CITY leaders did not defend their main objection to 200 homes near Colchester’s historic Roman circus after developers said they wouldn't pursue them for costs, it has been revealed.
Colchester Council made the dramatic u-turn just hours before a planning inquiry got underway last week regarding plans for 203 homes at the former Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO) in Flagstaff Road.
Documents have now revealed the 11th hour decision was taken after developers Countryside Partnership made what was described as an "unsolicited offer".
The developer's lawyer said the firm would not pursue the council for costs if the appeal was allowed, but only if it withdrew the main reason for refusal.
Site - e - The eastern part of the former ARBO site in Flagstaff Road (Image: Newsquest) The main reason for the refusal was the site falls within the “Garrison Conservation area” and would “erode the cohesive character and appearance of the site”.
This is because the disused ABRO site includes a significant section of the only known Roman Circus in northern Europe.
On the first day of the inquiry, the council announced it would not defend the main reason, and a council spokesperson later said the decision was made due to “productive discussions with the developer”.
It has now been revealed the authority, which originally expected the planning inquiry to cost it an estimated £120,000, had agreed to the deal.
Campaigners against the development - MP Pam Cox, resident Linda Green, Paul Knappett and Sir Bob Russell holding a plan of the former site of the Artillery Barracks (Image: Newsquest)Documents show the offer was taken in agreement with planning committee chairman Martyn Warnes and group spokesmen of the committee Mark Goacher, Sam McCarthy, and Robert Davidson.
All unanimously voted to accept the offer.
An agenda document for the next planning committee meeting on Thursday will discuss the situation.
It said: “On the afternoon of Monday July 7 at the request of the joint head of planning to consider advice received from the council's barrister earlier that day.
“This advice was in response to an unsolicited offer made that morning by the King's Counsel acting for the appellants, to decline to pursue costs against the council.
Voted for the offer - Councillor Martyn Warnes (Image: Martyn Warnes) “This was conditional upon the council's agreement not to defend the principal reason for refusal."
The reason for the offer being taken was to “avoid the council’s exposure to significant financial risk” with a potential “awards of costs” claim against the authority.
The council’s barrister in the appeal warned the costs could have been in “excess of £100,000”.
The planning inspector will rule on the appeal at a later date.