A Holbeach mum says she is £10,000 out of pocket after fighting a planning application she claimed would cause a flood risk.
Ann Kidd, of Battlefields Lane South, took a loan for the money to launch legal proceedings against South Holland District Council (SHDC) whose planning committee initially agreed retrospective plans for two new homes next to her own.
Despite the approval the plans were then withdrawn before they were rubber stamped by officers.
Mrs Kidd says she instigated the retrospective application after noticing developer Proway Building Limited had deviated from the original plans passed by SHDC in January 2014 and was concerned over drainage issues.
At its February meeting, the majority of the council’s planning committee voted in favour of granting retrospective permission in line with district council planning officer David Gedney’s recommendation.
Lawyers advised Mrs Kidd she had a case to take the application to a judicial review and sent a pre-action letter to the district council on March 1.
A response from the authority said it “will not be implementing the recommendation of the planning committee on February 7, 2018. It has been proposed the applicant will submit a full planning application for the built dwellings enabling flood and drainage risks to be fully considered.”
The letter continues: “The council does not agree to pay your client’s costs as there is no decision capable of judicial review.”
The application was indeed withdrawn by the developer on April 12 and a new application subsequently submitted another as yet undecided application on April 23. The application form states that the amendment was requested by planning officer Mr Gedney.
Mrs Kidd says further work has been carried out on the properties in the past week and she and husband Craig are to meet planning officers next week.
Roger Gambba-Jones, the district council’s portfolio holder for place and chair of the planning committee, said: “While the planning committee did resolve to approve the application at 7 February meeting, officers took the decision to seek legal advice prior to issuing a decision given the threat to judicially review the decision.
“Subsequently on March 1, a pre-action letter was received from Mrs Kidd’s solicitor. This raised a number of issues relating to how the application had been dealt with. Consequently to address these issues, it was considered the most appropriate way to proceed would be for the application to be withdrawn and a new full planning application submitted to allow all relevant issues to be fully considered by the planning committee.”
Mrs Kidd says she has also taken her case to the government ombudsmen.
She said: “It’s almost comical. I believe when I spoke to The Voice last time I called the response to the retrospective planning application a farce. I think this time I have no words other than incompetence.
“The new plans admit I was correct and they (the councillors on the planning committee) were all prepared to leave my home exposed to increased surface water drainage and flooding.
“If I hadn’t spent my money my home would now be left with a flood risk thanks to their incompetence.”
