Case 3274139

Land off Cherryholt Road, Cherryholt Road, Stamford, PE9 2EP

South Kesteven District Council — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
7 April 2022
Authority
South Kesteven District Council
Inspector
Sargent J
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Major dwellings
Appellant
Longhurst Group Limited & Cecil Estate Family Trust
Agent
Marrons Planning
LPA reference
S19/1475
ONS LPA code
E07000141
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
14 September 2021

Summary AI

The inspector refused to award costs to the appellants due to lack of unreasonable actions by the council. The council's reasons for refusal were deemed clear and adequately articulated.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Land off Cherryholt Road, Cherryholt Road, Stamford, PE9 2EP — South Kesteven District Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 26 January 2022 by JP Sargent BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 April 2022 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/E2530/W/21/3274139 Land off Cherryholt Road, Stamford PE9 2EP • 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 the Longhurst Group & the Cecil Estate Family Trust for a full award of costs against South Kesteven District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of 31 affordable dwellings and associated works including access road and landscaping. 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 caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 3. The decision notice might not have given the full details of the Council’s case, but that is not something such notices are intended to do.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

Land off Cherryholt Road, Cherryholt Road, Stamford, PE9 2EP — South Kesteven District Council — Costs Decision I found the reason for refusal was sufficient to mean the concerns of the Council were clear and apparent. To my mind such concerns rested on matters of judgement, relating not just to the scale of the harm but whether that was then outweighed by public benefits and other considerations. Whilst I have not found that the stated heritage concerns constituted a basis to dismiss the scheme, in my opinion the Council adequately articulated its case in relation to these matters and exercised its judgement in a suitable and appropriate way. 4. The second aspect of this costs application related to when, how and by whom that reason for refusal in the decision notice was drafted. It focussed on the relative involvements of the Councillors who objected to the scheme, the officers, and the practices and decision-making of the Planning Committee, as well as the issuing of the notice. That may or may not be a matter to be considered elsewhere, but to my mind it lies outside of the appeal process and so is not something that can have a bearing on this costs application. 5. Accordingly, I conclude it has not been shown the Council undertook unreasonable actions that gave rise to unnecessary or wasted expense.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Land off Cherryholt Road, Cherryholt Road, Stamford, PE9 2EP — South Kesteven District Council — Costs Decision The application is therefore dismissed.

Page 1 · Chunk 3 JP Sargent

Land off Cherryholt Road, Cherryholt Road, Stamford, PE9 2EP — South Kesteven District Council — JP Sargent INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

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

Main issues and findings

Heritage impact
Against appellant
¶3

The council's heritage concerns were found to be sufficient, but not a basis to dismiss the scheme.

Conditions
Against appellant
¶4-5

The council's decision-making process was considered outside the appeal process and not a basis for costs.

Other
Against appellant

No unreasonable actions by the council were shown to have caused unnecessary or wasted expense.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Planning Practice Guidance
Unclear

Site constraints from the Casework Database

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

Source

Decision letter, 1 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 7 April 2022 under the Open Government Licence.