St Albans Council pays cost of planning mix up
COSTS have been awarded against the district council following a mix-up over planning drawings at an informal hearing into a controversial proposal to develop a village education centre. A partial award of costs was made to Persimmon, the developers who w
COSTS have been awarded against the district council following a mix-up over planning drawings at an informal hearing into a controversial proposal to develop a village education centre.
A partial award of costs was made to Persimmon, the developers who want to build 68 houses on the northern part of the former Wheathampstead School site in Butterfield Road.
The hearing was scheduled to last for only one day in July but confusion over a particular set of plans relevant to the scheme led to delays in the morning and the remainder of the hearing being put back a week.
It prompted angry members of the public who had taken time off work to attend to complain that they had just been left sitting there.
You may also want to watch:
Persimmon claimed that the council's failure to cooperate in agreeing facts or supplying relevant information resulted in unnecessary delays during the hearing.
- 1 St Albans nursery given six weeks' notice warning of potential closure
- 2 Do you remember when The Inbetweeners came to St Albans?
- 3 Urgent care services at St Albans hospital could become appointment only
- 4 In Pictures: Harpenden Farmers' Market back on the Common
- 5 St Albans violent crime: Teen drugs gang behind spate of attacks on rivals found guilty
- 6 Standon Calling called off after heavy rain and lightning risk
- 7 St Albans violent crime: 'Intervention needed to break the cycle of grooming'
- 8 Property Spotlight: A spacious family home in Harpenden's prestigious West Common
- 9 The latest court results for the St Albans area
- 10 Harpenden arrest in connection with St Albans council fraud probe
The council argued that it had not acted unreasonably and disagreement over which drawings should be considered was raised at a late stage by Persimmon.
But planning inspector Elizabeth Lawrence ruled that the uncertainty had arisen because various substitute drawings had been lost by the council at the application stage and it had failed to respond when the developers tried to resolve the matter before the hearing.
The inspector dismissed Persimmon's appeal into the council's decision to refuse the scheme because of the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. But she accepted a second appeal relating to restrictions on the height of the roof space on the development.
The scheme already has outline planning permission.