 costs to the developer.
This is because one of the reasons the council rejected the application was over English Heritage’s concerns about the impact the development would have on Car Dyke, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, 30 metres away from its boundary.
However a Planning Inspector found there would not be a major impact and the council had to reimburse Stamford Homes £3,984 plus VAT the firm spent on hiring an archaeological specialist.
The application was still rejected as there were concerns the properties were too close together.
Linden Homes recently re-submitted a planning application for 52 homes, with a spokeswoman saying: “We were disappointed the original application was rejected but accept the inspector’s decision. We believe the inspector’s concern has been addressed in the re-submitted application.”
In all of the successful appeals against the council in the six months up until March this year, the decision was made by a planning officer and not the planning committee.
Cllr Nigel North, committee chairman, said: “I think it’s a compliment for the committee that there are no successful appeals against its decisions. We work hard to make sure we make the right decisions for the people of Peterborough.”
As for the rise in successful appeals, he said: “I think the significant thing is that, apart from one case, there were no costs awarded against the council.
“I think it shows the inspector does not see the council as making perverse decisions and while they have taken a different view they understood why a decision was made in the first place.”
Successful decision appeals
Council decision overruled by the inspector include:
- Change of use 220-226 Dogsthorpe Road to House of Multiple Occupation. Planning inspector found scheme would not impact neighbouring resident or result in loss of top of the range housing despite council’s concerns.
- Mobile phone mast at Orton Busway/Malborne Way. Inspector found scheme would not impact the character of the area and would reduce need of additional poles.
- Use of 87 Kirkmeadow, Bretton, as childminding business. Inspector found level of noise created by children would be unlikely to be harmful to neighbours.
- Rear conservatory at 156 Atherstone Avenue. Inspector found that proposal would not have adverse effect by blocking sunlight to residents at 154 Atherstone Avenue.
What do you think?