Case 3283577

67 Bishops Road, HAYES, UB3 2TF

London Borough of Hillingdon — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
15 February 2022
Authority
London Borough of Hillingdon
Inspector
Price A
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Mr Vipul Patel
Agent
Mr Mohamed Bharadia
LPA reference
51120/APP/2021/1616
ONS LPA code
E09000017
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
4 October 2021

Summary AI

This is a costs decision letter, dismissing the applicant's application for a full award of costs against the Council. The inspector found that the Council's reasons for refusal were adequate and that they had not acted unreasonably.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

67 Bishops Road, HAYES, UB3 2TF — London Borough of Hillingdon — Costs Decision Site visit made on 25 January 2022 by A Price BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15th February 2022 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/W/21/3283577 67 Bishops Road, Hayes UB3 2TF • 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 Vipul Patel for a full award of costs against the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of garage and erection of a detached 2 storey 1 bed 2 person dwellinghouse with associated amenity spaces, vehicle parking and new crossover, bicycle and bins stores on land adjacent to 67 Bishops Road. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. Planning Practice Guidance advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only 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. 3.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

67 Bishops Road, HAYES, UB3 2TF — London Borough of Hillingdon — Costs Decision The application is made on the grounds that the Council behaved unreasonably on substantive and procedural grounds thereby incurring unnecessary expenditure as a result of the need to prepare and submit the appeal. The applicant sets out that the Council failed to consider the similar development at 65 Bishops Road and therefore have not applied a consistent approach to decision making; they failed to seek amendments to the application which could have brought about a positive recommendation; and did not properly assess the proposal in accordance with the Development Plan, including London Plan policies. 4. The Council’s reasons for refusal, which are set out in the decision notice, are complete, precise, specific and relevant to the application. The decision notice also clearly states the policies of the development plan that the proposal would conflict with. I consider that these reasons were adequately substantiated by the Council its officer report. Furthermore, I agree with the Council that the development does not comply with relevant development plan policies because it would likely lead to an increase in on-street parking. 5.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

67 Bishops Road, HAYES, UB3 2TF — London Borough of Hillingdon — Costs Decision In respect of considering the similar development at 65 Bishops Road, I agree with the Council that this case is historic and was determined under a different policy regime. In any event, it is clear from the officer’s report that the Council https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

67 Bishops Road, HAYES, UB3 2TF — London Borough of Hillingdon — Costs Decision In respect of considering the similar development at 65 Bishops Road, I agree with the Council that this case is historic and was determined under a different policy regime. In any event, it is clear from the officer’s report that the Council https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/R5510/W/21/3283577 were aware of this nearby development and had made reference to it where it found it necessary to do so. 6. With respect to the failure to seek amendments, there is no evidence before me to suggest that through seeking minor amendments, the effects of the development proposed could have been overcome. 7. I appreciate that the appellant does not agree with the outcome of the application. However, the Council were not unreasonable in coming to that decision and there is no evidence to suggest that they have unreasonably prevented or delayed a development that should otherwise have been approved. 8. As a result, it follows that I cannot agree that the Council has acted unreasonably in this case. As such, the applicant has not been put to unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in Planning Practice Guidance. For this reason, an award for costs is not justified.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 A Price

67 Bishops Road, HAYES, UB3 2TF — London Borough of Hillingdon — A Price 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

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶4

The Council's reasons for refusal were complete, precise, specific, and relevant to the application.

Affordable housing
Against appellant
¶4

The development would likely lead to an increase in on-street parking, which is in conflict with relevant development plan policies.

Planning obligations
For appellant
¶5

The applicant argued that the Council failed to consider a similar development at 65 Bishops Road, but the inspector found this to be irrelevant due to changes in policy since the previous development.

Planning obligations
For appellant
¶6

The applicant argued that the Council failed to seek minor amendments to the application, but the inspector found no evidence to support this claim.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶7

The inspector found that the Council's decision was reasonable and that there was no evidence to suggest they had acted unreasonably.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
London 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 15 February 2022 under the Open Government Licence.