Housing appeal decision 'could bring local planning system into disrepute'

All eyes on inspector's decision

AN epic battle between developers and planning chiefs will test the authority of West Berkshire Council’s planning department and its western area planning committee.

The test case, which was heard by HM Planning Inspectorate in Newbury on Thursday, June 23, centres on an unauthorised build at Upper Eddington, Hungerford, which was ordered to be pulled down.

Potentially at stake is the reputation of the entire planning system, according to a West Berkshire Council officer – and both sides face an agonising wait for the outcome.

The appeal was heard at the district council’s offices in Newbury by Her Majesty’s Planning Inspector, Peter Jarratt.

Residents and planning chiefs want the new homes pulled down after developer Waddington Forbes Ltd failed to comply with pre-conditions regarding height levels and other matters.

An enforcement notice demanding their removal was issued following a meeting of West Berkshire Council’s western area planning committee last November.

Members branded the build “obstructive, overbearing and offensive,” while warning that other developers would be watching closely and could be quick to follow suit if the authority of the council’s entire planning department was openly flouted without consequence.

Developer Waddington Forbes appealed the enforcement decision and a spokeswoman, Rebekah Jubb, branded the council’s behaviour obstructive before telling the hearing: “We really shouldn’t be here.”

She said the council had been intransigent and should have gone along with a planning officer’s original recommendation to accept the new build without insistence on complying with original conditions.

Mrs Jubb added: “We believe the development has been built to the correct levels and, even if it were 1m lower, that wouldn’t make a material difference.”

However Michael Butler, for the council, said the western area planning committee had every right to over-rule planning officers’ recommendations and added: “The existing development is not what was originally considered and the public has every right to be concerned.

“A material change in circumstances has indeed occurred.

“The planning system shouldn’t be brought into disrepute by an unauthorised development going unchallenged – and this is exactly what the council has sought to avoid by taking enforcement action.”

Town planning consultant Stuart Cunnane, for the residents, outlined the effect on residents’ lives of the “overbearing” build and urged the inspector: “No weight should be given to the fact that the development is already built.”

The inspector’s decision is expected to be announced with three to four weeks.