Case 3272270

Broadwater Stables, Broadwater Road, West Malling, Kent, ME19 6HT

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
21 October 2021
Authority
Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council
Inspector
Miles H
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Mr K Sunnucks
Agent
DHA Planning
LPA reference
TM/20/01371/FL
ONS LPA code
E07000115
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Lead
Start date
9 August 2021

Summary AI

The Council's decision to refuse planning permission for the development was upheld, and the application for costs was dismissed. The Inspector found that the Council had acted reasonably in assessing the proposal and that the appellant's claim of unreasonable behaviour was not supported.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Broadwater Stables, Broadwater Road, West Malling, Kent, ME19 6HT — Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 22 September 2021 by H Miles BA(hons), MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 OCTOBER 2021 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/H2265/W/21/3278509 Broadwater Stables, Broadwater Road, West Malling ME19 6HT • 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 Mr K Sunnucks for a full award of costs against Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for clearance of existing stables and outbuildings and erection of 3 no, detached dwellings with associated access, parking, garaging and amenity. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is dismissed. Reasons 2. The Planning Practice Guidance states that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, an award of costs may be allowed where it is found that a party behaves unreasonably, and the unreasonable behaviour has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 3.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

Broadwater Stables, Broadwater Road, West Malling, Kent, ME19 6HT — Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council — Costs Decision The appellant’s case is that the Council has made errors and omissions in the decision process and therefore has prevented development which should clearly be permitted. 4. There are some minor inaccuracies in the Council’s report. These include misinterpretation of the appellant’s floorspace figures, lack of information about the extent of the housing land supply shortfall, and a difference in the benefit afforded to the removal of the existing buildings between this and a previous application. However, notwithstanding these I am satisfied that the Council determined the application in relation to the correct site and existing development. It will be seen from my appeal decision that these matters and the shortfall of housing land were not determinative in my assessment of the proposal. Furthermore, the weight to be given to any benefit is a matter of planning judgement. 5. In reaching its decision the Council had regard to relevant development plan policies and other material considerations in its assessment of the scheme. The appellant disagrees with the conclusions the Council reached on matters such as boundary treatment, restriction of residential paraphernalia and the assessment of the fallback scheme.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Broadwater Stables, Broadwater Road, West Malling, Kent, ME19 6HT — Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council — Costs Decision However, it does not follow that the Council acted unreasonably in making its assessment. I have addressed these matters in my main decision and have not concluded that the Council has prevented development which should have been permitted https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

Broadwater Stables, Broadwater Road, West Malling, Kent, ME19 6HT — Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council — Costs Decision However, it does not follow that the Council acted unreasonably in making its assessment. I have addressed these matters in my main decision and have not concluded that the Council has prevented development which should have been permitted https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/H2265/W/21/3278509 6. Some of the language used by the Council has not shown a particularly sensitive approach to the appellant as a user of its services. However, whilst regrettable, it has not affected the determination of the scheme. It therefore does not amount to unreasonable behaviour. 7. As the appellant disagreed with the Council, he has chosen to test the decision by exercising his right to appeal. However, I have no reason to believe that this has resulted in unnecessary expense in the appeal process. 8. Consequently, for the reasons set out above, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense during the appeal process has not been demonstrated. 9. For this reason, neither a full nor partial award of costs is justified.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 H Miles

Broadwater Stables, Broadwater Road, West Malling, Kent, ME19 6HT — Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council — H Miles INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶4

The Inspector found that the Council had determined the application correctly, with regard to the correct site and existing development.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶5

The Inspector found that the Council had not acted unreasonably in making its assessment, and that the weight to be given to any benefit was a matter of planning judgement.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶9

The Inspector found that the Council's decision was justified, and that neither a full nor partial award of costs was necessary.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶6

The Inspector found that the language used by the Council had not shown a particularly sensitive approach to the appellant, but it had not affected the determination of the scheme.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶7

The Inspector found that the appellant's decision to appeal had not resulted in unnecessary expense in the appeal process.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
relevant development plan policies
Moderate

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 21 October 2021 under the Open Government Licence.