66 The Plain, EPPING, CM16 6TW

66 The Plain, EPPING, CM16 6TW — Epping Forest District Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 14 November 2023 by Stuart Willis BA Hons MSc PGCE MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 November 2023 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/J1535/W/22/3296440 Wyldingtree, 66 The Plain, Epping CM16 6TW • 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 Manor Properties (Bishop's Stortford) Ltd for a full award of costs against Epping Forest District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for demolition of existing bungalow and construction of 2x pairs of semi-detached houses with associated parking and gardens. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, the Planning Practice Guidance (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. 3.

66 The Plain, EPPING, CM16 6TW — Epping Forest District Council — Costs Decision The applicant seeks costs due to the Council having refused the application despite the comments of the previous Inspector leading to the costs associated with the appeal. A previous appeal decision is a material consideration. PPG indicates that substantive costs can be awarded against a local planning authority where persisting in objections to a scheme or elements of a scheme which the Secretary of State or an Inspector has previously indicated to be acceptable. 4. Full details of that evidence and considerations before the previous Inspector have not been provided to me. From the appeal decision it is clear that the Inspector did not make specific reference to the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the nearby occupiers. The scale, height, size and bulk of the proposal was discussed in the context of how that would affect the character and appearance of the area. The spacing of properties was also not conclusively referenced. 5. From the evidence before me, members of planning committee made their decision following a visit to the neighbouring properties, whereas the previous Inspector had not. As such, this would mean there was different evidence before them when making their decision.

66 The Plain, EPPING, CM16 6TW — Epping Forest District Council — Costs Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/J1535/W/22/3296440 6. While not agreeing with all elements of the Council’s case, I have found that they had reasonable concerns and have dismissed the appeal. I came to that decision on the basis of my consideration of the details and merits of the scheme, having regard to all the evidence and representations submitted. Conclusion 7. Therefore, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not occurred and an award of costs is not warranted.

66 The Plain, EPPING, CM16 6TW — Epping Forest District Council — Stuart Willis INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2