Case 3278010

32 New Street, Earls Barton, NORTHAMPTON, NN6 0NN

Wellingborough Borough Council * — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
31 December 2021
Authority
Wellingborough Borough Council *
Inspector
Longmuir J
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Other Major Developments
Appellant
Mr David Mallard
Agent
DLP Planning Ltd
LPA reference
NW/21/00134/FUL
ONS LPA code
E07000156
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
17 September 2021

Summary AI

The inspector concluded that the Council acted reasonably and did not cause the applicant to incur unnecessary expense. An award of costs was refused.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

32 New Street, Earls Barton, NORTHAMPTON, NN6 0NN — Wellingborough Borough Council * — Costs Decision Site visit made on 9 November 2021 by J P Longmuir BA(Hons) DipUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 December 2021 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/H2835/W/21/3278010 32 New Street, Earls Barton, NN6 0NN • 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 D Mallard for a full award of costs against North Northamptonshire Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for 2 new dwellings. 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. The applicant argues that the Council failed to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal. It is unclear how members of the planning committee could have reached informed views on the character and appearance, its landscape setting or impact on neighbour amenity without a site visit.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

32 New Street, Earls Barton, NORTHAMPTON, NN6 0NN — Wellingborough Borough Council * — Costs Decision No evidence was produced to substantiate the highway safety reason for refusal. The details from the highway consultant and advice from the qualified highway officer on a very technical matter were not followed. The committee did not produce evidence to the contrary. 4. The Council respond that committee members were entitled to come to their conclusions and the decision was one of balance on matters of judgment. The reasons for refusal were substantiated in the appeal submissions. The committee were given a full explanation of the facts and shown the plans. Photographs were also displayed, and the site is readily visible from public view. 5. The committee members were given the description of the site in the case officers report. The New Street context was a public vantage point which their members would know. The provided photographs would have supplemented their knowledge. Therefore, an official site visit would not have been essential and may well have been difficult given the pandemic. 6. The proposal’s impacts on the landscape setting of the area and the neighbouring living standards were matters of judgement and not a precise science. Consequently, the Council were entitled to come to their view.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

32 New Street, Earls Barton, NORTHAMPTON, NN6 0NN — Wellingborough Borough Council * — Costs Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

32 New Street, Earls Barton, NORTHAMPTON, NN6 0NN — Wellingborough Borough Council * — Costs Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/H2835/W/213278010 7. The highway aspect was more technical however the Council’s concern was set out clearly in their appeal evidence, making particular reference to the visibility and width of the road. Whilst I did not agree with the Council’s assessment of the impact, it was nonetheless clearly expressed. 8. The committee applied the criteria in the Development Plan policies as evident in the reasons for refusal. The policies are open to judgement which is widely acknowledged as a matter for the reader. The assessment of the policies across these reasons for refusal is not an automatic conclusion but rather a balance of the various merits and impacts. The reasons for refusal were rational and based on the particular considerations prevalent to the case. 9. For the above reasons I conclude that the Council has not acted unreasonably, and that the applicant has not been put to wasted time and expense in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, an award of costs as described in the Planning Practice Guidance is not justified.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 John Longmuir

32 New Street, Earls Barton, NORTHAMPTON, NN6 0NN — Wellingborough Borough Council * — John Longmuir 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

Heritage impact
For appellant
¶4

The applicant argued that the Council failed to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal, including the impact on neighbour amenity and landscape setting.

Heritage impact
Against appellant
¶5

The Council responded that committee members were entitled to come to their conclusions and the decision was one of balance on matters of judgment.

Highway safety
For appellant
¶3

The applicant argued that the Council failed to produce evidence to substantiate the highway safety reason for refusal, and that the committee did not follow the advice of the highway consultant.

Highway safety
Against appellant
¶7

The Council's concern was set out clearly in their appeal evidence, making particular reference to the visibility and width of the road.

Other
Neutral

The inspector concluded that the Council's reasons for refusal were rational and based on the particular considerations prevalent to the case.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
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 31 December 2021 under the Open Government Licence.