Council faces £100,000 costs over lost appeals

WARRINGTON Borough Council could have to pay out in the region of £100,000 costs in respect of lost planning appeals over a period of eight months.
A total of £45,740 has already be paid out and claims currently pending total more than £53,000.
Two other claims are awaited where the sums involved are not yet known – although in one case the council has submitted its own counter-claim.
The largest single claim the council has had to pay was £40,000, excluding VAT, in respect of enforcement action against ADS Recycling in Camsley Lane, Lymm – although the claim was originally for more than £56,000 and was reduced as a result of work by council officers to reach an agreed settlement with the applicant.
A report to the council’s development management shows that officers work to reach a settlement figure in each case. However, sums settled or still sought total £98,759 since July last year.
Cost are awarded against parties deemed to have “behaved unreasonably” and caused unnecessary or waste expense.
The report by development manager Daniel Hartley says the majority of costs awarded against councils come as a result of the authority’s inability to produce evidence to show clearly why the development cannot be permitted. Officers and councillors are equally responsible for ensuring a councils follow good practice. It is crucial the council acts reasonably.
In five cases at Warrington, decisions were made against the advice of officers. In two cases, enforcement notices were served without the necessary evidence or were served imperfectly
Although a number of cases have gone against the council, there are also examples of where the council has successfully fought off claims because reasons for refusal have been properly substantiated and backed up by evidence.
Reasons costs were awarded against the council included a lack of evidence, a lack of objective evidence, procedural matters and incorrect serving of a notice.
A number of suggestions are put forward to improve the council’s performance. It should be ensured that officer reports weight the positives and negatives of a proposal. When refusing applications, it should be ensured there is a base of evidence to do so.
Members are advised to raise concerns with officers at an early stage – prior to committee meetings if necessary. Reasons for refusal should be clear and precise and detailed minutes should be maintained, placing greater detail on the record of reasons for refusal.
Finally, officers and members should work together in defending appeal decisions and where members have made a decision contrary to officer advise, at least one councillor should give evidence.