64 Danes Road (land adjacent to), Exeter, Devon, EX4 4LS
Exeter City Council — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 4 February 2022
- Authority
- Exeter City Council
- Inspector
- Jones M
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- Development type
- Minor Dwellings
- Appellant
- Jonathan Johns Limited
- Agent
- Jonathan Johns Limited
- LPA reference
- 19/1415/FUL
- ONS LPA code
- E07000041
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 22 September 2021
Summary AI
Application for costs against Exeter City Council was dismissed due to lack of evidence of unreasonable behaviour. The inspector found that while the council's pre-application advice may have led to unnecessary costs, these were not related to the appeal process itself. The applicant's appeal was undertaken after the council's decision and there is no clear evidence that additional dialogue would have avoided the appeal.
PDF text
64 Danes Road (land adjacent to), Exeter, Devon, EX4 4LS — Exeter City Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 17 November 2021 by Matthew Jones BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 February 2022 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Y1110/W/21/3280305 Land adjacent to 64 Danes Road termed 65 Danes Road DN711486, Exeter EX4 4LS • 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 Jonathan Johns for a full award of costs against Exeter City Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for ‘The construction of 3 bedroom house on land adjacent to 64 Danes road termed 65 danes road for the purposes of this application, in a style consistent with the existing terrace’. Decision 1. The application is refused. Reasons 2. The Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) advises that, irrespective of the outcome of an appeal, costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary expense in the appeal process.
64 Danes Road (land adjacent to), Exeter, Devon, EX4 4LS — Exeter City Council — Costs Decision The applicant asserts the Council acted unreasonably as it failed to adequately co-operate or to work pro-actively with the applicant and failed to follow through with its pre-application advice. 3. I can understand the applicant’s frustration in the absence of response from the Council before the first deadline for determining the planning application lapsed. I also see how this would have been compounded by the Council going on to divert from its positive pre-application advice. This previous advice led to costs generated in submitting the planning application, which the applicant states would have not taken place had the advice from the Council been different. 4. However, even if that is the case, those costs do not relate to the appeal itself. The Council has explained its reasons for refusing permission in the officer report and in correspondence with the applicant preceding its decision. Whilst the applicant is fair to consider the Council’s email of 8 January 2020 as an unexpected ultimatum, it is evident that discussion did actually take place after that email and before permission was refused.
64 Danes Road (land adjacent to), Exeter, Devon, EX4 4LS — Exeter City Council — Costs Decision The applicant undertook their right to appeal, and there is no clear evidence that, had additional dialogue occurred before permission was refused, the appeal could have been avoided. 5. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated. An award of costs is not justified.
64 Danes Road (land adjacent to), Exeter, Devon, EX4 4LS — Exeter City Council — Matthew Jones INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Main issues and findings
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶2
The applicant asserted the council acted unreasonably by failing to cooperate or follow through with its pre-application advice, but the inspector found no unreasonable behaviour.
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶3
The inspector acknowledged the applicant's frustration with the council's delay in responding and subsequent diversion from positive pre-application advice, but found that these costs did not relate to the appeal process.
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶4
The inspector found that the council's explanation for refusing permission and subsequent correspondence with the applicant demonstrated that additional dialogue did not necessarily mean the appeal could be avoided.
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶5
The inspector concluded that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense had not been demonstrated, and therefore an award of costs was not justified.
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 1 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 4 February 2022 under the Open Government Licence.