THE district council has lost almost half of all the planning appeals it has fought in the past six months at a potentially great cost to the tax-payer and its own officer resources.

From October 2008 to March 2009 Epping Forest District Council fought 71 appeals against its decisions to refuse planning permission losing 35 times (49.2 per cent).

Decisions made by elected councillors, and not officers, to refuse planning permission proved particularly costly with 15 out of 17 decisions (88 per cent) lost at appeal.

Developer Mike Johnson has just submitted an appeal after councillors refused him permission to demolish two houses in Grange Crescent, Chigwell, to replace them with 23 flats.

He told The Guardian if he had received permission he would have had to pay out £48,000 on educational contributions, and road improvements- money which could now be lost if he receives permission from the Planning Inspectorate at appeal.

He said: “We have done everything we can for local residents. It was approved by council officers and we had about 12 part-time emotional councillors refuse it on ill-informed amateur grounds. We felt we had to appeal.”

Stan Posner, of Grange Crescent, who objected to Mr Johnson’s initial scheme said he was concerned it could now receive permission by an inspectorate based in Bristol.

He said: “I know the Government want the local authorities to build houses, but a block of 20 flats in a residential crescent isn’t in the right place. The local body has already decided this, why does someone with no local knowledge have to come down to make a decision?”

One appeal lost by the district council in the last six months was to mobile phone giant Orange who now have permission to build a 12m mast on land next to Oak View School, in Borders Lane, Loughton.

Headteacher at Oakview Sandra Winter said: “It just seems bizarre and makes you wonder about the process itself. You wonder how much input local councillors have. An inspector wouldn’t have sufficient knowledge of local issues.”

The district council had set itself a target of winning 75 per cent of all appeals. Principal planning officer Nigel Richardson’s report into the issue concludes: “The council’s performance for this 6-month period has been the worst for many years”.

District council chairman John Knapman laid the blame at the feet of the current planning system.

He said: “These appeal inspectors have no local knowledge and just don’t know what they’re doing. The council has no reason to apologise, in my opinion, for some of these decisions.”

A spokesman for the district council said that recently there appeared to have been a shift from the Government towards granting high-density developments.

He added that a developer who had agreed a financial contribution with the council as part of planning permission would probbaly maintain that contribution at appeal.