59 Maylands Drive, Sidcup, DA14 4SB

59 Maylands Drive, Sidcup, DA14 4SB — London Borough of Bexley — Costs Decision Site visit made on 23 August 2022 by N Praine BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date 05 OCTOBER 2022 Costs application in relation to APP/D5120/W/21/3284663 59 Maylands Drive, Sidcup DA14 4SB • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act), sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Mr L Saromi for an award of costs against the Council of the London Borough of Bexley. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for alterations and extension to form 4 units. Decision 1. The application for a costs award is allowed in part, in the terms set out below. Reasons 2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) makes it clear that parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. It sets out that irrespective of the outcome of an appeal, costs may only be awarded where a party has behaved unreasonably, in either a procedural or substantive way, which has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 3.

59 Maylands Drive, Sidcup, DA14 4SB — London Borough of Bexley — Costs Decision The PPG advises an application for costs will need to clearly demonstrate how any alleged unreasonable behaviour has resulted in unnecessary or wasted expense. Delay in providing information or other failure to adhere to deadlines may result in a procedural award of costs. Examples of behaviour which may give rise to substantive award of costs against councils include introducing new reasons for refusal and failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal. 4. The applicant considers that the Council behaved unreasonably during the appeal process because the Council did not respond the applicant’s Statement of Case (SOC) in detail. Additionally, the appellant states that the Council sought to introduce a new reason for refusal which did not form part of the original decision notice. 5. The Council, in their Appeal Statement, at paragraph 2.1, acknowledged the applicant’s SOC. It considered that no new issues had been raised regarding the non-highway reasons for refusal and chose to rely on the Delegated Report previously submitted. 6.

59 Maylands Drive, Sidcup, DA14 4SB — London Borough of Bexley — Costs Decision I am satisfied that the Delegated Report and Decision Notice produced by the Council have sufficient detail within them, including direct references to https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

59 Maylands Drive, Sidcup, DA14 4SB — London Borough of Bexley — Costs Decision I am satisfied that the Delegated Report and Decision Notice produced by the Council have sufficient detail within them, including direct references to https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/D5120/W/21/3284663 relevant development plan policies, to satisfactorily substantiate the imposition of each reason for refusing planning permission. This is despite my finding in determining the planning appeal that the proposal would retain a suitable housing stock. The Council produced an appeal statement and explained why it had no further comments to make. On this basis I am satisfied that, in this respect, the Council has not acted unreasonably. 7. The Council’s Delegated Report, regarding highway matters, focuses on parking stress and acknowledges the two proposed off street parking spaces and the access from the highway. There is no reference to any unacceptable harm arising from the access or the off-street parking area within the Delegated Report. 8. It is clear from the Highway Planning Appeal Statement that the Council is content that recent parking surveys undertaken demonstrate there is sufficient on-street parking provision to accommodate the development.

59 Maylands Drive, Sidcup, DA14 4SB — London Borough of Bexley — Costs Decision However, it is contended at paragraph 5.5 of the same statement that the off-street parking arrangement would create an awkward access and egress arrangement, whilst at paragraph 5.12 it is concluded that the proposed car parking layout is of poor design and would give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety. Despite brief references made to parallel/perpendicular parking alignments, no detailed reasoning or thorough objective analysis has been provided by the Council to clearly demonstrate why the parking arrangement is not acceptable. 9. Moreover, an objection to the proposed parking layout is not reflected in the Council’s reasons for refusing planning permission. Notwithstanding any reference made to changing levels by the Highway Authority at application stage, this is the first time an objection has been formally raised. As such, the approach taken in this regard constitutes unreasonable behaviour. 10. The applicant, as part of their final comments, sought to address objections raised with respect to the access and off-street parking. Thus, wasted, or unnecessary expense was incurred by the applicant at appeal stage. 11.

59 Maylands Drive, Sidcup, DA14 4SB — London Borough of Bexley — Costs Decision Consequently, a partial award of costs is justified only in relation to the new objection which did not form part of the original refusal reasons and the associated costs incurred by the applicant in responding to this as part of their final comments. Recommendation and Conclusion 12. I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense as described in the PPG has been demonstrated in respect of the Council’s introduction of a new objection after the decision was made and its failure to properly substantiate this objection. Therefore, I find that a partial award of costs is justified in this respect only. Costs Order 13. 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 the Council of the London Borough of Bexley shall pay to Mr L Saromi the partial costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision, limited to those costs incurred in respect of responding, as part of their final comments, to the Council’s objection relating to the off-street parking layout https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

59 Maylands Drive, Sidcup, DA14 4SB — London Borough of Bexley — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/D5120/W/21/3284663 being prejudicial to highway safety. Such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed. 14. The applicant is now invited to submit to the Council of the London Borough of Bexley, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount.

59 Maylands Drive, Sidcup, DA14 4SB — London Borough of Bexley — N Praine INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3