More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
Home Canterbury News Article
A cash-strapped council must stump up £99,000 of taxpayers’ money on legal fees after shunning its own expert advice over a planning bid.
Canterbury City Council’s (CCC) planning committee rejected proposals to expand a caravan park near Whitstable – despite being warned there were likely insufficient grounds to withstand an appeal.
But after the owners launched an appeal, a planning inspector has not only granted permission for 91 static caravans at the Alberta Holiday Park in Seasalter, but also ordered the authority to pay its legal fees.
The council was recently forced to settle after committee members overwhelmingly rejected Park Holiday’s proposals in April 2022, flying in the face of their own officers’ recommendations.
Before the meeting, officers laid down a detailed 16-point report stressing why the site would be suitable for expansion.
“It is recommended that the planning application be approved for the reasons set out in this report subject to safeguarding conditions and the completion of a legal agreement,” they added.
But the councillors argued the project would be “visually intrusive” and harmful to the landscape and wildlife. They also voiced concerns about traffic hazards in Church Lane.
They were also persuaded by numerous objections from the RSPB, Whitstable Society and residents.
Some claimed it would turn Seasalter into an area like Sheppey - known for an abundance of holiday parks.
Resident David Stewart urged the committee to turn down the proposal, saying: “You put 91 caravans on there, and you’re now becoming Sheppey, as far as I’m concerned.
“If you go through Sheppey, there’s not a lot there so I think you’re doing wrong. Once you grant this, you cannot take it back.
“Whatever you put at that site, you’ve got to live with it. At the moment you’ve got horses grazing and it’s lovely. And then you’ve got the council estate on the other side, so there is a balance.”
Recently a planning inspector approved the development, albeit with a raft of conditions, including drainage and environmental measures.
Authority spokesman Rob Davies says the council did not employ a barrister to defend its case, so only its own officer time was involved, which was not separately financially calculated.
Park Holidays first submitted plans for the extra mobile homes - as well as a new playground area and sports zone - in 2019.
It originally wanted 143 new pitches, but that number was whittled down to 91 by the time the application came before the planning committee in 2022.
Officers believed the extra caravans, on a neighbouring plot of land to the existing park, opposite Lucerne Drive and next to Bridge Country & Leisure Park, would bring economic benefits to the area and not result in unacceptable ecological damage.
“So the appeal cost £99,000 - so be it - because it was a matter of principle…..”
However, planning committee members at the time in the previous administration overwhelmingly rejected the application, led by former councillor Ashley Clark.
He said the committee should “not be henpecked” by the threat of legal costs but make decisions based on their own local knowledge.
Speaking this week, Mr Clark stood by his original views and said he still feared the park expansion would cause environmental damage.
“I’ve known that area since I was a child and there is no doubt it will result in loss of habitat and a flooding risk,” he said.
“The trouble is that planning committees with members who know their own areas are being undermined by planning inspectors.
“All they can do is limit the damage because it’s all about money.
“So the appeal cost £99,000 - so be it - because it was a matter of principle.”
Find out about planning applications that affect you by visiting the Public Notice Portal
The chair of the current planning committee, Cllr Pat Edwards, who was also a member of the committee in 2022 and voted for refusal, said this week that she was unable to comment on applications or appeals.
Following the appeal decision, a spokesman for the park owners said the company was delighted to be able to proceed with the investment in its “charming coastal retreat that combines the beauty of nature with the vibrant local area”.
“We are currently in the pre-development phase of planning the details of the infrastructure and landscaping, and this will take several months. Once completed, the development work will then be carried out on a phased basis,” he said.
“The end result will be a high-quality development which will enhance the appeal of the park and increase the volume of tourism in the area.”
A city council spokesman said: "Planning officers make their professional recommendations to councillors on the planning committee but ultimately it is for those elected councillors to take the final decisions.
"When refusing an application contrary to the officer recommendation to grant, councillors will be aware of the potential for an appeal and costs against us down the line. This is explained in the training committee members receive and will often be reiterated at meetings where necessary.
"This case is one such occasion where this has happened, but the matter has now come to a close."
