Following the refusal of planning permission RR/2017/1705/P – Land off Spindlewood Drive, Bexhill in March 2020, against officer recommendation, it was advised that the Applicant had now appealed the decision.  The decision whether the appeal was heard by written representations, hearing or public inquiry would be taken by the Planning Inspectorate (PI), in consultation with the Applicant and Local Planning Authority.

It was advised that should the appeal be decided by Written Representations officers could defend the Council’s reasons for refusal, with expert advice of a drainage consultant. The cost to appoint a drainage consultant was likely to be in the region of £5,000 to £10,000.  An additional contingency of a further £10,000 was also suggested in the unlikely event costs were awarded against the Council.

However, should the appeal be heard at a Hearing or Public Inquiry it would need to be defended by outside consultants with input from Counsel; previous experience showed that funding for up to £75,000 could be required to cover the costs of a planning consultant and Counsel, based on a three day inquiry.

It was advised that a Hearing was historically less adversarial and involved a round table discussion with no cross-examination, whereas a public enquiry was more complex and allowed for cross-examination of expert witnesses; this would result in professional officers being unable to defend the Council’s decision as it would be in conflict with their own professional advice to grant the original application.   

In addition, if the PI allowed the appeal and granted permission, the Appellant could seek to claim their appeal costs, on the basis that the appeal would have been avoided if the Council had granted permission. The Appellant’s costs would be likely to be a similar amount to the Councils’ and therefore far higher for a hearing or public inquiry in the region of £150,000.

It was noted that should the Applicant win the appeal against the decision then no New Homes Bonus (NHB) grant would be received once the development had been completed.  Based on the number of properties in the application, it was estimated that £1,069,400 of grant would be foregone.  In order to ensure that the Council had the best chance of defending the Council’s decision it was agreed that the Council’s preferred format be confirmed as a Hearing.  Following a successful defence, should a new application be submitted by the Applicant, which did meet with approval, the potential NHB grant would be payable to the Council. 

RESOLVED: That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the Local Planning Authority supports the Hearing format for the defence of the appeal in respect of ‘land off Spindlewood Drive, Bexhill,’ and that funding of up to £150,000 be set aside from ear marked reserves, to meet costs of defending the appeal.

(Councillor Byrne declared a Personal Interest in this matter as a member of Bexhill Environmental Group, and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).

(Councillor Thomas declared a Personal Interest in this matter as a member of Bexhill Environmental Group and the Sussex Wildlife Trust, and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).