Harlow Council hit with costs after rejecting planning application in 2016

News / Fri 27th Apr 2018 am30 10:21am

HARLOW Council has been forced to pay costs after rejecting a planning application for homes near the Railway Station roundabout in 2016.

An application for the 172 homes and fifteen storey tower block was approved on Thursday night.

During the meeting, a planning officer gave a general overview of the application. He made reference to the previous rejection of an application in 2016 and the subsequent appeal to the Planning Inspectorate in 2017, which resulted in Harlow Council having to pay costs.

The application in 2016 was recommended for approval by officers but voted through by councillors.

YH is trying to establish how much.

We have attached a link to the appeal which hinged on discussion re affordable housing and pedestrian safety.



Go to the 5 min point of film to see officer discuss previous application.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

8 Comments for Harlow Council hit with costs after rejecting planning application in 2016:

2018-04-27 11:19:53

Labour at it's best. Un-aware of where they should be in this process and application. But, typically, end up on the wrong side of the law and lumbering the local tax payers with a massive bill to pay. How on earth can any body vote this shambles back in. Is this the real reason that Clempner resigned? Incompetence at it's very best. VOTE LABOUR or MOMENTUM at your PERIL.

m ingall
2018-04-27 14:27:24

The decision to turn down this planning proposal was made in 2016, when Jon Clempner was the leader and it was the right decision. Tory Councillor Davis Carter is on this video of the debate saying that this is the wrong development, in the wrong place, with inadequate parking, with no play areas for children and that it will increase congestion on an already congested junction. Councillors from all sides expressed their frustration that changes to planning appeals, brought in by a Tory government, had brought about a situation where the Council were being forced into accepting this proposal. Mickey, your comments are more ridiculous than usual, you clearly have neither watched the video, nor have you read the article. This is a deeply worrying development, a sentiment agreed upon by experienced local politicians on both sides of the chamber. But Micky thinks he knows best.

2018-04-27 15:04:38

So, you don't agree with Mike Garnett then ? Socialists will always squirm and wriggle to try and force points across. At any cost, they will never put their hands up to any truths that contradict them. It appears that blame is apportioned to anybody but themselves. I certainly know where the truth lies, and it generally isn't with the leftist teaching brigade, who, unfortunately, put their brand of politics above teaching. Your profession has dragged down the standards of education for the last thirty years until it has become un-recognisable to anybody of an age. VOTE LABOUR at your PERIL.

2018-04-27 16:44:05

Micky is clearly no fan of Albert Einstein's theory that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I truly adore the fact that he stood by the "respect" pledge a few weeks back and said we were in fact the ones being abusive online. Councillor Ingall, along with the rest of the teaching profession, do the most important job imaginable, inspiring children and broadening their horizons for little or none of the fanfare they deserve. To attack someone on the basis of their job when the article itself mentions this not once shows you're really clutching at straws and trying to be intentionally offensive. But, hey, "respect"!!!!

2018-04-28 07:58:36

I presume that people commenting on this article are aware that planning decisions taken by the Development Management Committee are quasi-judicial decisions, that are supposed to be taken on material planning grounds and without political interference? Just checking.

2018-04-28 16:45:58

All we need is for Bill Ramell turn up and we'll have a full set.

2018-04-28 18:07:15

Remember the Harry Enfield character Kevin the teenager? Went around saying everything was SO UNFAIR and said I HATE YOU all the time? Hmm...

Brett Hawksbee
2018-04-30 10:44:00

The original correct decision was based on safety, and appropriateness in the specific environment. The reality is that under this Tory regime, our Labour Council's concerns of quality of life, and safety do not carry any weight. In the fullness of time more people will die due to the Tory ideology that profit trumps safety and common sense. This was a full application, but Tory changes to Permitted Development rights effectively means that homes can now be formed in existing unused commercial properties which would never comply with existing laws, standards and regulations, and therefore not be permitted as a new development. One year from the salutary lesson of Grenfell,and at every turn it is apparent that lives, and quality of life are less valued that asset value and profit. 100 families still languish in a kind of limbo, waiting to be rehoused. Grenfell was of course designed as housing, but the same priorities persist. We will I predict have further tragedies in the UK, where emergency services struggle to access ill adapted commercial property to deal with life threatening emergency situations. We now have 234 studio flats in our own 'Terminus House'. 234 kitchens in a building sprouting from within a multi-storey car park. I genuinely have no idea how close a fire engine, or ladders can get to most of the newly formed, one room 'studio apartments'. It meets regulations of course ... regulations pragmatically designed to accommodate such developments. The Council absolutely believed not just that this particular scheme was an inappropriate development, but that their grounds for rejecting were sound.They perhaps underestimated the extent to which central government changes to planning laws and the appeal process would sideline safety and quality of life, for commercial profit, as demonstrated by this Planning Inspectorate appeal decision.

Leave a Comment Below:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *