Case 3307772

Honeywood House, Horsham Road, Rowhook, West Sussex, RH12 3QD

Horsham District Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
25 May 2023
Authority
Horsham District Council
Inspector
White J
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Aspire Developments Ltd
LPA reference
DC/22/1187
ONS LPA code
E07000227
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
7 February 2023

Summary AI

The application for an award of costs against Horsham District Council was refused due to the council's reasonable assessment of the proposal and decision on planning merits. The inspector found that the council's behaviour was not unreasonable, and therefore an award of costs was not justified.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Honeywood House, Horsham Road, Rowhook, West Sussex, RH12 3QD — Horsham District Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 28 March 2023 by J White BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 May 2023 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Z3825/W/22/3307772 Honeywood House, Horsham Road, Rowhook, West Sussex RH12 3QD • 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 Scott Davis of Aspire Developments Ltd for a full award of costs against Horsham District Council. • The appeal was made against the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of tractor shed and cottage; erection of two dwellings; conversion and restoration of clock tower and stable building to form a dwelling; associated car parking and landscaping. 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 or wasted expense in the appeal process. 3. PPG includes examples of unreasonable behaviour, by planning authorities.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

Honeywood House, Horsham Road, Rowhook, West Sussex, RH12 3QD — Horsham District Council — Costs Decision Amongst other things, this can include, “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” and “vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact which are unsupported by any objective analysis”. 4. The applicant considers that the Council failed to work with them in a positive and proactive manner, and to approach the decision in a positive and creative way. 5. Additionally, the applicant considers that insufficient weight was given to aspects of the proposal and its wider benefits and, that the Council’s decision is inconsistent with other comparable schemes granted planning permission. Moreover, they consider the officer report contains inaccuracies about the scheme demonstrating that the Council did not properly consider the proposal. 6. The relative weightings that the Council gave to the various planning considerations, for and against, were matters of planning judgement. As such, it was not unreasonable of the Council to conclude as they did. 7.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Honeywood House, Horsham Road, Rowhook, West Sussex, RH12 3QD — Horsham District Council — Costs Decision Whilst the officer report includes some inaccuracies, the assessment was not so flawed and the reasons for the Council’s decision are clear. The Council has explained why this application was determined as it was, taking into account https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

Honeywood House, Horsham Road, Rowhook, West Sussex, RH12 3QD — Horsham District Council — Costs Decision Whilst the officer report includes some inaccuracies, the assessment was not so flawed and the reasons for the Council’s decision are clear. The Council has explained why this application was determined as it was, taking into account https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/Z3825/W/22/3307772 previous decisions, including appeals, in the District. Nor, is there evidence that the Council were not familiar with the site and surroundings. 8. Overall, the Council assessed the proposal, including the positive aspects and its decision on the planning merits was explained. 9. PPG advises that, where local planning authorities have exercised their duty to determine planning applications in a reasonable manner, they should not be liable for an award of costs. 10. For the reasons given, I find that unreasonable behaviour, resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated and that, therefore, an award of costs is not justified.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 J White

Honeywood House, Horsham Road, Rowhook, West Sussex, RH12 3QD — Horsham District Council — J White 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
For appellant
¶5

The applicant considered that the council failed to work with them in a positive and proactive manner, and to approach the decision in a positive and creative way.

Planning obligations
For appellant
¶5

The applicant considered that insufficient weight was given to aspects of the proposal and its wider benefits, and that the council's decision is inconsistent with other comparable schemes granted planning permission.

Planning obligations
For appellant
¶5

The applicant considered that the officer report contains inaccuracies about the scheme, demonstrating that the council did not properly consider the proposal.

Living conditions
Neutral
¶6

The inspector found that the relative weightings given to the various planning considerations, for and against, were matters of planning judgement, and it was not unreasonable of the council to conclude as they did.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶7

The inspector found that whilst the officer report includes some inaccuracies, the assessment was not so flawed and the reasons for the council's decision are clear.

Planning obligations
For appellant
¶8

The applicant considered that the council's assessment of the proposal, including the positive aspects, was not thorough enough.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶9

The inspector found that the PPG advises that where local planning authorities have exercised their duty to determine planning applications in a reasonable manner, they should not be liable for an award of costs.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶10

The inspector found that unreasonable behaviour, resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated and that, therefore, an award of costs is not justified.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
Unclear

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 25 May 2023 under the Open Government Licence.