141 Wycliffe Road, NORTHAMPTON, NN1 5JJ
Northampton Borough Council * — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 21 June 2023
- Authority
- Northampton Borough Council *
- Inspector
- Crossen S
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- Development type
- Change of use
- Appellant
- Mr S Pickering
- LPA reference
- WNN/2022/0181
- ONS LPA code
- E07000154
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 24 January 2023
Summary AI
The application for an award of costs against West Northamptonshire Council was refused due to the Council's reasonable concerns about the proposed development. The Inspector found that the Council's decision to refuse planning permission was justified.
PDF text
141 Wycliffe Road, NORTHAMPTON, NN1 5JJ — Northampton Borough Council * — Costs Decision Site visit made on 20 March 2023 by S Crossen BA (Hons) PgCert PgDip MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 June 2023 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/V2825/W/22/3306179 141 Wycliffe Road, Northampton NN1 5JJ • 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 Pickering for a full award of costs against West Northamptonshire Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for development described as “proposed 7 person HMO and proposed 1 bed ground floor flat”. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, 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.
141 Wycliffe Road, NORTHAMPTON, NN1 5JJ — Northampton Borough Council * — Costs Decision It adds 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 failing to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal. 3. Council members chose not to follow the advice of the Planning Officers recommendation, but the reason for the refusal set out in the decision notice is complete, precise, specific and relevant to the application. 4. The Council minutes, and their statement of case, do substantiate the reasons for the refusal, and the considerations raised at the meeting were relevant to the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. I recognise that the proposal met minimum National Standards for room sizes and that the Council’s Housing Officers did not object. However, there might be occasions where members might consider minimum standards are not sufficient or have a different opinion to Council Officers. 5. Accordingly, I do not consider that the Council failed to properly evaluate the application or consider the merits of the scheme and therefore the appeal could not have been avoided.
141 Wycliffe Road, NORTHAMPTON, NN1 5JJ — Northampton Borough Council * — Costs Decision I have found that the Council had reasonable concerns about the impact of the proposed development which justified its decision. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/V2825/W/22/3306179 Conclusion 6. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense as set out in the PPG has occurred and an award of costs is not warranted.
141 Wycliffe Road, NORTHAMPTON, NN1 5JJ — Northampton Borough Council * — S Crossen INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Heritage impact For appellant
The Council's Housing Officers did not object to the proposal, but the Council members had reasonable concerns about the impact of the proposed development.
Heritage impact Against appellant
The Inspector found that the Council had reasonable concerns about the impact of the proposed development, which justified its decision.
Living conditions For appellant
The proposal met minimum National Standards for room sizes, but the Council members had a different opinion.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| National Planning Policy Framework |
Limited |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 21 June 2023 under the Open Government Licence.