Case 3285771

Hall Farm, Middlegate Lane, Bonby, Lincolnshire, DN20 0PJ

North Lincolnshire Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
9 June 2022
Authority
North Lincolnshire Council
Inspector
Milliken M
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Major general industry/storage/warehousing
Appellant
International Energy Crops
Agent
BERRYS
LPA reference
PA/2019/2064
ONS LPA code
E06000013
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
7 March 2022

Summary AI

The inspector refused the costs application made by International Energy Crops Ltd against North Lincolnshire Council. The inspector found that the Council had reasonable concerns about the proposed development and was not unreasonable in coming to their decision.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Hall Farm, Middlegate Lane, Bonby, Lincolnshire, DN20 0PJ — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 24 May 2022 by M L Milliken BA(Hons) MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 June 2022 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Y2003/W/3285771 Hall Farm, Middlegate Lane, Bonby DN20 0PJ (Easting 500447, Northing 416259) • 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 International Energy Crops Ltd for a full award of costs against North Lincolnshire Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of 4 poultry buildings together with associated feed bins, infrastructure and new highway access. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and that unreasonable behaviour in the context of an application for an award of costs may be either procedural or substantive, thereby causing the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 3.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

Hall Farm, Middlegate Lane, Bonby, Lincolnshire, DN20 0PJ — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision The applicant submits that the Council failed to properly consider the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal or accurately assess the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) submitted, due to not requesting input from a qualified landscape architect and instead choosing to rely on internal officers. The applicant proposes that this has resulted in changes made to the proposal since the previous appeal, in terms of the reduced scale and the landscape scheme, not being properly taken into account during the application process. 4. The applicant also submits that the Council referred to comments made by the Planning Inspector in regard to the previous appeal, which related to a different proposal, and that, overall, the Council’s behaviour resulted in unnecessary expense relating to the costs associated with the preparation of the LVIA and preparation and submission of the appeal application, Statement of Case and subsequent work. 5. Having had regard to the committee report, I consider that the Council provided robust explanation with regards to its concerns regarding landscape matters.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Hall Farm, Middlegate Lane, Bonby, Lincolnshire, DN20 0PJ — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision I find that references to the previous proposal and the Inspector’s comments are provided for context purposes, and that the report itself reads as a professional recommendation to the planning committee for refusal of the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

Hall Farm, Middlegate Lane, Bonby, Lincolnshire, DN20 0PJ — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision I find that references to the previous proposal and the Inspector’s comments are provided for context purposes, and that the report itself reads as a professional recommendation to the planning committee for refusal of the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Costs Decision

Hall Farm, Middlegate Lane, Bonby, Lincolnshire, DN20 0PJ — North Lincolnshire Council — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/Y2003/W/3285771 application. I find that it contained sufficient information upon which the planning committee could make its judgement. 6. Overall, I do not consider that the Council failed to properly consider the information submitted with the application. It is clear to me that the Council, together with consultees, had reasonable concerns about the effect of the proposed development and, whilst I appreciate that the outcome of the application will have been a disappointment to the applicant, the Council were not unreasonable in coming to their decision. Indeed, following consideration of the details and merits of the scheme, I have concurred with the Council’s assessment. 7. I therefore conclude that for the reasons set out, neither procedural nor substantive unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process has been demonstrated. For this reason, and having regard to all other matters raised, an award of costs is therefore not justified.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 ML Milliken

Hall Farm, Middlegate Lane, Bonby, Lincolnshire, DN20 0PJ — North Lincolnshire Council — ML Milliken 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

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶3

The applicant claimed that the Council failed to properly consider the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal, but the inspector found that the Council provided a robust explanation for their concerns.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶4

The applicant claimed that the Council referred to comments from a previous appeal, but the inspector found that this was for context purposes and the report contained sufficient information for the planning committee to make their decision.

Living conditions
For appellant
¶6

The inspector found that the Council had reasonable concerns about the proposed development and was not unreasonable in coming to their decision.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Planning Practice Guidance
Unclear

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 9 June 2022 under the Open Government Licence.