Case 3297888

Welburn Business Park, Welburn, Malton, North Yorkshire, YO60 7EP

Ryedale District Council * — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
16 December 2022
Authority
Ryedale District Council *
Inspector
Martinson P
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Change of use
Appellant
Welburn Park Venture
LPA reference
21/01117/GPCOU
ONS LPA code
E07000167
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
27 July 2022

Summary AI

The application for a full award of costs against Ryedale District Council was refused. The Council's administrative error in recording the wrong date of receipt for the prior approval application did not constitute unreasonable behaviour. The inspector found that the applicant could have queried the relevant dates during correspondence between the parties.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Welburn Business Park, Welburn, Malton, North Yorkshire, YO60 7EP — Ryedale District Council * — Costs Decision Site visit made on 30 November 2022 by Paul Martinson BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 December 2022 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Y2736/W/22/3297888 Welburn Business Park, Greets House Road, Welburn, Malton YO60 7EP • 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 Welburn Park Venture for a full award of costs against Ryedale District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal to grant prior approval for change of use of buildings from offices to 10no. dwellings comprising 4no. two bedroom dwellings and 6no. one bedroom dwellings with associated parking and amenity space. Decision 1. The application for a full award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) explains how costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably, and thereby directly caused another party to incur unnecessary expense at appeal. 3.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

Welburn Business Park, Welburn, Malton, North Yorkshire, YO60 7EP — Ryedale District Council * — Costs Decision Paragraph 49 of the PPG states that local planning authorities are at risk of an award of costs if they behave unreasonably with respect to the substance of the matter under appeal, for example, by unreasonably refusing or failing to determine planning applications, or by unreasonably defending appeals. Paragraph 48 of the PPG sets out that the handling of the planning application prior to the appeal might lead to an award of costs and states that if it is clear that the Council will fail to determine an application within the time limits, it should give the applicant a proper explanation. 4. It is common ground between the parties that there was an administrative error made by the Council resulting in it recording the wrong date of receipt for the prior approval application. This was used by the Council to calculate the date of the expiry of the 56-day period. The Council issued its ‘decision’ on day 56, but this was some time after the expiry of the time period calculated from the actual date of receipt. It is regrettable that this occurred, but it is clear from the evidence that this was not a deliberate action by the Council. 5.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Welburn Business Park, Welburn, Malton, North Yorkshire, YO60 7EP — Ryedale District Council * — Costs Decision Indeed, the Council notified the appellant of its date of receipt of the application and the 56-day expiry date. I note that there was correspondence between the two parties during this period. This would have represented an opportunity for the applicant to query the relevant dates had they been minded to do so. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

Welburn Business Park, Welburn, Malton, North Yorkshire, YO60 7EP — Ryedale District Council * — Costs Decision Indeed, the Council notified the appellant of its date of receipt of the application and the 56-day expiry date. I note that there was correspondence between the two parties during this period. This would have represented an opportunity for the applicant to query the relevant dates had they been minded to do so. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/Y2736/W/22/3297888 6. In any event I do not agree that an appeal could have been avoided because the Council was minded to refuse the prior approval application as is evidenced by its decision notice. I note that the Council notified the applicant of its concerns in respect of noise a week before taking its decision. Conclusion 7. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Guidance, has not been demonstrated.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Paul Martinson

Welburn Business Park, Welburn, Malton, North Yorkshire, YO60 7EP — Ryedale District Council * — Paul Martinson 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

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶4

The Council's administrative error in recording the wrong date of receipt was not deliberate, but the applicant could have queried the relevant dates during correspondence.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶5

The applicant was notified of the Council's concerns and had an opportunity to query the relevant dates.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 48 and 49
Moderate

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 16 December 2022 under the Open Government Licence.