Maldon District Council told to pay costs due to ‘unreasonable behaviour’ over refusal of travellers’ pitches

By Piers Meyler - Local Democracy Reporter 13th Sep 2023

Local News by Piers Meyler - Local Democracy Reporter 13th Sep 2023

Maldon District Council must pay legal costs due to its "unreasonable behaviour" when refusing plans for travellers' pitches in Woodham Mortimer in September 2022.

Plans were refused with "no evidence" to back up concerns which were appealed by the applicant, a planning inspector has ruled.

The successful appeal means land south of Maldon Road can be used for two travellers' pitches, comprising the siting of one mobile home and one touring caravan per pitch.

Planning committee members refused the application despite a recommendation from officers that permission should be granted.

Planning Inspector Gemma Pannell disagreed that it should be refused due to a reliance on cars to get to services and shops. She also disagreed that the travellers' pitch would harm the character and appearance of the area.

Ms Pannell said: "The first two reasons for refusal set out in the decision notice are complete, precise, specific and were relevant to the application.

"However, the third reason for refusal, which sets out that there would be undue harm to residential amenity by reason of resultant noise levels and loss outlook, was neither specific or precise. In particular, there was a lack of evidence provided as part of the appeal process to substantiate this reason for refusal.

"The council has failed to provide any evidence in relation to precise noise levels arising from the site during the time it was occupied."

The Environmental Health officer representing the Council at the hearing confirmed there was no objection to the proposal. Limited evidence of complaints was provided, relying on residents' "anecdotal evidence" at the hearing.

As the officer's recommendation was overturned, the lack of an appeal statement meant the applicant was disadvantaged in responding to it, as the only evidence available was the meeting minutes.

Ms Pannell says there was uncertainty regarding the substantive evidence available.

"Unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has occurred, and a partial award of costs is therefore warranted in respect of the costs arising from providing a defence to the council's third reason for refusal," she added.

A spokesperson said the council was bound by cost decisions awarded through the planning appeals process, "where it is judged by a planning inspector that 'unreasonable behaviour' has occurred by either the council or the appellant."