Field OS 8695, Brooksby Road, Hoby, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE14 3EA
Melton Borough Council — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 17 January 2023
- Authority
- Melton Borough Council
- Inspector
- Thandi B
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Minor Dwellings
- Appellant
- Ms Alison Warner
- LPA reference
- 21/00899/FUL
- ONS LPA code
- E07000133
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 11 October 2022
Summary AI
The council's refusal of planning permission for a self-build development was found to be reasonable, and the applicant's claim for costs was dismissed. The inspector noted that the council had legitimate concerns based on the evidence provided.
PDF text
Field OS 8695, Brooksby Road, Hoby, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE14 3EA — Melton Borough Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 15 December 2022 by Bhupinder Thandi BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 January 2023 Costs application in relation to APP/Y2430/W/22/3300525 Land adjacent Brooksby Road, Hoby LE14 3EA • 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 Alison Warner for a full award of costs against Melton Borough Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for two self-build dwellings and relocation of children's play-area. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. 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.
Field OS 8695, Brooksby Road, Hoby, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE14 3EA — Melton Borough Council — Costs Decision Paragraph 049 of the PPG sets out the examples of unreasonable behaviour by local planning authorities which includes preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material considerations. 4. The application essentially relies on the fact that the Council refused planning permission for the proposed development. 5. I have noted the previous appeal decision and the recommendation of the Council’s Officers. However, the decision is one which is a matter of planning judgement. Whilst Council Members have taken a different view from that of their officers, they are not duty bound to follow the advice of their officers, provided that there are sufficient planning grounds to come to a contrary view. 6. As seen from my decision I have found that the Council had reasonable concerns about the impact of the proposed development which justified its decision relating to the impact on the character and appearance of the area and the impacts upon climate change.
Field OS 8695, Brooksby Road, Hoby, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE14 3EA — Melton Borough Council — Costs Decision In coming to my decision, it is apparent to me that the Council had legitimate concerns based on the evidence provided and has substantiated its position on appeal rather than vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/Y2430/W/22/3300525 7. As a result, it follows that I do not agree that the Council has acted unreasonably in this case given the concerns relating to the proposal. Conclusion 8. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated. For this reason, and having had regard to all other matters raised, an award of costs is not justified.
Field OS 8695, Brooksby Road, Hoby, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE14 3EA — Melton Borough Council — B Thandi INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Character and appearance Against appellant ¶6
The inspector found that the council had reasonable concerns about the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Flood risk Neutral ¶null
The inspector noted that the council had concerns based on the evidence provided, but it is unclear what these concerns were.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) |
Moderate |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 17 January 2023 under the Open Government Licence.