Appeals flawed

I can see Arun has a problem – it seems to me that the developers have an unfair advantage, and that the planning process is biased in their favour.

The council cannot stop large landowners selling off land to hungry developers – for example, 60 acres of land was sold at Courtwick, Littlehampton, a few years ago by one landowner to a developer, on which now 600 houses are being built north of the A259.

Initial planning applications, if inappropriate, can be stopped by the council, at round 1. However if turned down, the developer can appeal against the decision – round 2. The judgement for the appeal is made by some remote body in Bristol which has no knowledge of the local area. The appeal inspector is often not familiar with the local area and is probably unaware of local feeling.

It is a very expensive process for the council to oppose at this stage. The developers can often afford to employ an expensive barrister to argue their case. And if the council loses, which they often do, it is liable to pay the developers’ costs which I have heard can be as much as £100,000.

Often the council will not run the risk of losing at this appeal stage, and be liable for these costs, and so they give permission to the developer for the initial application at round 1.

The problem is that, rather than run the risk of losing out at an appeal and incurring large costs, the council finds it easier and less risky to grant planning permission at the outset, that is at round 1, letting the developer win.

This to me is wrong and is biased towards developers. More power should be given to councils to oppose these developers at the appeal stage, they should not be liable for developers’ costs at the appeal and the appeal process should not be carried out remotely.

Patrick Mason

The Martlets

Rustington