Taxpayers' £70,000 bill for plan refusal
Staffordshire councillors refusing an outline planning application without justification cost taxpayers about £70,000.
Staffordshire councillors refusing an outline planning application without justification cost taxpayers about £70,000.
Cannock Chase Council was ordered to pay more than £34,000 towards the cost of a public inquiry.
The planning control committee did not want homes built on the site of the former Eaton Lodge Hotel, Rugeley. After council legal fees are taken into account, the figure is about double. However, it could have been worse still after the bill was cut from £54,000 after negotiations.
The £70,000 is equivalent to 1.5 per cent of council tax at a time when the council is cutting and trying to replace swimming baths at Cannock Chase Leisure Centre.
At the January 25, 2006, meeting Councillors Les Bullock, Frank Allen and Phil Freeman voted against refusal, and Mick Stretton, Pat Ansell and Ray Easton abstained.
Others listed on papers for the meeting are Gordon Ball, John Burnett, Reg Butler, Chris Collis, Doris Grice, Ted Hodges, Annette Jones, Zaphne Stretton, Ron Turville and Glenda Whitehouse. It is not clear if any were absent. A statement opposing the application was read out on behalf of Western Springs ward councillor Mick Grocott, who was not on the committee.
Councillor Bullock said: "It was only an outline application yet was refused for being an overintensive development and detrimental to the appearance and character of the area. But an outline application only seeks permission in theory and there were no detailed plans, so how could anybody make that judgement without seeing exactly what the applicant intended?
"The hotel was pulled down and we now have a nice pub, The Stag's Leap, which is in a suitable location, and a nice housing development. It is outrageous to throw away this amount of cash."
Council leader Neil Stanley said councillors must sometimes listen to officers' advice rather than throw away money of people whose interests they are trying to represent. It was a lose/lose situation for taxpayers if a scheme went ahead and they paid extra.
