A local authority could be hit with thousands of pounds in costs after it took too long to decide on a proposed 650-home estate.

A government planning inspector has been brought in after Swale council delayed a vote on a development off Scocles Road, Minster, Sheppey.

The company behind the scheme - MLN Ltd - first submitted its plans two and a half years ago.

But planning committee members voted unanimously to delay a decision in October due to concerns over road safety and the level of developer contributions.

This was despite the council’s own planning officers recommending the project be allowed to go ahead.

Using a little-used procedure, MLN managed to get an independent planning inspector appointed because Swale failed to respond in time.

The rules state applicants can appeal council decisions if they do not decide within eight weeks, or 13 weeks for major developments.

This means local councillors will no longer have the last say on the scheme, which also includes a doctors’ surgery, pharmacy, community hub and sports facilities.

On Friday, December 20, planning inspector Tim Salter confirmed an inquiry will open on May 20 and is expected to last 11 days.

If he allows the plans, the total number of homes granted for Minster since October 2017 will be 1,984.

Residents and councillors told KentOnline previously that “excessive development” of the area was not in the “best interests of the Isle of Sheppey”.

Planning committee vice chairman Cllr Elliot Jayes (Swale Independents) says MLN’s appeal was “a bit extreme”.

This was as he expected councillors to decide on the application on January 16 – the committee’s next meeting.

He explained how he put forward the motion to defer the plans because they lacked a highway impact assessment for the “accident blackspot” of Scocles Road.

He told KentOnline: “It is laughable as the planning inspector is going to take 11 days to decide when we would have had a decision within a couple of hours.

“It might be that the developer thought we would refuse the plans and so have jumped the gun.

“Of course, there could be a cost [to the council] but this is rare, although one case cost us £40,000. This is only if the council is ‘unreasonable’ during the appeal.

A council is seen as being ‘unreasonable’ during an appeal when it fails to cooperate, misses deadlines, fails to attend a site visit, hearing or inquiry or gives wrong information or declares after the deadline.

There are no maximum or minimum penalties the authority could face. Instead, it would pay the costs the developer has incurred during an appeal case.

These fees include the time is the cost of preparing for an appeal, attending a hearing or inquiry and the use of consultants and witnesses.

The representative for Sheppey Central added that while government guidelines give a relatively short timeframe for council decisions, major applications can take years to complete.

He said: “It has always been in the planning rules that a developer can do this but it is a risk for both sides when they go to appeal due to costs.

“We can only decide when we have all the evidence. You wouldn’t expect a jury in court to decide on something with only half the evidence.

“Often we are waiting for consultees like Natural England for example to get reports back to us which is our evidence on which we decide.

“But by waiting on further reports we do risk being penalised on appeal and we could end up with both the houses people don’t want and it also costing the council. So it is a tightrope that we have to walk.”

The council’s fingers have been burned in the past for taking too long to decide.

It lost a case against developers Gladman in June last year after it sat on an application for 135 homes off of Swanstree Avenue, Sittingbourne, for more than a year and a half.

The builder, however, did not apply for costs.

MLN was approached for comment.