62 Oxford Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 3PW
Cambridge City Council — appeal allowed
- Outcome
- Allowed
- Decision date
- 29 April 2022
- Authority
- Cambridge City Council
- Inspector
- McCreery D
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Minor Dwellings
- Appellant
- Mr Mark Tavare
- LPA reference
- 21/02377?FUL
- ONS LPA code
- E07000008
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 21 December 2021
Summary AI
The inspector found that the applicant's claims of unreasonable behaviour by the council were not supported by evidence, and therefore refused their application for an award of costs. The decision was made after a site visit and consideration of the planning application and officer report.
PDF text
62 Oxford Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 3PW — Cambridge City Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 2 March 2022 by D.R McCreery MA BA (Hons) MRTPI An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 April 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/Q0505/W/21/3284082 62 Oxford Road, Cambridge CB4 3PW • 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 Jubilee Cottage Ltd for an award of costs against Cambridge City Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for new studio dwelling in the garden of 62 Oxford Road, following demolition of outbuilding, along with associated landscaping works and new boundary treatments. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. National Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, 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. Paragraph 049 of the Planning Practice Guidance1 states that examples of unreasonable behaviour that may give rise to a substantive award against a local planning authority. 4.
62 Oxford Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 3PW — Cambridge City Council — Costs Decision In assessing the planning application, the Council were entitled to reach their own conclusions on the details put forward by the Applicant, including the contents of the design and access statement, and reach a judgement on what they considered the effects to be. Whether and how to conduct a site visit was a matter for the Council. The officer report indicates that the Council had a reasonable understanding of the proposal and the site context. 5. The adequacy of the garden space proposed for both the existing and new dwelling was a question of judgement, rather than whether it accorded with a prescribed policy metric. Although I disagreed with the judgement the Council reached, their reasons were adequately explained and supported by objective analysis. 1 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/appeals#how-to-make-an-application-for-an-award-of-costs https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
62 Oxford Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 3PW — Cambridge City Council — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/Q0505/W/21/3284082 6. There is a measure of inconsistency between the Council’s decision notice and officer report regarding their concerns about garden sizes. However, the Council’s case and reasons for their decision are adequately explained. The Council’s concerns about amenity effects went beyond the issue simply of garden size. In bringing an appeal, these are matters that the Applicant would need to address in any event. As such, the degree of inconsistency does not give rise to material prejudice or wasted expense. 7. In relation to privacy effects, when I visited the site the relevant first floor window in No.62 was obscure glazed. Whether this was the case when the planning application was determined by the Council is not fully demonstrated. Regardless of whether this was indeed an oversight on the Council’s part, again, their concerns about privacy went beyond just the single window in No.62. As the Applicant would need to address these matters on appeal anyway, I am not persuaded that wasted expense has resulted. 8. Whether the relevant window in No.60 serves a bathroom, or not, is not demonstrated by the evidence. This is notwithstanding the Applicant’s assertion on the matter.
62 Oxford Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 3PW — Cambridge City Council — Costs Decision Whilst the Council could have contacted the occupants of No.60 to confirm the use, this is not a reasonable expectation when regard is paid to the Council’s duties in relation to the determination of planning applications. 9. In overall conclusion, on the balance of probabilities, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has not been demonstrated.
62 Oxford Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 3PW — Cambridge City Council — D.R. McCreery INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Living conditions Against appellant ¶6
The council's case and reasons for their decision were adequately explained, and the applicant would have needed to address these matters in any event.
Living conditions Against appellant ¶7
The council's concerns about privacy went beyond just the single window in No.62, and the applicant would have needed to address these matters on appeal anyway.
Living conditions Against appellant ¶8
The use of the relevant window in No.60 was not demonstrated by the evidence, and it is not a reasonable expectation for the council to contact the occupants to confirm the use.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| National Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) |
Moderate |
| Paragraph 049 of the Planning Practice Guidance |
Moderate |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 29 April 2022 under the Open Government Licence.