561-563 Upper Richmond Road West, LONDON, SW14 7ED
Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 26 September 2023
- Authority
- Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council
- Inspector
- Edwards S
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- Development type
- Change of use
- Appellant
- Mrs N Patel
- Agent
- PD Planning UK Ltd
- LPA reference
- 21/2710/GPD13
- ONS LPA code
- E09000027
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Child
- Start date
- 16 March 2022
Summary AI
The applicant's request for a full award of costs against the Council was refused due to the lack of evidence of unreasonable behaviour or wasted expense.
PDF text
561-563 Upper Richmond Road West, LONDON, SW14 7ED — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — by S Edwards MA MATCP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 September 2023
561-563 Upper Richmond Road West, LONDON, SW14 7ED — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — 561-563 Upper Richmond Road West, London SW14 7ED • 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 Mrs N Patel for a full award of costs against the Council of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames. • The appeal was against the refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for change of use of premises from a mixed use (Class A1/E and Class C3) to a residential use (Class C3) to form a pair of semi-detached houses.
561-563 Upper Richmond Road West, LONDON, SW14 7ED — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — 561-563 Upper Richmond Road West, London SW14 7ED • 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 Mrs N Patel for a full award of costs against the Council of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames. • The appeal was against the refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for change of use of premises from a mixed use (Class A1/E and Class C3) to a residential use (Class C3) to form a pair of semi-detached houses.
561-563 Upper Richmond Road West, LONDON, SW14 7ED — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — has drawn my attention to a prior approval application on the appeal site, 1 Paragraph: 030 Reference ID: 16-030-20140306. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
561-563 Upper Richmond Road West, LONDON, SW14 7ED — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — has drawn my attention to a prior approval application on the appeal site, 1 Paragraph: 030 Reference ID: 16-030-20140306. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decisions APP/L5810/W/21/3284339, APP/L5810/W/21/3284357 which has previously been granted by the Council. As part of this previous application, no concerns were raised by the Council regarding the cumulative floor space of the existing building changing use under Class M2, and in particular whether it would have exceeded the threshold set out by paragraph M.1(c). 5. The applicant also considers that the Council has erred in its interpretation of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). Furthermore, it is alleged that the Council acted unreasonably in refusing the prior approval application subject to Appeal A due to concerns regarding the provision of adequate natural light and cycle storage, despite rooflights and a cycle store being shown on the plans. 6. However, as detailed in my decisions, the Council’s submissions have adequately justified the reasoning behind both decisions. It is clear that the Council has assessed both applications based on the available evidence and having regard to the requirements of the GPDO.
561-563 Upper Richmond Road West, LONDON, SW14 7ED — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — has drawn my attention to a prior approval application on the appeal site, Whilst I disagree with the Council’s interpretation with regard to other aspects of the proposal subject to Appeal A, such as the provision of bin storage areas and cycle stores, this would not have prevented the appeal. Even if the Council had reached a different view in respect of the prior approval matters, this is unlikely to have led to different outcomes, given that the appeal proposals are not regarded as permitted development. 7. For these reasons, I find that unreasonable behaviour or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been established. On this basis, awards of costs are not justified.
561-563 Upper Richmond Road West, LONDON, SW14 7ED — Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council — S Edwards INSPECTOR 2 Schedule 2, Part 3, Class M of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Planning obligations For appellant
The applicant alleges the Council acted unreasonably in refusing prior approval applications, but the inspector disagrees, stating the Council's submissions adequately justified the reasoning behind the decisions.
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶3
The inspector found that the Council assessed the applications based on available evidence and the requirements of the GPDO.
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶4-5
The inspector noted that the applicant's prior approval application was previously granted, and the Council's concerns regarding cumulative floor space were not raised during that process.
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶6
The inspector found that the Council's interpretation of the GPDO was adequate, and the applicant's concerns regarding bin storage areas and cycle stores were not sufficient to alter the outcome.
Planning obligations For appellant ¶7
The inspector found that unreasonable behaviour or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, had not been established, and awards of costs were not justified.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| NPPF 208 |
Moderate |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 26 September 2023 under the Open Government Licence.