‘Unreasonable’ Chorley suffers double-whammy at appeal
More than 100 homes across two schemes have been given the green light by the Planning Inspectorate, with the council also ordered to pay costs.
Conlon Holdings has won an appeal over the refusal of its plans for 76 affordable homes in Charnock Richard.
Landowner Conlon, working with Maybern Planning, submitted its proposals to Chorely Council in March 2021.
The scheme features a mix of one- to four-bedroom houses and apartments available for shared ownership and affordable rent.
Housing association Jigsaw Homes is lined up to manage the properties upon completion of the development.
Chorley Council rejected the scheme, proposed for a five-acre plot off Charter Lane, despite officers recommending it should be approved.
The authority’s planning committee refused permission for the development due to its scale and concerns about the impact it would have on local roads.
However, the committee’s reasons for refusal were later withdrawn and Chorley did not contest the appeal. As a result, the authority is being ordered to pay Conlon’s costs because it acted unreasonably in the view of the inspector.
“Unreasonable behaviour is demonstrated by the withdrawal of both reasons for refusal, which ultimately resulted in preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted,” the inspector’s report states.
Chorley was also ordered to pay costs to a private landowner bidding to redevelop 3.7 acres of agricultural land off Blackburn Road into 40 homes.
Smith&Love, acting on behalf of the applicant, lodged plans for the scheme in July 2021 and ultimately appealed against the non-determination of the proposal.
The inspector said the provision of up to 40 additional homes, including 35% affordable housing, “would contribute to boosting the supply of housing in Chorley…[which is] currently constrained due to an inability to demonstrate a deliverable five-year housing land supply with a significant shortfall having been identified”.
Smith&Love’s application for the award of costs was also partially successful.
The inspector concluded the council should foot some of the applicant’s bill, due to the “wasted expense incurred when preparing additional evidence relating to access for pedestrians and cycling infrastructure”.
