Case 3272960

OS Field 3541, Yarm Lane , Great Ayton , North Yorkshire, TS9 6PJ

Hambleton District Council * — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
20 August 2021
Authority
Hambleton District Council *
Inspector
Brooker M
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Mr I Khalil
Agent
Mr Gordon Henderson
LPA reference
20/02484/FUL
ONS LPA code
E07000164
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
30 April 2021

Summary AI

The Inspector refused to award costs to Hambleton District Council against Mr Khalil, citing lack of evidence of unreasonable behavior by the Appellant. The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a dwelling.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

OS Field 3541, Yarm Lane , Great Ayton , North Yorkshire, TS9 6PJ — Hambleton District Council * — Costs Decision Site visit made on 20/07/2021 by Mr M Brooker DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 August 2021 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/G2713/W/21/3272960 Land off Yarm Lane, Great Ayton Easting: 455427 Northing: 510468 • 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 Hambleton District Council for a full award of costs against Mr I Khalil. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a dwelling. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may 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 appeal process. 3. It is the Council’s case that the Appellant behaved unreasonably resulting directly in them incurring unnecessary expense in the appeal process, in particular with regards the evidence provided by the appellant to address previously identified issues. 4.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

OS Field 3541, Yarm Lane , Great Ayton , North Yorkshire, TS9 6PJ — Hambleton District Council * — Costs Decision The Council details that they provided to the Appellant a specific list of “fundamental issues” that were identified at the time an application was first made, this included “Flood risk, ecology, the relationship to the settlement, impact on the Conservation Area, design, and character of the open countryside” 5. I note that the application from which the related appeal resulted did include further details, as acknowledged by the Council in their costs application, relating specifically to ecology, the access from Yarm Lane, landscaping and a revised Flood Risk Assessment. 6. In determining the Appeal, I found that the appellant’s sequential assessment did not adequately demonstrate the absence of other sites. Nonetheless, the appellant has sought in some way to grapple with the issue of flood risk and attempted to justify their approach to the sequential assessment. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

OS Field 3541, Yarm Lane , Great Ayton , North Yorkshire, TS9 6PJ — Hambleton District Council * — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/g2713/w/21/3272960 7. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has not been demonstrated and that an award of costs is not justified.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Mark Brooker

OS Field 3541, Yarm Lane , Great Ayton , North Yorkshire, TS9 6PJ — Hambleton District Council * — Mark Brooker 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
¶3

The Council claimed that the Appellant's sequential assessment did not adequately demonstrate the absence of other sites, but the Appellant attempted to address the issue of flood risk.

Other
For appellant

The Inspector found that the Council did not demonstrate unreasonable behavior by the Appellant, resulting in unnecessary expense.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Planning Practice Guidance on costs
Limited

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 20 August 2021 under the Open Government Licence.