Case 3299693

Land rear of 5 High Street, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 1HR

Dorset — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
29 March 2023
Authority
Dorset
Inspector
Rogers J
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Other minor developments
Appellant
Mr O Urel
LPA reference
3/21/0668/FUL
ONS LPA code
E06000059
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
3 October 2022

Summary AI

The appeal was dismissed due to concerns over highway safety, which the inspector found were reasonable and justified. The council's decision was seen as lawful, and the appeal could not have been avoided. The application for costs was also refused.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Land rear of 5 High Street, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 1HR — Dorset — Costs Decision Site visit made on 21 February 2023 by Juliet Rogers BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 March 2023 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/D1265/W/22/3299693 Land Rear of 5 High Street, Wimborne Minster BH21 1HR • The appeal 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 O Urel for a full award of coasts against Dorset Council. • The appeal was against the development proposed described as “extend existing single storey building and change use to that of hand car wash facility.” Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), at paragraph 030, 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.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

Land rear of 5 High Street, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 1HR — Dorset — Costs Decision The applicant states that the appeal was unnecessary as the proposed development complies with the development plan, that the Council has not given weight to the advice provided by its officers and that undue weight was attributed to other considerations. 4. I appreciate that the outcome of the planning application will have been a disappointment to the applicant, particularly given the positive content of pre- application discussions and a recommendation for approval by the planning officer. However, the Council is not duty bound to follow the advice of its professional officers, or other consultees, in making its decision, so long as a case have been made for the contrary view. 5. Having regard to all the evidence before me, I have similar concerns as the Council in relation to highway safety given the existing layout and arrangement of the HSCP, it’s vehicular access and the arrangement of the proposed development. I have not been persuaded that planning conditions would address these concerns. 6.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Land rear of 5 High Street, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 1HR — Dorset — Costs Decision I do not concur with the Council in respect of the vitality and viability of the town centre, or the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Wimborne Minster Conservation Area and the nearby listed buildings, in terms of their setting. However, such decisions are a matter of planning judgement. Regardless, there are sufficient grounds for refusing planning permission related to the harm to highway safety alone, irrespective of any analysis as to the weight attributed to particular scenarios by the Council. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

Land rear of 5 High Street, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 1HR — Dorset — Costs Decision I do not concur with the Council in respect of the vitality and viability of the town centre, or the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Wimborne Minster Conservation Area and the nearby listed buildings, in terms of their setting. However, such decisions are a matter of planning judgement. Regardless, there are sufficient grounds for refusing planning permission related to the harm to highway safety alone, irrespective of any analysis as to the weight attributed to particular scenarios by the Council. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/D1265/W/22/3299693 7. Accordingly, I do not conclude that the Council failed to give weight to the advice provided by its officers, nor that undue weight has been attributed to certain circumstances. I have found that, in respect of highway safety, the Council had reasonable concerns about the effect of the proposed development and justified its decision. The appeal, therefore, could not have been avoided. 8. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Juliet Rogers

Land rear of 5 High Street, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 1HR — Dorset — Juliet Rogers 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

Highway safety
Against appellant
¶5

The inspector had similar concerns to the council about the proposed development's effect on highway safety, and believed that planning conditions would not address these concerns.

Highway safety
Against appellant
¶7

The inspector found that the council had reasonable concerns about the proposed development's effect on highway safety, and its decision was justified.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 030
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 29 March 2023 under the Open Government Licence.