San Remo, 195 Castelnau, LONDON, SW13 9ER
Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 6 September 2021
- Authority
- Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council
- Inspector
- Chandler M
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Change of use
- Appellant
- BPML
- Agent
- CAMplan/MOLA
- LPA reference
- 20/0448/FUL
- ONS LPA code
- E09000027
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 6 January 2021
Summary AI
The application for an award of costs against BPML was refused because the unreasonable behaviour was not demonstrated. The appeal was procedurally appropriate, and no unnecessary or wasted expense was incurred.
PDF text
San Remo, 195 Castelnau, LONDON, SW13 9ER — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Costs Decisions Site visit made on 12 July 2021 by Martin Chandler BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 September 2021 Costs Application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/W/20/3264188 San Remo, 195 Castelnau, LONDON, SW13 9ER • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council for a full award of costs against BPML. • The appeal was against the Change of use of ground floor from A3 (Restaurant) to a coffee bar at front and C3 (Residential) use to rear to create 1 x 2 bed flat. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably, and that the unreasonable behaviour has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. Awards can be based on either procedural or substantive matters. 3. It is the Council’s case that the original application was correctly made invalid, and that they followed due process in taking this action.
San Remo, 195 Castelnau, LONDON, SW13 9ER — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Costs Decisions As a consequence, the appeal should not have been necessary and instead, the relevant information should have been provided to enable the application to be determined by the Council. 4. Despite this, for the reasons identified in my decision, I have found that the appeal against non-determination was a procedurally appropriate course of action for the appellant to take. Consequently, I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated, and that therefore an award of costs is not justified.
San Remo, 195 Castelnau, LONDON, SW13 9ER — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — Martin Chandler INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Main issues and findings
Planning obligations For appellant ¶3
The Council followed due process in taking action against the original application, which was correctly made invalid.
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶4
The appeal against non-determination was a procedurally appropriate course of action, and no unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense was demonstrated.
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 1 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 6 September 2021 under the Open Government Licence.