23 Mount Avenue, New Milton, BH25 6NT
New Forest District Council — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 8 October 2021
- Authority
- New Forest District Council
- Inspector
- Nicholls H
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Minor Dwellings
- Appellant
- Mr G Leicester
- Agent
- Pure Town Planning
- LPA reference
- 20/11446
- ONS LPA code
- E07000091
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 20 July 2021
Summary AI
The application for costs was dismissed as the Council's refusal of the proposal was deemed reasonable and not causing unnecessary expense to the applicant.
PDF text
23 Mount Avenue, New Milton, BH25 6NT — New Forest District Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 15 September 2021 by Mrs H Nicholls FdA MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 October 2021 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/B1740/W/21/3277464 23 Mount Avenue, New Milton BH25 6NT • 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 G Leicester for a full award of costs against New Forest District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for demolish existing garage, sever land and erect a detached dwelling with associated access and parking (Revised Scheme). Decision 1. The application for costs is refused. Reasons 2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 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. The PPG goes onto state that unreasonable behaviour in the context of an application for an award of costs may be either procedural – relating to the process; or substantive – relating to the issues arising from the merits of the appeal. 3.
23 Mount Avenue, New Milton, BH25 6NT — New Forest District Council — Costs Decision The applicant indicates that the Council has acted unreasonably and caused wasted expense through refusing the proposal contrary to its officer’s recommendations, with a difference of only 3 Planning Committee Members and without sufficient evidence of the anticipated harm outlined in the reason for refusal. 4. The Council indicates that members of the Planning Committee are not bound to accept recommendations of their officers and that its failure to determine like cases in a similar manner could also give rise to an application for costs. The Council highlights that the appeal site was subject of two previous proposals for similar schemes which were refused for similar reasons in respect of the effects on the Monterey Pine tree; a locally distinctive landscape feature. 5. In relation to the reason for refusal, I agree that the members were not bound to accept the professional recommendation of the Planning or Tree Officers where a case could be made to the contrary. That only a small number more Councillors voted against the appeal application rather than in support of it is not suggestive of any procedural unfairness or unreasonableness. 6.
23 Mount Avenue, New Milton, BH25 6NT — New Forest District Council — Costs Decision The evidence submitted in support of the Council’s case is sufficiently clear about the anticipated impacts and the promotion of trees within the revised https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
23 Mount Avenue, New Milton, BH25 6NT — New Forest District Council — Costs Decision The evidence submitted in support of the Council’s case is sufficiently clear about the anticipated impacts and the promotion of trees within the revised https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/B1740/W/21/3277464 National Planning Policy Framework (2021) as important features within the built and natural environment highlights the need to carefully consider the potential effects thereupon. The submitted Arboricultural Assessment and Method Statement indicates that measures could be employed to mitigate the impacts of construction and that no future pressures would be expected from future occupiers, but there is an admission about at least a degree of impact and these aspects can be subject of an element of uncertainty and subjectivity. Whilst I have concurred with the applicant in this particular case, the Council’s concerns were still understandable and sufficiently evidenced. 7. Consequently, the Council has not been unreasonable or caused the applicant to incur unnecessary or wasted expense. For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, a full or partial award of costs is therefore not justified.
23 Mount Avenue, New Milton, BH25 6NT — New Forest District Council — Hollie Nicholls INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Heritage impact Against appellant ¶5
The inspector agreed that members were not bound to accept the professional recommendation of the Planning or Tree Officers where a case could be made to the contrary.
Living conditions Against appellant ¶6
The inspector found that the Council's concerns were understandable and sufficiently evidenced, and that measures could be employed to mitigate the impacts of construction.
Other Against appellant ¶7
The Council was not considered unreasonable or causing unnecessary expense, and a full or partial award of costs was therefore not justified.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| NPPF 2021 |
Moderate |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 8 October 2021 under the Open Government Licence.