The local authority must cover expenses totalling £99,000 after an appeal panel reversed its rejection of a housing development proposal.
The planning committee rejected the scheme in June 2025 despite officer advice supporting approval.
The proposal involved constructing up to 49 dwellings on a parcel of land situated east of Inlands Road in the Nutbourne area.
Following the refusal, the developer Metis Homes Ltd submitted an appeal.
The Planning Inspectorate determined that the council had demonstrated unreasonable conduct leading to unnecessary expenditure.
The planning authority was subsequently directed to reimburse the developer for appeal-related costs.
The matter came before the cabinet for consideration on September 1.
Members agreed to fund the payment from General Fund Reserves.
The committee had based its refusal on concerns regarding highway infrastructure and railway proximity, as the proposed site lies directly adjacent to the railway line.
However, the planning inspector concluded that insufficient justification existed for the rejection and that the council’s stance on these grounds was unreasonable.
Cabinet member for planning Councillor Bill Brisbane described the £99,000 figure as representing a substantial reduction from the initial claim, though he did not disclose the original amount sought.
Council leader Councillor Adrian Moss praised the work of officers in achieving the reduced figure.
Speaking in defence of the original decision to refuse permission, he said that the authority had acted appropriately in allowing its planning committee to reach a determination on those grounds and subsequently attempting to justify that position to the inspector.
He acknowledged that an adverse ruling from the inspector represented a consequence the council had to accept.
He stated his view that members would not contend the council should have refrained from pursuing this course of action, and while the expense was regrettable, the authority could take satisfaction in having exercised its democratic prerogative.