Case 3291788

115 Tower Street, Brightlingsea, UK, CO7 0AN

Tendring District Council — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
15 November 2022
Authority
Tendring District Council
Inspector
Kemmann-Lane T
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Other minor developments
Appellant
Mrs Karen Cooke
LPA reference
21/01906/FULHH
ONS LPA code
E07000076
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
27 April 2022

Summary AI

The inspector allowed the application for costs against Tendring District Council for wasting the appellant's time with nonsensical conditions. The council's behaviour was deemed unreasonable, justifying a partial award of costs.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

115 Tower Street, Brightlingsea, UK, CO7 0AN — Tendring District Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 17 October 2022 by Terrence Kemmann-Lane JP DipTP FRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 November 2022 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/P1560/W/22/3291788 115 Tower Street, Brightlingsea, CO7 0AN • 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 Karen Cooke for a full award of costs against Tendring District Council. • The appeal was against refusal to grant planning permission for clearing of land and demolish existing garden outbuildings and construct a 2 storey double garage and workshop. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below. Reasons 2. The Planning Practice Guidance 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. The Application 3. The council has wasted the appellant’s time in the suggested conditions set out in Appendix TDC1 to its Statement of Case.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

115 Tower Street, Brightlingsea, UK, CO7 0AN — Tendring District Council — Costs Decision Additional and excess costs have been incurred of £2000 for administration and in additional and unnecessary research to respond to and address the nonsensical conditions that were not relevant to the appeal proposal or the appeal site. 4. The suggested conditions clearly relate and refer to a totally different site, including drawing numbers that do not relate to those submitted in this appeal, and seeking to control matters that are not relevant to the appeal site or development. This clearly represents unreasonable behaviour, thereby causing the appellant to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. The costs of responding to the suggested conditions should be awarded. The Rebuttal 5. In response, the council has made no comments. Conclusions 6. As will be seen from my decision issued on this case, I have decided in favour of the appellant on the substantive question of whether the proposed https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

115 Tower Street, Brightlingsea, UK, CO7 0AN — Tendring District Council — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/P1560/W/22/3291788 development should be permitted. However, that does not necessarily mean that the claim for costs is justified. 7. The council’s suggested conditions are clearly confusing at first sight, and would necessitate time and effort in trying to understand them, and then respond in a meaningful way. I can only assume that this was a mistake by the council, rather than intentional. But whatever the cause, it is unacceptable when dealing with a matter of considerable importance to the appeal, and in this case to the eventual decision, for this to occur. It undoubtably will have meant that time and effort would have needed to be spent by the appellant’s agent, and that should not have been necessary. The application for costs mentions a sum of money, but that is not a matter for me, but is initially for the parties to try to agree. 8. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has been demonstrated and that a partial award of costs is justified. Costs Order 9.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

115 Tower Street, Brightlingsea, UK, CO7 0AN — Tendring District Council — Costs Decision In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 3 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Tendring District Council shall pay to Mrs Karen Cooke the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision limited to those costs incurred in seeking to understand and respond to the schedule of conditions that the council put forward; such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Terrence Kemmann-Lane

115 Tower Street, Brightlingsea, UK, CO7 0AN — Tendring District Council — Terrence Kemmann-Lane 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

Other
Against appellant
¶4

The council suggested conditions were clearly confusing and unnecessary, and would have required significant time and effort to understand and respond to.

Other
Against appellant
¶7

The inspector assumed that the council's suggestion was a mistake, and that it was unacceptable for such to occur in a matter of considerable importance.

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 15 November 2022 under the Open Government Licence.