Full award of costs has been made against Fenland District Council after a planning inspector found its planning committee had “behaved unreasonably” by rejecting expansion of a Wisbech care home which had previously been agreed.
The inspector found Fenland Council “has failed to produce evidence to substantiate its reasons for refusal.
“And no sound planning reasons have been provided to justify the council making a different decision to its previous decision on a recent and almost identical scheme”.
The costs award – and the inspector’s ruling to allow an appeal by Ben Mauremootoo of Langley Lodge Rest Home in Queens Road, Wisbech – were published this week.
R Bartlett, the planning inspector, ruled that “the unreasonable behaviour has resulted in the applicant incurring expense in relation to the entire appeal and costs process, both of which could have been avoided altogether.
“I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified”.
Councillors had been warned by their officers of the risks – and legal consequences -of rejecting a proposal that had earlier been approved.
The appeal was against the refusal of the council to grant planning permission for the erection of a single-storey side/rear extension and formation of car parking to the front of the existing care home involving demolition of existing 2-storey building and removal of swimming pool.
Mr Bartlett said the applicant had applied for a full award of costs “on the substantive grounds that the Council behaved unreasonably by delaying development, which should clearly be permitted having regard to its accordance with relevant planning policies”.
‘Vague generalised assertions’
He said the applicant accused the council of making “vague, generalised assertions regarding potential effects on amenity and highway safety, which were not supported by any objective analysis.
“It is also claimed that the council behaved unreasonably in persisting in objections to a scheme which has already been granted planning permission, not determining like cases in a like manner, and failing to grant further planning permission for a recently expired permission where there has been no material change in circumstances”.
The inspector said planning permission was granted for an almost identical scheme in 2018, which was not implemented due to the need to protect care home residents throughout the Coronavirus pandemic. The only change to the proposal is that an office window in the north side elevation and a waiting area window in the south side elevation have been replaced with doors and access steps.
No changes have been made to the car parking proposals.
While this FDC meeting is still on YouTube, I've made an audio-boost copy of this agenda item for two reasons;
1) FDC's have a habit of deleting videos from YouTube after a year or so.
2) Audio level on the original is very very very low.https://t.co/9A5FKrkPzv— Mark Hemment (@MarkHemment) August 2, 2024
The inspector said: “Whilst I understand that there are new members on the planning committee, there has been no material change in the submitted plans, no change to relevant policies or parking standards and no changes to the site or its surroundings that would justify the council reaching a different decision.
“Had the previously approved scheme been implemented, the windows could have been changed to doors without the need for planning permission or as nonmaterial minor amendments.
“Although planning committees are entitled to reach a different view to that of their professional advisors, such views must be substantiated.
“The first reason for refusal claims that the development would result in a shortfall in car parking spaces which would be detrimental to road safety.
‘No evidence to substantiate these assertions’
“No evidence has been provided to substantiate these assertions, which are not shared by the local highway authority or planning officers.
“Moreover, the shortfall in parking relates to the existing situation and not to the development proposed, which would provide adequate parking to cover both the additional 6 bedrooms created by the proposed extension and some of the existing shortfall.
“No evidence has been provided to substantiate claims that the nearby public car park and on street parking spaces have no capacity or that increased on street parking would be detrimental to road safety.”
The inspector said: “The second reason for refusal claims that a small number of external steps, to a proposed external door serving a ground floor managers office, would result in an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance, overlooking and loss of privacy to 24 Queens Road.
“No reasoning or justification has been provided as to how the steps and door to a small office would be any different to the previously approved office window in the same position, or to any of the other windows in this elevation, or the footway along the boundary of No.24 Queens Road, in terms of noise, disturbance or overlooking.
“I have not been advised that the planning committee members visited either the appeal site or No.24 before making such a judgement.”
Mr Bartlett said in reaching their decision, the planning committee was “fully aware of the previous permission, the risk of an award of costs and the facts that the parking proposals were entirely unchanged and that only very minor nonmaterial amendments to substitute two windows with doors and steps to them were proposed.
Unnecessary/wasted expense claim upheld against FDC
“I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified.”
Mr Mauremootoo has been invited to submit to Fenland District Council details of his costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount.
Minutes from the July meeting of 2023 when the application was refused reveal that two councillors, Steve Tierney and Samantha Hoy, both attended to urge the committee to refuse it.
Cllr Hoy claimed the proposals would have an impact on neighbours. She also said the new plan includes external steps which are close to the boundary, and she feels this will create additional noise by people going up and down them.
Cllr Tierney said there were significant differences to this proposal to the one in 2018, he did oppose the previous application “and was disgusted when committee approved it”.
(You can watch the full debate by Fenland Council here – its towards the end) here:
https://www.youtube.com/live/Cm8riqmLjzw?si=2OcAGpJfzVA5wOzK
The minutes recall that Cllr Jan French asked why Wisbech Town Council supports the application and made the point that both Cllrs Hoy and Tierney are town councillors as well so why is it being supported by the town council?
Cllr Hoy said that she thought it might be due to the reports that the town council gets, which are from the website opposed to the committee’s report published a week before the meeting.
Town council actually supported the application
She said that if they had had the same report as committee they may have made a different decision.
Cllr Tierney felt that if the town council had understood the full depth of the proposal and heard the opinions of local people they would have been against.
Proposed by Councillor Roy Gerstner, seconded by Councillor Sidney Imafidon to grant the application as per the officer’s recommendation, which was not supported on a majority vote.
Proposed by Councillor Charlie Marks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be refused against officer’s recommendation. This was passed.
Planning chief Nick Harding warned the committee that if they refused the application “he would have significant concern about the award of costs against the council irrespective of whether the case was won or not”.
FACT FILE
Langley Lodge Residential Home – Provider of Quality Residential and Dementia Care.
Langley Lodge is a family run registered care home providing residential care for up to 20 people over 65 years of age. Established for over 30 years.
