32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 8 March 2022 by C McDonagh BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 March 2022 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Y2003/W/21/3284175 The Old Cottage, 32 Church Street, Elsham DN20 0RG • 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 Ms Jane Leach for a full award of costs against North Lincolnshire Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of 1 no. detached dwelling with detached double garage. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in part in the terms set out below. Reasons 2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that where a party has behaved unreasonably and this has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process, they may be subject to an award of costs. 3.

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision It goes on to advise that among the aims of the costs regime is to encourage all those involved in the appeal process to behave in a reasonable way and follow good practice, both in terms of timeliness and in the presentation of full and detailed evidence to support their case. It is also to encourage local planning authorities to properly exercise their development management responsibilities, to rely only on reasons for refusal which stand up to scrutiny on the planning merits of the case, and not to add to development costs through avoidable delay. 4. Examples of behaviour which may lead to a substantive award of costs against the local planning authority are set out in paragraph 049 of the PPG. These include preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material considerations; making vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact, which are unsupported by any objective analysis; and a failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal. 5.

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision The application was referred to the planning committee for determination with a recommendation to approve, subject to conditions. As such, the officer report is supportive of the scheme. The application was subsequently refused by the committee, with the reasons for refusal given in the decision notice. These https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision The application was referred to the planning committee for determination with a recommendation to approve, subject to conditions. As such, the officer report is supportive of the scheme. The application was subsequently refused by the committee, with the reasons for refusal given in the decision notice. These https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/Y2003/W/21/3284175 reasons were relatively clear and concise, and the relevant policies of the development plan are cited. 6. While pre-application advice is a useful tool to enable an early understanding of the likely site constraints of a proposal, this is not a guarantee of planning permission at a later date. Similarly, members of a planning committee are not duty bound to follow the advice of their planning officers. The decision is one which is a matter of planning judgement, and in this case the members determined the application contrary to the recommendation of the planning officer. 7. I have agreed with their conclusion with regards to the location of the proposal and whether this would accord with the spatial strategy for the development plan area, although I have disagreed with the conclusions with regard to highway safety. As such, it does not follow that development proposal that should clearly have been permitted or has been prevented or delayed unnecessarily and I disagree with this first ground for the costs application. 8.

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision However, the information contained in the minutes of the committee meeting and the Council’s appeal statement are both vague and indeed make generalised assertions about the proposal’s impact. This is particularly the case with regards to highway safety, whereby concerns are raised about the incline of the road. However, there is little detail regarding why or how this would be unsafe. Moreover, the Council’s highways advisor raised no objection to the scheme, subject to conditions. Although the decision makers are not duty bound to accept the recommendations of technical experts such as the highways officer, when they do not, their reasons for doing so must be justified. 9. As set out in my Appeal Decision, I have found that the proposal would cause no harm to highway safety based on the evidence before me and accordingly this reason for refusal has not been substantiated by evidence provided by the Council and does not stand up to scrutiny on its planning merits. This being so, I consider the Council’s behaviour in relation to this reason for refusal to have been unreasonable. 10.

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision As such, I find that this reason for refusal has not been substantiated at appeal by evidence provided by the Council and does not stand up to scrutiny on its planning merits. Taking these matters into account, I therefore regard the Council’s behaviour in relation to this reason for refusal to have been unreasonable and I agree with the second ground for the costs application. 11. Although I have agreed with the judgement of the Council with regards to whether the proposal would be in a suitable location relative to the spatial strategy of the development plan and material considerations, there is also little substantive information here on how members came to this decision. However, the appeal site does fall outside of the development limits of Elsham, which were established in the Housing & Employment Land Allocations Development Plan Documents. Although the appellant feels these are now outdated, it is not my role to redraw these boundaries. Moreover, the appellant continually points to the site not being ‘isolated’ in the context of paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision The Council determined that the location of the appeal site was in the open countryside for the purposes of planning due to its position outside of the Elsham development limit. This is https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision The Council determined that the location of the appeal site was in the open countryside for the purposes of planning due to its position outside of the Elsham development limit. This is https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/Y2003/W/21/3284175 consistent with the approach set out in Policies CS2, CS3 and CS8 of the CS1 and a location in the countryside outside of a settlement boundary is not an assessment of its isolation or otherwise. 12. Although there was little information on this refusal reason, the proposal would be located outside of the settlement boundary of Elsham and for this reason would be contrary to these policies of the development plan. 13. However, I must also consider whether the Council’s unreasonable behaviour has meant that the appellant has incurred any unnecessary costs or wasted expense. The appellant has had to defend highway safety reasons for refusal at appeal, which necessitated a new technical report to be commissioned to accompany the appeal. Accordingly, I find that the appellant has incurred unnecessary expense in rebutting these unjustified reasons for refusal via the production of an appeal statement and final comments documents. 14. I have also considered a number of other points raised by the appellant. The application had to be heard twice at planning committee causing delays to the determination of the application.

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision However, although all parties are expected to behave reasonably throughout the planning process, I am mindful that costs cannot be claimed for the period during the determination of the planning application. Conclusion 15. Bringing matters together, whilst I have found that no harm would arise to highway safety, I have found the proposal to be harmful to the spatial strategy for housing of the development plan. This concern has led me to dismiss the appeal. As such, I am not persuaded that the appeal could have been avoided in its entirety, or that the Council has delayed development that should have been permitted having regard to the development plan, national policy and any other material considerations. However, I find that the Council did make vague and generalised assertions about the proposal’s impact which were unsupported by objective analysis and has failed to produce evidence to substantiate the second reason for refusal in particular. 16. I therefore conclude that, despite the Council’s unreasonable behaviour described above, the appellants’ costs in mounting the appeal were not unnecessarily incurred. Consequently, the application for a full award of costs is refused.

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision However, I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary and wasted expense has been demonstrated in relation to additional highway safety information, and on this basis a partial award of costs is justified. Costs Order 17. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that North Lincolnshire Council shall pay to Ms Jane Leach the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision, limited to those costs incurred in addressing the second reason for refusal only, such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed. 1 North Lincolnshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Adopted June 2011) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/Y2003/W/21/3284175 18. The applicant is now invited to submit to North Lincolnshire Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount.

32 Church Street, Elsham, BRIGG, DN20 0RG — North Lincolnshire Council — C McDonagh INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4