SWINDON Borough Council has been forced to spend more than £112,000 taking on developers over the past two years.

The figures, revealed through a Freedom of Information request, show that developers continue to hold the cards when it comes to planning applications and that opposing them is not only unlikely to succeed, but also costly.

In June 2016, the council’s planning committee voted to refuse permission for the demolition and redevelopment of the Tented Market site in the town centre.

But the developers took the matter to appeal and the committee’s decision was overturned.

The Planning Inspectorate directed that full costs be paid by Swindon Borough Council.

As a result, the council were forced to hand over £19,792 of taxpayer’s money. No figure was available for the internal costs incurred by the council in defending itself.

In 2016/17, the council spent £59,400 on specialist lawyers to defend or oppose planning decisions. In 2015/16 that figure was £32,850.

Again, the council was not able to say what further costs had been incurred by its own staff.

The drive to increase the number of homes being built across the country has seen developers given more freedom.

Planning policy allows councils to create detailed local plans setting out how and where they wish to see housing delivered. But the same policy says that unless they can demonstrate a viable five year supply of housing to implement that plan – in addition to a five per cent buffer – then developers are not obliged to adhere to it.

In 2015, Swindon Borough Council lost a battle over an application for up to 100 homes at Berkeley Farm in Wroughton - falling just short of a five year housing supply was one of the key reasons that they lost out at appeal.

For the five-year period from 2015/16 to 2019/20, Swindon needs to deliver 9,498 homes but delays in moving forward with the most significant urban expansions such as the New Eastern Villages and Wichelstowe make that figure difficult to meet.

Until that situation changes their chance of scoring successes against speculative applications by developers remains slim.

But sometimes the reason for losing at appeal is not so complex. In the case of the tented market for example, councillors sitting on the planning committee chose not to follow the advice of professional planing officers who had ruled that there was no viable reason to refuse the application.

The committee based its decision on public opposition which is not a recognised reason for refusal. It was a popular decision in the short term, but it proved costly and fruitless in the end.

Coun Toby Elliott, the Cabinet Member responsible for Strategic Planning and Sustainability, said: "Swindon needs more homes. For those trying to get onto the housing ladder for the first time; all the way up to those wishing to downsize but remain in their community. 

"We have always been a pro-planning, pro-development town. Unfortunately some developers would rather game the system than get on with building.

"Holding up applications in one part of the town to give them favour in another is unacceptable and it is costing taxpayers money."