131a Greenway Avenue, Walthamstow, London, E17 3QL

131a Greenway Avenue, Walthamstow, London, E17 3QL — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 7 March 2023 by C Rafferty LLB (Hons), Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 April 2023 Costs application in relation to APP/U5930/W/22/3298069 131A Greenway Avenue, Walthamstow E17 3QL • 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 Somani against the Council of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of the part constructed house and replacement with a multi-unit apartment building. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary expense in the appeal process.

131a Greenway Avenue, Walthamstow, London, E17 3QL — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Costs Decision The applicant alleges that the Council has acted unreasonably for numerous reasons, including: delayed and incomplete provision of pre- application advice; failure to carry out consultation; and delays and lack of communication during the application. Pre-application advice 3. The appellant sought pre-application advice on 2 April 2020; validated on 24 April 2020. Relevant guidelines refer to the provision of such advice within 6 weeks but this was not received until 17 June 2020, and did not refer to matters that ultimately formed part of the reasons for refusal. However, given its pre-application nature, the delay in this advice did not lead to unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 4. The Council is not bound to determine the application in accordance with pre- application advice. On further detailed consideration of the submitted application, with plans that differed from those at the pre-application stage, the Council found issues with the scheme and refused on this basis. These are matters of planning judgement that were clearly articulated within the reasons for refusals. As such, this does not equate to unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Council.

131a Greenway Avenue, Walthamstow, London, E17 3QL — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Costs Decision Application determination delays and non-communication 5. The application was submitted on 30 December 2020 and an email on 8 February 2021 explained a delay in validation due to staff shortages and IT issues. A determination of an invalid application was provided on 8 March 2021, with https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

131a Greenway Avenue, Walthamstow, London, E17 3QL — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Costs Decision Application determination delays and non-communication 5. The application was submitted on 30 December 2020 and an email on 8 February 2021 explained a delay in validation due to staff shortages and IT issues. A determination of an invalid application was provided on 8 March 2021, with https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

131a Greenway Avenue, Walthamstow, London, E17 3QL — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/U5930/W/22/3298069 requested details submitted 10 days later by the applicant. The Council later requested an extension of time. There is no evidence that this was agreed. 6. Over the next months the applicant regularly sought updates, and the Council stated that consultation comments were awaited. It was relayed that, if the ecologies team had no concerns, the application would be recommended for approval and would go to committee. The applicant was updated that this team had no concerns and, on 6 July 2021, was told the earliest committee date would be October or November. 7. A change in officer was relayed on 16 September 2021, with first communication provided from the officer 6 days later. The applicant requested updates over the next months. On 18 - 19 November 2021 the Council raised concerns on highway safety, waste collection and emergency access. On 14 December 2021 it was explained that a response from London Fire Brigade had not been received, leading to re- consultation. It was also advised that the application would not be recommended for approval, with previous such assurances based on a scheme that had not been reviewed by management. The application was refused on 29 March 2022. 8.

131a Greenway Avenue, Walthamstow, London, E17 3QL — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Costs Decision It is clear from the above that the application was decided within a period that far exceeds reasonable expectations. I acknowledge issues relating to IT and staff shortages. Nevertheless, it appears that the Council was reactive to the applicant’s regular requests for updates, rather than proactively providing the same. Even acknowledging discussions on other matters between parties, there appears to have overall been an unreasonable delay in deciding the application. Nevertheless, if the applicant had concerns about the time taken to determine the application, the option was available to appeal against non-determination. This did not occur. Furthermore, it was not the delay in the decision that compelled the applicant to appeal. 9. It is regrettable that previous assurances of a recommendation for approval and possible committee dates were not followed through after a lengthy delay. However, this was not a formal decision and it is reasonable for this change to have occurred following input from management and consultees, including the re-consultation of the London Fire Brigade following its lack of response.

131a Greenway Avenue, Walthamstow, London, E17 3QL — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Costs Decision Although this happened at a late stage, there is no substantive indication that earlier formal determination or input from these parties would have led to a different decision. Accordingly, even if an earlier decision was made, it is reasonably likely that an appeal would have been the outcome, such that this expense would still have been incurred. Therefore, whilst I have found that the Council acted unreasonably in the time it took to make its decision, this did not result in unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. Consultation 10. The applicant alleges the Council carried out inadequate consultation. I have addressed the London Fire Brigade consultation above but the Statement of Case also references the street lighting and waste management teams. There is no evidence that street lighting were consulted. The report does include comments from waste management, albeit that none were received following revisions to the scheme. However, even if such consultation were undertaken and no issues raised, the proposal would have been refused on other matters relating to living conditions and highway safety such that appeal expenses would still have been incurred.

131a Greenway Avenue, Walthamstow, London, E17 3QL — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Costs Decision In addition, the reasons for refusal are all clearly articulated in the Decision Notice, substantiated with reference to policy conflict, and expanded upon in the Officer’s Report. As such, they are not based on vague or generalised assumptions. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Costs Decision APP/U5930/W/22/3298069 Costs Order 11. For the reasons given I conclude that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense as described in the PPG has not been demonstrated, and an award of costs has not been justified.

131a Greenway Avenue, Walthamstow, London, E17 3QL — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — C Rafferty INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3