THE WRONG planning decision by Burnley Council has cost local taxpayers £5,000 after the applicant had the ruling overturned.

Councillors were rapped for not giving good enough reasons when they turned down plans for 36 houses off Kiddrow Lane last year.

The applicant appealed and a planning inspector has now reversed the decision, ordering the council to pay £5,000 costs.

But there are fears the final figure could be higher which could affect services.

The inspector's report said: "The council has been unreasonable in not substantiating its reasons for refusal.

"The inspector noted that the council's chief planning officer advised members of the development control committee that it would be unreasonable to make the decision it eventually did."

This had caused the applicant unnecessary expense, the report added.

"Whereas it is accepted that the council is not bound to take the advice of its officers or its consultee the county education officer, it is expected to provide evidence to show why the development cannot be permitted," said the report.

This failure was the reason why costs were awarded to the applicant.

Head of planning Sue Graham told councillors at a planning meeting that the outcome had been likely from the start.

She said: "The first report back on appeals is a difficult one to come to committee with because it was an application before you for approval and you were determined to refuse the application contrary to officers' recommendation.

Mrs Graham emphasised the inspector's comment that reasons for refusal needed to be substantiated.

She added: "In this case, we have a claim of costs in the region of £5,000, though that's possibly not the final figure.

" The money will have to come out of the planning department's revenue budget.

"That's something I have to accommodate out of a very tight budget and it will impact on the services of all the people of Burnley," she added.

The inspector's report said that, contrary to councillors' beliefs, the site was actually a "sustainable" location for the building of new housing.

The site was close to a health centre, schools, shops and a business park, with the town in easy reach.

It complied with the local plan and would visually enhance the area, while there were no highway dangers, it added.

Two other appeals, an extension to a property on Darnley Street and an extension on Caernarvon Avenue, went in the council's favour and were dismissed.