Councillors making planning decisions in sympathy with residents rather than according to the rules are costing the public purse dearly.

That is the view of one professional planning consultancy, which says one application recently determined by Maidstone councillors will now cost taxpayers thousands of pounds after it was overruled by a government inspector.

Alice Beeken of the Kent Planning Consultancy said: “It’s important that the residents of Maidstone should be aware of the public cost when planning decisions are overly politicised, and not based on their planning merits.

“Maidstone Borough Council has a duty to deliver housing and assess planning applications in accordance with its adopted development plan, and our recent experience demonstrates the cost to the public when this protocol isn’t followed.”

She said that in April last year, councillors on Maidstone’s planning permission refused applicant Chris Kemsley permission to build an extension to expand a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) in Charles Street, Maidstone, from six bedrooms to eight – contrary to their planning officer’s advice.

The application would have been allowed under officers’ delegated powers had it not been referred to the planning committee for further scutiny – a move known as “calling in” – by Cllr Paul Harper (Fant and Oakwood Independents).

Ms Beeken said: “The officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission as the scheme was considered acceptable.

“However, following pressure from local residents with concerns over parking, members of the planning committee voted to overturn the officer’s recommendation.

“This is despite the fact that the Maidstone Local Plan requires no parking provision to be made for town centre developments, in order to encourage sustainable transport within the borough.”

Ms Beeken said: “This action represented a blatant disregard of the Local Plan and of good planning principles.”

The Kent Planning Consultancy appealed to the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of its client, Mr Kemsley, and the inspector upheld the appeal and granted planning permission, saying that the proposal was in line with the development plan, and was materially acceptable.

“But,” said Ms Beeken, “the inspector additionally instructed Maidstone Borough Council to pay our client all costs associated with the appeal, because she considered the council had behaved unreasonably when refusing the application.”

The inspector noted that permission had been initially sought for a higher number of bedrooms – nine. However, that had been refused at officer level on visual amenity grounds.

A second application for fewer bedrooms was then submitted and refused by councillors on the grounds that it would cause “a significant exacerbation of inadequate parking and environmental deterioration creating cumulative harm to neighbourhood amenity”.

The inspector concluded: “There is limited evidence before me to demonstrate how the council reasoned that this appeal proposal, for fewer bedrooms, would cause harm to highway safety and to neighbourhood amenity when the previous application was not refused on these grounds.

“In fact, the council has not provided compelling evidence to demonstrate that the parking pressure has materially increased during the period between the two applications.

“As such, the council has failed to reasonably substantiate or justify its reason for refusal.

“For the reasons given above, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has occurred and a full award of costs is therefore warranted.”

Ms Beeken said: “Our client's costs, which may be up to £3,000, as well as the costs Maidstone council itself incurred in defending the appeal – a similar amount or more, will now all be paid for out of the public purse.

“We consider that the politics of planning here have ultimately rail-roaded good planning at the cost of the taxpayer.

The head of the Kent Planning Consultancy, Thijs Bax, agreed, saying: “Our experience with Maidstone Borough Council in particular has been that there is too much political influence over planning decisions.”

Councillors were concerned at the cumulative effect of the application on parking in Charles Street, a one-way road.

A road of predominantly Victorian terraced homes, there is very little off-street parking. The demand for the spaces available has been exacerbated in the past few years by the increasing number of HMOs in the vicinity.

Besides this application site, there are already four HMOs in Charles Street with another nine in the three neighbouring roads.

Cllr Paul Harper said: “Any councillor has the right to call in a planning application.

”The existence of so many HMOs in Fant is the single biggest topic of concern expressed by residents on the doorstep.

“Too many HMOs with their transient populations can completely change the character of the area.

These are legitimate issues to raise

“They bring problems with parking and with multiple waste bins.

“Many long-established Fant residents are moving out of the area because of the HMOs.

“These are legitimate issues to raise.”

However, Cllr Harper agreed that the borough’s current Local Plan was weak on policies to control HMOs.

He said tougher regulation would be one of the things he would be pressing the new council to adopt after the May elections.

Details of the application and of the inspector’s decision can be viewed here.

Search for application number 22/505206.