MONMOUTHSHIRE County Council is to pick up the tab for a planning inquiry into extending a property in Avenue Crescent which found that it had acted unreasonably during the planning process.

The property at the centre of the appeal can be viewed from Abergavenny Cricket Club, and campaigners against the scheme believed that the 'terracing effect' caused by allowing the extension would have a detrimental effect on the vista from the ground as well as on neighbouring properties.

The council's planning committee originally refused to grant permission for the proposed extension on November 15 last year saying that it would present an 'overbearing and inappropriate form of development'.

However Gareth Rennie, the Welsh Government appointed inspector said this had been one of the contributing factors that had diverted attention away from the planning process.

Mr Rennie said, "I conclude that members were unduly influenced by the opinions of local objectors. Whilst they were entitled to apply the precautionary principle in the light of local knowledge and expertise, in this case the local knowledge was flawed and biased.

"I consider that in this case the council did not base its decision on sound planning reasons and I conclude that they did behave unreasonably in refusing planning permission."

Mr Rennie conceded that the development of a first floor extension being built above an existing flat roof single storey garage would create a degree of terracing, but added, "I consider that the overall character and appearance of the area would not change. Moreover, the proposal would be no more harmful than other similar extensions that have already been approved.

"Other representations have suggested that a three metre separation would reduce the terracing effect of the proposed extension further. I do not consider that this would be the case and any benefit would only be perceived when the gap was viewed from directly ahead."

The inspector acknowledged that it was clear from the first committee meeting that members were not happy with the proposal and deferred making a decision to allow a site visit to take place.

However, the inspector agreed with the applicant James Godbold that the authority's unreasonable behaviour had resulted in additional costs. Mr Godbold claimed that the authority prevented, protracted, inhibited and delayed the approval and implementation of a proposal that was acceptable in all reasonable material planning considerations.

A submission from MCC stated, "The council has at no time sought to prevent, inhibit or delay the development. It has been made clear to the appellant that an extension was acceptable in principle.

"The council believes that it was not at fault or that it acted unreasonably because they were asking only for a very small compromise, and one they knew the objectors were happy with. A simple redesign would have avoided the appeal."

Former Councillor Andrew Crump, who was part of the planning committee until the recent elections, said he was disappointed with the decision.

"The inspector's decision is rather disappointing and is an example of the Welsh Government not really taking into account the views of local people.

"By allowing this development, this attractive street scene will change and effectively the smallest plot will proportionally have one of the largest buildings on it. This development is unbalancing for the whole neighbourhood as it's heading the area towards urbanisation".

No-one from MCC was available for comment