Case 3280305

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.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

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.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

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.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

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.

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Matthew Jones

64 Danes Road (land adjacent to), Exeter, Devon, EX4 4LS — Exeter City Council — Matthew Jones INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

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

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

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

Source

Decision letter, 1 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 4 February 2022 under the Open Government Licence.