Land at Braintree Road, Shalford, Braintree, CM7 5HL
Braintree District Council — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 12 August 2021
- Authority
- Braintree District Council
- Inspector
- Wyatt G
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Minor Dwellings
- Appellant
- Mrs Alice Cox
- Agent
- Collins & Coward
- LPA reference
- 20/01208/FUL
- ONS LPA code
- E07000067
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 24 March 2021
Summary AI
The costs application was dismissed because the council's late submission of new evidence did not result in unnecessary or wasted expense, and the appellant was given adequate opportunity to provide additional comments.
PDF text
Land at Braintree Road, Shalford, Braintree, CM7 5HL — Braintree District Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 1 June 2021 by Graham Wyatt BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12th August 2021 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/W/20/3264482 Land at Braintree Road, Shalford CM7 5HL • 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 Mrs Alice Cox for a partial award of costs against Braintree District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of grant of planning permission for the demolition of barns and mobile home and erection of new dwelling. Decision 1. An award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. National Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance) advises that costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeals process. The Guidance further sets out that parties in planning appeals and other planning proceedings normally meet their own expenses.
Land at Braintree Road, Shalford, Braintree, CM7 5HL — Braintree District Council — Costs Decision Additionally, the Guidance states that an application for costs will need to clearly demonstrate how any alleged unreasonable behaviour has resulted in unnecessary or wasted expense. 3. The application for costs relates to a claim by the applicant that the Council introduced new evidence at a late stage during the course of the appeal. In this instance the evidence is in relation to additional material that was submitted as an update to the Council’s five year housing land supply position. 4. The planning process is a fluid and not a static environment, whereby matters in relation to housing supply and delivery may change during consideration of a planning application and indeed an appeal. The Council monitors its housing land supply position and as stated within its officers delegated report, it is “continually working to gather evidence on the updated deliverable supply in the District”. It remains that the position on housing supply is an important material consideration in the determination of development proposals at either planning application stage or during the appeal process.
Land at Braintree Road, Shalford, Braintree, CM7 5HL — Braintree District Council — Costs Decision It is relevant to the extent to which policies contained within the development plan relating to the supply of housing can be considered up to date. 5. Although I acknowledge that the submission from the Council was late and after I had undertaken my site visit, the appellant was nonetheless provided with an adequate opportunity to provide additional comments. Furthermore, I considered that acceptance of the evidence at that time would not result in procedural unfairness and my view has not changed. While I accept that the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Land at Braintree Road, Shalford, Braintree, CM7 5HL — Braintree District Council — Costs Decision It is relevant to the extent to which policies contained within the development plan relating to the supply of housing can be considered up to date. 5. Although I acknowledge that the submission from the Council was late and after I had undertaken my site visit, the appellant was nonetheless provided with an adequate opportunity to provide additional comments. Furthermore, I considered that acceptance of the evidence at that time would not result in procedural unfairness and my view has not changed. While I accept that the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/Z1510/W/20/3264482 Council did raise this matter during the appeal process, it was not one that it specifically relied upon in defence of its decision to refuse planning permission. 6. Therefore, I am satisfied that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Guidance, has not been demonstrated and an award of costs is not justified.
Land at Braintree Road, Shalford, Braintree, CM7 5HL — Braintree District Council — Graham Wyatt INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Flood risk For appellant ¶2
The council's late submission of new evidence did not result in unnecessary or wasted expense.
Flood risk Against appellant ¶3
The planning process is fluid and housing supply can change during consideration of a planning application or appeal.
Flood risk Against appellant ¶4
The council's late submission of new evidence did not result in procedural unfairness.
Flood risk Against appellant ¶5
The council's late submission of new evidence was not relied upon in defence of its decision to refuse planning permission.
Flood risk For appellant ¶6
Therefore, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Guidance, has not been demonstrated.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| National Planning Practice Guidance |
Unclear |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 12 August 2021 under the Open Government Licence.