Case 3290256

Land South of National Grid's Monk Fryston Substation, Rawfield Lane , Monk Fryston, Selby, LS25 5LD

Selby District Council * — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
1 August 2022
Authority
Selby District Council *
Inspector
Cooper P
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor general industry/storage/warehousing
Appellant
HD777FRY Ltd
Agent
Axis
LPA reference
2021/0633/FULM
ONS LPA code
E07000169
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
30 March 2022

Summary AI

The inspector found that the Council's decision to refuse planning permission was reasonable and that the appellant had failed to demonstrate unreasonable behaviour by the Council. The decision was based on a rounded view of the relevant matters and the reasons for refusal were clear, precise, and relevant. The inspector also found that the Council had reasonable concerns about the impact of the proposed development.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Land South of National Grid's Monk Fryston Substation, Rawfield Lane , Monk Fryston, Selby, LS25 5LD — Selby District Council * — Costs Decision Site visit made on 12 July 2022 by Paul Cooper MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 August 2022 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/N2739/W/22/3290256 Land South of Monk Fryston Substation, Rawfield Lane, Monk Fryston,Selby • 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 HD777FRY Ltd (Mr Guy Manners-Spencer) for a [partial] [full] award of costs against Selby District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for installation and operation of a battery storage facility and ancillary development on land off Rawfield Lane, Monk Fryston. Decision 1. The application for the award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. Paragraph 030 of the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) indicates 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. 3. Examples of unreasonable behaviour by Local Planning Authorities are set out in Paragraph 49 of the PPG. 4.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

Land South of National Grid's Monk Fryston Substation, Rawfield Lane , Monk Fryston, Selby, LS25 5LD — Selby District Council * — Costs Decision The applicant states that the Council acted unreasonably by dismissing their officer’s recommendation of approval and failing to assign weight to the wider environmental benefits associated with renewable infrastructure as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Committee failed to consider the actual landscape and visual harm and relied on comments for a larger adjacent scheme. It was clear that the visual affects would be materially different to the adjacent scheme. 5. The Council have responded by stating that the Committee expressed a view that it was not an energy production unit and considered that the wider environmental benefits referenced in the Framework that could be considered as Very Special Circumstances were not in place and therefore the benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. 6. In this case I have noted the recommendation of the Council’s Officers. However, the decision is one which is a matter of judgement. The Council Members in this case were entitled not to accept the professional advice of Officers so long as a case could be made for the contrary view. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Land South of National Grid's Monk Fryston Substation, Rawfield Lane , Monk Fryston, Selby, LS25 5LD — Selby District Council * — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/N2739/W/22/3290256 7. I find that the Council reached a rounded view in taking the decision and considered all relevant matters. The reasons for the refusal set out in the decision notice are complete, precise, specific and relevant to the application. It also clearly states which policies of the development plan that the proposal would be in conflict with. This reason has been adequately substantiated by the Council in its Appeal Statement. 8. This appeal decision is, however, ultimately a matter of planning judgement. The appellant and I may have reached a different judgement to the Council but that does not make the Council’s position unreasonable. 9. Accordingly, I do not consider that the Council failed to properly evaluate the application or consider the merits of the scheme and therefore the appeal could not have been avoided. I have found that the Council had reasonable concerns about the impact of the proposed development which justified its decision. The appellant had to address those concerns in any event. 10. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has not been demonstrated.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Paul Cooper

Land South of National Grid's Monk Fryston Substation, Rawfield Lane , Monk Fryston, Selby, LS25 5LD — Selby District Council * — Paul Cooper 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

Heritage impact
Against appellant
¶4

The Council's decision to refuse planning permission was based on the visual harm caused by the proposed development, which was considered to outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶5

The Council considered the wider environmental benefits associated with renewable infrastructure, but found that they did not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶7-10

The Council's decision was reasonable and based on a rounded view of the relevant matters. The reasons for refusal were clear, precise, and relevant, and the Council had reasonable concerns about the impact of the proposed development.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
NPPF 208
Limited

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 1 August 2022 under the Open Government Licence.