Huntingdonshire District Council has been ordered to pay a developer’s planning bill after they had to ‘waste’ money fighting an ‘unreasonable’ refusal of a new development.

A planning inspector said a developer faced “unnecessary and wasted” expense appealing against the district council’s initial refusal of plans to build 15 new homes in Spaldwick.

The authority refused an application to build the new homes on land east of Ivy Way, last year claiming not enough information had been provided to show the development would not "adversely impact" highway safety and would not result in flooding.

However, the planning inspector said the district council could have asked the developer for extra information to address these concerns.

The district council said it made the decision in "good faith".

A second application put forward by the developer to also build 15 homes on the land was approved by the district council earlier this year, despite the plans receiving over 100 objections.

The developer, Blenheim Land and Homes Ltd, had appealed to the planning inspectorate to try and overturn the refusal of its first application before the decision was made to approve the second set of plans.

A planning inspector agreed to overturn the district council’s decision to refuse planning permission as they said evidence had been presented at appeal to address the concerns raised.

The developer also asked for the district council to pay the costs it faced appealing the decision.

Developers normally have to pay their own costs when appealing a planning decision, unless a planning inspector agrees the authority "behaved unreasonably" causing the developer to face "unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process".

In this case the developer claimed the district council "concealed" various comments made about the plans by officers and did not give them enough time to respond to any of the points made.

The planning inspector said the reasons for refusal given by the district council were not "adequately substantiated".

They also said the authority "behaved unreasonably" in assessing the application leading to the developer facing "wasted expense" fighting the refusal at appeal.

The report said the developer also accused the district council of acting unreasonably through the lack of engagement with them to clarify some of the points raised.

The planning inspector said they recognised the authority publicises that it will not entertain amendments to planning applications.

However, they said "this is not in the spirit" of national planning policy, which "advocates" that authorities should work with developers in a "positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions arising in relation to dealing with a planning application".

The inspector said there had been enough time for the council to ask the developer for clarification on the points of concern, and still issue a decision on the development in a "timely manner".

They said: "The local planning authority issued putative reasons for refusal on grounds that were capable of being dealt with by planning condition.

"The lack of communication in this respect has had a significant bearing on the outcome of the application, such that an appeal could have been avoided."

The inspector said they believed there had been "unreasonable behaviour" on the part of the district council which had resulted in the developer facing "unnecessary or wasted expense".

They ordered the authority to pay the developer the costs of the appeal proceedings.

A spokesperson for the district council said: "The council’s decision to refuse was made in good faith for the reasons set out on the decision notice.

"The appeal was considered and the decision issued by the planning inspectorate on August 7.

"In undertaking an appeal, planning inspectors will review the proposal independently and have reached their conclusions on that scheme.

"Following the refusal of the original application, the applicant made amendments that led to the revised application being supported.

"Our approach to pre-application advice, available to all, aligns with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and we seek to reduce reliance on amendments to proposals during the planning process."