182A Northfield Avenue, Ealing, London, W13 9SB
London Borough of Ealing — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 18 October 2022
- Authority
- London Borough of Ealing
- Inspector
- Robinson N
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Minor Dwellings
- Appellant
- Mr Raj Gupta
- LPA reference
- 217138FUL
- ONS LPA code
- E09000009
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 7 June 2022
Summary AI
The application for costs was refused as the applicant's issues did not relate to unreasonable behaviour in the appeal process, and there was no substantive evidence of wasted expense by the neighbour.
PDF text
182A Northfield Avenue, Ealing, London, W13 9SB — London Borough of Ealing — Costs Decisions Site visit made on 5 September 2022 by Nichola Robinson BA (hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18 October 2022 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/W/22/3294236 182A Northfield Avenue, West Ealing W13 9SB • 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 Nancy Jones for a full award of costs against Mr Raj Gupta. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a rear dormer and extension over rear outrigger and front rooflights to create a new studio flat at roof level. 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 therefore caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. Unreasonable behaviour may be procedural and/or substantive. 3.
182A Northfield Avenue, Ealing, London, W13 9SB — London Borough of Ealing — Costs Decisions In this instance, the applicant, a neighbour, refers to disturbance caused during construction, harm to living conditions and an anticipated reduction in the value of her home as a consequence of the appeal proposal and previous planning permissions at the appeal property. The costs claim references the impact existing works have had on her and her property. 4. The issues raised by the complainant appear to relate to concerns regarding the implementation of existing consents and objections to the appeal proposal. They do not appear to relate to unreasonable behaviour in the appeal process. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence of wasted expense by the neighbour. 5. Therefore, the application for an award of costs is refused.
182A Northfield Avenue, Ealing, London, W13 9SB — London Borough of Ealing — Nichola Robinson INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Main issues and findings
Living conditions For appellant ¶3
The applicant referred to disturbance caused during construction and harm to living conditions, but these issues related to concerns regarding the implementation of existing consents and objections to the appeal proposal, not unreasonable behaviour in the appeal process.
Living conditions For appellant ¶4
There was no substantive evidence of wasted expense by the neighbour, and the issues raised did not relate to unreasonable behaviour in the appeal process.
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 1 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 18 October 2022 under the Open Government Licence.