Case 3287181

324 Kingston Road, Ewell, Epsom, Surrey , KT19 0SU

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
7 October 2022
Authority
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
Inspector
Praine N
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Design Doctor
LPA reference
21/00146/FUL
ONS LPA code
E07000208
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
26 April 2022

Summary AI

The application for costs was refused due to the Council's explanation of delays caused by officer departure and high workloads. The inspector found that the Council had not acted unreasonably in its failure to meet procedural requirements.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

324 Kingston Road, Ewell, Epsom, Surrey , KT19 0SU — Epsom and Ewell Borough Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 21 September 2022 by N Praine BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date 07 OCTOBER 2022 Costs application in relation to APP/P3610/W/21/3287181 324 Kingston Road, Ewell KT19 0SU • 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 Andy Marley for a full award of costs against Epsom and Ewell Borough Council. • The appeal was against the failure of the Council to issue a notice of their decision within the prescribed period on an application for the demolition of existing dwelling and garage and erection of a two-storey building (with loft accommodation) comprising 7 flat units and associated parking. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. The Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) advises that 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. Unreasonable behaviour can be considered as either substantive or procedural in nature. 3.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

324 Kingston Road, Ewell, Epsom, Surrey , KT19 0SU — Epsom and Ewell Borough Council — Costs Decision The applicant has identified the grounds for their costs application as being the lack of a timely decision within the prescribed time frame. As a result, the applicant appealed against non-determination of the application by the Council. This costs application relates to the costs incurred due to the appeal process. 4. I note the delays and as a result both the applicant and the Council agreed to an extension of time, however, no decision was made by the expiry of the new deadline. The Council have also acknowledged that it failed to determine the application within the statutory time frame. The Council state that this was due to a change in Officer following the departure of the original Officer from the Council and existing high caseloads. 5. The Council also provided a statement of case (SOC), at the appeal stage, confirming if it had determined the application, it would have refused it. Reasons were also set out in its SOC which have sufficient detail within them, including direct references to relevant development plan policies. The applicant also engaged in pre-application advice and was also given guidance from the Council prior to the submission of the application. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

324 Kingston Road, Ewell, Epsom, Surrey , KT19 0SU — Epsom and Ewell Borough Council — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/G5180/W/21/3286413 6. I have considered the points raised by both parties regarding this application and it is evident to me that there have been difficulties experienced by both parties during the application process. Whilst the Council has not met its procedural requirements in terms of determining the planning application within the statutory time period, it did agree an extension of time with the applicant. This confirms there was contact and dialogue between the case officer and the applicant during the processing of the application. Additionally, the Council has set out the circumstances in this case were caused as the original Officer left the Council in combination with high workloads. Conclusion 7. As a result, having carefully considered the above, I find that the Council has not acted unreasonably in its failure to meet procedural requirements. Nor has it failed to provide a clear and justified statement of its reasons if it had refused the application. Accordingly, I conclude that unreasonable behaviour by the Council, as described in the Guidance, has not been clearly demonstrated. Therefore, in my view, unnecessary or wasted expense has not been incurred by the appellant.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

324 Kingston Road, Ewell, Epsom, Surrey , KT19 0SU — Epsom and Ewell Borough Council — Costs Decision Consequently, the application for a full award of costs is refused.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 N Praine

324 Kingston Road, Ewell, Epsom, Surrey , KT19 0SU — Epsom and Ewell Borough Council — N Praine 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

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶3

The Council agreed an extension of time with the applicant, and the inspector considered this to be sufficient contact and dialogue between the case officer and the applicant.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶4

The Council provided a statement of case confirming it would have refused the application, and the inspector found this to be sufficient detail with direct references to relevant development plan policies.

Planning obligations
For appellant
¶5

The inspector noted that the applicant had engaged in pre-application advice and received guidance from the Council prior to the submission of the application.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶6

The inspector found that the Council had not acted unreasonably in its failure to meet procedural requirements, and that the applicant had not incurred unnecessary or wasted expense.

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 7 October 2022 under the Open Government Licence.