Councillors have defended “putting their money where their mouth is” over a failed £180,000 Derbyshire planning appeal.
A Derbyshire Dales District Council meeting last week saw councillors discuss the £181,619 cost of fighting an appeal for 87 homes at Leys Farm, off Wyaston Road, in Ashbourne.
Government planning inspector Hayley Butcher allowed the plans at appeal, from Woodall Homes, following a public inquiry at Matlock Town Hall.
Clle Sue Hobson, leader of the council’s Conservative group, said: “We are talking a lot of money here which could be used for other things. We can’t keep spending this money every year.”
Cllr Peter Dobbs said the £180,000 cost of the appeal was “not insignificant”, saying: “Robustly defending decisions that have been democratically made by a planning committee should be taken as consequential as to the existence of that committee.
“I can assure members that we do take the consequences of our decisions very seriously.
“The independence of our planning committee must be cherished.
“Of course officer recommendations must be taken extremely seriously by members of the planning committee, however, unless they are able to take account of comments from members of the public at these meetings then such public participation would appear pointless
“We need to be prepared to defend our decisions that have gone to appeal.”
Cllr Sue Burfoot said the planning committee had debated the plans “thoroughly” and in “great depth” in December 2023, rejecting the plans against the recommendations of the council’s own expert officials, who had recommended approval.
She said: “Planning is not a science, there has to be some amount of discretion and debate
“Whether we say we have paid the price for that I do not know
“To be honest, if we go along with officer recommendations all of the time what is the point of the planning committee?”
Cllr Laura Mellstrom pointed out that Ms Butcher had not awarded costs to be paid by the council to cover the price of the inquiry to the developer, because “unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not been demonstrated”.
Cllr Dermot Murphy said: “We don’t take these decisions lightly.
“We made this decision for all of the right reasons. We have lost a couple of appeals and I suspect there are more coming.
“We are exposing the council to costs. We have been told to make decisions we believe in but it does make you wonder, £180,000 is a lot of money. We have to be so careful going forward.”
Cllr Gareth Gee said: “You could get delirious in the romance of the planning committee. The reality is that if you just don’t listen to your own officers and their advice with something like this and you expect to go to appeal against these types of companies with the resources they have got behind them, it is sort of futile and absurd and this council can’t afford it.”
Cllr Joanne Linthwaite said the council was in a “difficult position” with councillors themselves responsible for the decisions and directly answerable to the electorate, saying: “Sometimes you have got to put your money where your mouth is.”
Cllr Stuart Lees said it was “very unfortunate” that the appeal loss was “expensive” but said “this council does come out pretty good at appeal”, adding “we don’t always get it right”.
Cllr John Bointon said decisions were not “made on a whim” and that it was “important that we do stand up for what we believe in”
Councillors had felt the Ashbourne scheme would contribute to the “pretty devastating” cumulative impact of house-building in the area, potential flooding, accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists, traffic congestion and environmental impacts.
Ms Butcher disagreed on all counts, saying the site was accessible, would not have an “unacceptable” impact on roads, had adequate parking spaces and would not increase flood risk.
Councillors agreed that a further £250,000 would be set aside for fighting further planning appeals.
