Shanly company to pay council costs for ‘unreasonable behaviour’ in flats appeal

A Shanly Group company must pay the council’s costs over an ‘unnecessary’ appeal for new flats in Holyport, a Government planning inspector has ruled.

Sorbon Estates was ordered to fork out the money following its failed appeal to convert offices at an office park in Holyport Road into 28 flats, which had earlier been rejected

The developer claimed Windsor and Maidenhead council had acted unreasonably in its refusal and asked the Planning Inspectorate to make the local authority pay for the inconvenience.

But inspector C Billings instead found Sorbon Estates had caused the council ‘wasted and unnecessary expense’ over its decision to pursue an appeal which ‘could not succeed’.

Tectonic Place, a two-storey office complex within a gated estate, has been the subject of repeated bids for development, all of which have been rejected by the council and at appeal.

The latest appeal, over an application refused by the council in mid-January, focused on changes to rules turning offices into housing known as Article 4 Development Rights.

RBWM approved changes that prevented offices like Tectonic Place from being converted into housing through change of use rules under the Article, on January 30.

More than three months later, on May 9, Sorbon Estates launched its appeal to the Planning Inspectorate – a Government organisation that resolves planning disputes.

The inspectorate has the power to overrule a local authority’s decision and can order that legal costs be awarded to either party during an appeal process.

In appeal documents, Sorbon Estates claimed the council had been ‘unhelpful in their response to the various attempts to secure a change of use approval for the scheme’.

It alleged this was ‘in order to frustrate an application for residential accommodation in a location which they consider should be retained as an employment site’.

Council planning officers made their own expenses claim against Sorbon Estates.

The council’s statement of case said the company was ‘aware the proposal is not acceptable’ and the appeal ‘has no chance of success’, when it initiated appeal proceedings.

“It therefore follows that the appellant has behaved unreasonably in submitting the appeal which wastes unnecessary public resources both at the Planning Inspectorate and the LPA [local planning authority],” planning officers said.

“This constitutes unreasonable behaviour in the circumstances.”

In a decision notice, Inspector Billings ruled in favour of the council and said Sorbon Estates should pay for the local authority’s.

‘Based on the evidence provided, I have not found that the council acted unreasonably in respect of the appellant’s application for costs,’ the inspector said.

Inspector Billings added: “To conclude, as the appellant was aware of the Article 4 Direction being in force at the time of their appeal submission, and so the appeal could not be successful, I find that unreasonable behaviour by the appellant is demonstrated.”

“Therefore, the council has incurred wasted and unnecessary expense in preparing the appeal.”

A spokesperson for Sorbon Estates said the company was ‘extremely disappointed’ by the planning inspector’s ruling.

The appeal was ‘entirely avoidable’ but had been necessary, the spokesperson claimed, because RBWM’s planning officer had ‘refused to engage’ during the application.