Case 3305249

Clonmel Farm, Cold Overton Road, Langham, Rutland, LE15 7JG

Rutland County Council — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
11 September 2023
Authority
Rutland County Council
Inspector
Allen K
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor general industry/storage/warehousing
Appellant
Mr Brian Sampson
LPA reference
2021/1417/FUL
ONS LPA code
E06000017
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
17 November 2022

Summary AI

The inspector found that the Council behaved unreasonably by failing to produce evidence to substantiate its refusal of planning permission, and a full award of costs was justified.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Clonmel Farm, Cold Overton Road, Langham, Rutland, LE15 7JG — Rutland County Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 7 July 2023 by K Allen MEng (Hons) MArch PGCert ARB an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 September 2023 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/A2470/W/22/3305249 Clonmel Farm, Cold Overton Road, Langham LE15 7JG • 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 Brian Sampson for a full award of costs against Rutland County Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of an agricultural building and solar panels. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below. Reasons 2. The National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party which has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. The PPG states that awards may be either procedural in regard to behaviour in relation to completing the appeal process or substantive, which relates to the planning merits of the appeal. 3.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

Clonmel Farm, Cold Overton Road, Langham, Rutland, LE15 7JG — Rutland County Council — Costs Decision The applicant is seeking a full award of costs on substantive grounds. It is alleged that the Council has acted unreasonably by making vague, generalised, or inaccurate assertions about the proposal’s impact, failing to produce evidence to substantiate the reason for refusal and preventing development which should clearly be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy, and other material considerations. 4. In my decision upon the planning appeal that is the subject of this application, I have acknowledged the Council’s concerns regarding the necessity, size, and financial viability of the proposal. However, the applicant submitted detailed evidence at planning application stage, which included detailed storage requirements and various photographs of the site and supplemented this with further detailed evidence at appeal stage, which included financial statements This evidence assisted in leading me to conclude that the proposed building is justified having regard to the size and nature of the agricultural/horticultural operation.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Clonmel Farm, Cold Overton Road, Langham, Rutland, LE15 7JG — Rutland County Council — Costs Decision It would not be unreasonable for the Council to reach an alternative conclusion to my own, provided that it is able to produce evidence/analysis to properly substantiate its refusal reason. 5. The Council’s committee report and subsequent appeal statement gives little weight to the detailed evidence provided by the applicant. It has instead consistently asserted that a building of the scale proposed would not be reasonably required for agricultural/horticultural purposes. However, this position is, to my mind, supported only by vague and generalised assertions https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

Clonmel Farm, Cold Overton Road, Langham, Rutland, LE15 7JG — Rutland County Council — Costs Decision It would not be unreasonable for the Council to reach an alternative conclusion to my own, provided that it is able to produce evidence/analysis to properly substantiate its refusal reason. 5. The Council’s committee report and subsequent appeal statement gives little weight to the detailed evidence provided by the applicant. It has instead consistently asserted that a building of the scale proposed would not be reasonably required for agricultural/horticultural purposes. However, this position is, to my mind, supported only by vague and generalised assertions https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Costs Decision

Clonmel Farm, Cold Overton Road, Langham, Rutland, LE15 7JG — Rutland County Council — Costs Decision Appeal Decision APP/A2470/W/22/3305249 rather than by clear objective analysis. For example, given the current absences of fit-for-purpose storage arrangements at the site, any suggestion that the size of building is not commensurate with the extent of land it would serve would not, to my mind, be a reasonable or fair assessment. This is notwithstanding the paraphernalia that currently occupies the site or any constraints that could apply to hay making across some areas. Further, the Council has not qualified or quantified what information is required to demonstrate the operation to be financially viable, and financial statements indicating the smallholding to be profitable have been provided but not suitably acknowledged or analysed by the Council at appeal stage. 6. Overall, the Council has failed to provide substantiated evidence or an adequate analysis of the proposal to justify its position. This is notwithstanding identification of conflict with relevant development plan policies. As such, I find that the Council has behaved unreasonably, by failing to produce evidence to properly substantiate its reason for refusal and thus preventing development which should clearly have been permitted.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 Costs Decision

Clonmel Farm, Cold Overton Road, Langham, Rutland, LE15 7JG — Rutland County Council — Costs Decision I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense at appeal stage, as described in the PPG, has been demonstrated and a full award of costs is justified. Costs Order 7. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Rutland County Council shall pay to Mr Brian Sampson, the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision; such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed. 8. The applicant is now invited to submit to Rutland County Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount.

Page 2 · Chunk 6 K Allen

Clonmel Farm, Cold Overton Road, Langham, Rutland, LE15 7JG — Rutland County Council — K Allen 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 applicant submitted detailed evidence at planning application stage, which included detailed storage requirements and various photographs of the site, and further detailed evidence at appeal stage, which included financial statements. This evidence assisted in leading the inspector to conclude that the proposed building was justified having regard to the size and nature of the agricultural/horticultural operation.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶5

The Council's committee report and subsequent appeal statement gave little weight to the detailed evidence provided by the applicant, instead consistently asserting that a building of the scale proposed would not be reasonably required for agricultural/horticultural purposes. This position was supported only by vague and generalised assertions, rather than clear objective analysis.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶6

The Council failed to provide substantiated evidence or adequate analysis of the proposal to justify its position, and thus prevented development which should clearly have been permitted.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
Determinative

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 11 September 2023 under the Open Government Licence.