Former March pub landlord turned Norfolk holiday lettings entrepreneur, Nigel Marsh, has scored a decisive victory over Fenland District Council, winning a full award of costs after a protracted planning dispute. The case revolved around Mr. Marsh’s plans for three homes at 317 Wisbech Road, Westry, March, for which he had secured outline planning permission in 2020.
When Mr. Marsh submitted details on access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, the Council refused to grant approval. Undeterred, he appealed—and his persistence has now been rewarded. Inspector Jonathan Price, BA(Hons) DipTP DMS MRTPI, who visited the site on 8 September 2025, ruled on 19 September that Fenland District Council had acted unreasonably, causing unnecessary costs.
The Inspector’s decision was clear: while local planning committees can reject applications against officer recommendations, they must substantiate their reasoning. Fenland Council failed on multiple fronts. Issues cited in refusal—foul and surface water drainage and refuse collection—could have been managed through conditions. Yet the Council refused approval without adequate evidence or explanation, even after a six-month deferral.
Fenland Council stung with HMO appeal costs for ‘unreasonable behaviour’
A single flooding incident, from overloaded highway drains during heavy rain, was cited as a concern. But the Inspector found no direct link to the site itself, nor justification for rejecting the application. Similarly, foul sewage and waste collection arrangements could have been addressed via conditions, yet the Council offered no proper reasoning. Alarmingly, the Council’s own legal officer had flagged that refusing planning permission on grounds manageable by conditions risked a costs award—a warning the Committee ignored.
The result: a full award of costs in favour of Mr. Marsh. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Local Government Act 1972, Fenland District Council is ordered to cover all expenses incurred during the appeal. Mr. Marsh can now submit his costs to the Council for agreement, with unresolved sums to be assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office.
For Mr. Marsh, the victory is both practical and symbolic. His development plans can now proceed, and the decision reinforces the principle that local authorities must act reasonably and substantiate refusals. For Fenland District Council, it is a stark reminder that ignoring legal guidance and failing to justify planning decisions can carry a heavy financial penalty.
The case underscores the wider lesson for councils nationwide: in planning disputes, thorough evidence and adherence to guidance are essential. Failure to do so doesn’t just risk reputational damage—it can hit the public purse, as Fenland District Council has learned the hard way.
In February 2024 the council lost an appeal for 110 homes at Upwell Road, March (refusal despite officer support). Full or partial (thousands of pounds est.) Refusal constituted “unreasonable behaviour” per NPPF and PPG; contrary to development plan with no material considerations. Amount: Not finalized, but “thousands” in legal bill.
Trend: FDC has faced criticism for refusals overriding officer recommendations, increasing appeal risks. Legal advice to FDC planning committee has previously warned of “risks in refusing applications without proper evidence.”
