The Old Stores, Toddington, Cheltenham, GL54 5DT
Tewkesbury Borough Council — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Authority
- Tewkesbury Borough Council
- Inspector
- Allen M
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Minor Dwellings
- Appellant
- JWS Cotswold Builders Ltd
- LPA reference
- 21/00954/FUL
- ONS LPA code
- E07000083
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 10 May 2022
Summary AI
The application for costs was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate unreasonable behaviour by the Council during the appeal process. The inspector found that the Council's refusal reasons for the proposed development were based on planning judgement and adequately supported.
PDF text
The Old Stores, Toddington, Cheltenham, GL54 5DT — Tewkesbury Borough Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 16 August 2022 by Martin Allen BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 October 2022 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/G1630/W/22/3294352 The Old Stores, Toddington, Cheltenham, GL54 5DT • 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 Mr William Down, JWS Cotswold Builders Ltd for a full award of costs against Tewkesbury Borough Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of single storey extension to The Old Stores, sub-division and 2 storey rear extension to the Old Stores, 3No new dwellings and associated garaging/carport and new access roadway. 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 thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 3. The application for costs relies on substantive matters in relation to the planning merits of the appeal scheme.
The Old Stores, Toddington, Cheltenham, GL54 5DT — Tewkesbury Borough Council — Costs Decision The applicant asserts that little evidence is offered beyond supposition in respect of the reason for refusal pertaining to the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, it is contended that no satisfactory rebuttal is provided in respect of the applicant’s assessments of highway safety and flood risk. 4. In respect of the first refusal reason, the Council clearly sets out the matters of concern in respect of the appearance of the proposed dwellings, as well as the effect of the development on the existing building, which is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset. Rather than being supposition, I find that these comments are matters of planning judgement and are adequately set out within the submitted information. 5. In terms of highway safety, the Highways Authority set out concerns over the proposed access arrangements and, despite comments from the applicant and their consultant, these concerns have not been overcome. The concerns expressed are ones which I have agreed with when making my decision. As such, I find nothing unreasonable in the approach taken by the Council in regard to highway safety matters. 6.
The Old Stores, Toddington, Cheltenham, GL54 5DT — Tewkesbury Borough Council — Costs Decision The third reason for refusal, pertaining to flood risk, is based on the initial comments of the Lead Local Flood Authority (the LLFA), which raised concern with the information that was submitted initially with the planning application. I https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
The Old Stores, Toddington, Cheltenham, GL54 5DT — Tewkesbury Borough Council — Costs Decision The third reason for refusal, pertaining to flood risk, is based on the initial comments of the Lead Local Flood Authority (the LLFA), which raised concern with the information that was submitted initially with the planning application. I https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/G1630/W/22/3294352 note that subsequent to this there were discussions between the applicant’s drainage consultant and the LLFA, which resolved the matter. However, there is no evidence that the Council received confirmation from the LLFA that it was content with the revised information. In the absence of such confirmation, I find nothing unreasonable in the Council relying on the initial consultation response provided. 7. I therefore conclude that for the reasons set out above, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense during the appeal process has not been demonstrated. For this reason, and having regard to all other matters raised, an award for costs is therefore not justified.
The Old Stores, Toddington, Cheltenham, GL54 5DT — Tewkesbury Borough Council — Martin Allen INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Character and appearance Against appellant ¶4
The inspector found that the Council's comments on the appearance of the proposed dwellings and their effect on the existing building were matters of planning judgement and adequately set out in the submitted information.
Highway safety Against appellant ¶5
The inspector found that the Council's approach to highway safety matters was reasonable, as their concerns had not been overcome despite comments from the applicant and their consultant.
Flood risk Against appellant ¶6
The inspector found that the Council's reliance on the initial consultation response from the Lead Local Flood Authority was reasonable, as there was no evidence that the Council received confirmation that the revised information was acceptable.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| Planning Practice Guidance |
Moderate |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 14 October 2022 under the Open Government Licence.