Garages Adjacent 2 Prout Grove, London, NW10 1PT
London Borough of Brent — appeal allowed
- Outcome
- Allowed
- Decision date
- 15 November 2021
- Authority
- London Borough of Brent
- Inspector
- Davies G
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appellant
- Mr P Wagstaff
- Agent
- MSC Planning Consultants Ltd
- LPA reference
- 21/0152
- ONS LPA code
- E09000005
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 23 July 2021
Summary AI
The appeal for a full award of costs against the Council of the London Borough of Brent was dismissed. The inspector found that the Council's arguments were not unreasonable and that no unnecessary or wasted expense was incurred.
PDF text
Garages Adjacent 2 Prout Grove, London, NW10 1PT — London Borough of Brent — Costs Decision Site visit made on 8 November 2021 by Guy Davies BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 November 2021 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/T5150/W/21/3276499 Garages next to 2 Prout Grove, London NW10 1PT • 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 P Wagstaff for a full award of costs against the Council of the London Borough of Brent. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of dual garage and creation of 1 x 1-bedroom dwellinghouse with hard and soft landscaping. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. Planning Practice Guidance advises that parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. Costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably, and where that unreasonable behaviour has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 3. Whether the proposed development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants is a matter of judgement.
Garages Adjacent 2 Prout Grove, London, NW10 1PT — London Borough of Brent — Costs Decision The Council has been able to point to conflict with guidance in the Brent Design Guide in coming to its view. The development on the opposite side of the road is similar but not identical to the appeal proposal, including the storage/seating structures to the rear of each site. The weight to be given to the approved scheme as a material consideration in the appeal is therefore also a matter of judgement. Although I have come to a different view to the Council because of the particular circumstances of the case, it was not unreasonable for the Council to advance the argument that they did. 4. The Council’s concern over pressure for additional on-street parking is based on the assumption that the garages are ancillary to the Neasden Lane flats, and that their loss would displace parking on to the local road network. There is no dispute between the parties that the garages were originally built as ancillary garaging for the residents of the flats. Although they are being used for storage now, by the appellant’s own admission that use is unauthorised, and it was therefore not unreasonable for the Council to discount it when forming a view on parking.
Garages Adjacent 2 Prout Grove, London, NW10 1PT — London Borough of Brent — Costs Decision The question of ownership does not seem to be one that was advanced by the appellant at the application stage and therefore it is unsurprising that it did not play a part in the Council’s decision. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Garages Adjacent 2 Prout Grove, London, NW10 1PT — London Borough of Brent — Costs Decision The question of ownership does not seem to be one that was advanced by the appellant at the application stage and therefore it is unsurprising that it did not play a part in the Council’s decision. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/T5150/W/21/3276499 5. While the appellant is particularly critical of the Council’s suggested amendment to remove on-site parking from the site, this approach is supported by the London Plan 2021 which encourages car-free development as the starting point in places that are well-connected by public transport. Such an amendment would also have enabled reinstatement of the footway to create an additional on-street parking space that the Council felt would have helped address what it saw as the displacement of parking for the Neasden Lane flats. Given the assumptions on which the Council had based its argument, it was not acting illogically or in the realms of fantasy as suggested by the appellant. Conclusion 6. I conclude that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not been demonstrated.
Garages Adjacent 2 Prout Grove, London, NW10 1PT — London Borough of Brent — Guy Davies INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Living conditions Against appellant ¶3
The Council's concern over pressure for additional on-street parking was based on a reasonable assumption about the garages' original use, and the appellant's unauthorised use of the garages for storage was also considered a relevant factor.
Highway safety For appellant ¶5
The inspector agreed that the Council's suggested amendment to remove on-site parking from the site was supported by the London Plan 2021, which encourages car-free development as the starting point in well-connected areas.
Parking For appellant ¶5
The inspector agreed that the Council's suggested amendment to remove on-site parking from the site would have enabled reinstatement of the footway to create an additional on-street parking space.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| London Plan 2021 |
Substantial |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 15 November 2021 under the Open Government Licence.