Case 3313193

The Red Lion, 1 London Road, Biggleswade, SG18 8ED

Central Bedfordshire — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
6 February 2024
Authority
Central Bedfordshire
Inspector
Tweddle J
Procedure
Hearing
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Unknown
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Elliott Builders Ltd
LPA reference
CB/22/00857/FULL
ONS LPA code
E06000056
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Lead
Start date
7 June 2023

Summary AI

The inspector refused the application for costs, finding that the Local Planning Authority's behavior was not unreasonable and that the applicant's plans and Heritage Statement were insufficiently detailed.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 by J M Tweddle BSc(Hons) MSc(Dist) MRTPI

The Red Lion, 1 London Road, Biggleswade, SG18 8ED — Central Bedfordshire — by J M Tweddle BSc(Hons) MSc(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6th February 2024

Page 1 · Chunk 1 SG18 8ED

The Red Lion, 1 London Road, Biggleswade, SG18 8ED — Central Bedfordshire — SG18 8ED • 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 Elliott Builders Ltd for a full award of costs against Central Bedfordshire Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for development described as the conversion of former public house to one (1x) dwellinghouse, demolition of single- storey rear extensions, and conversion of outbuilding into garaging and storage building.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 SG18 8ED

The Red Lion, 1 London Road, Biggleswade, SG18 8ED — Central Bedfordshire — SG18 8ED • The application is made under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, sections 20, 89 and Schedule 3, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Elliott Builders Ltd for a full award of costs against Central Bedfordshire Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of listed building consent for the conversion of former public house to one (1x) dwelling-house, demolition of single-storey rear extensions, and conversion of outbuilding into garaging and storage building.

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a

The Red Lion, 1 London Road, Biggleswade, SG18 8ED — Central Bedfordshire — Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a 1 Swept Path Analysis using a 6.50M panel van, drawing No. 2819-003, by CAD Precision Ltd https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 4 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a

The Red Lion, 1 London Road, Biggleswade, SG18 8ED — Central Bedfordshire — Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a 1 Swept Path Analysis using a 6.50M panel van, drawing No. 2819-003, by CAD Precision Ltd https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decisions APP/P0240/W/22/3313193 & APP/P0240/Y/22/3313199 party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 5. The applicant considers the LPA to have acted unreasonably in the way that it handled both applications for planning permission and listed building consent, causing a significant and unnecessary delay in obtaining consent and thus they have incurred unnecessary and wasted expense in pursuing the appeals. Consequently, they are of the view that the LPA has prevented development that should clearly have been permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan. 6. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the LPA did not work in a positive and proactive manner to seek solutions that could have overcome its concerns. Instead, they consider that the LPA has made inaccurate assertions about the impact of the proposals which could have been overcome by seeking additional information or by the imposition of planning conditions. 7.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a

The Red Lion, 1 London Road, Biggleswade, SG18 8ED — Central Bedfordshire — Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a The PPG makes it clear that LPA’s will be at risk of an award of costs being made against them if they fail to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal or by 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. In addition, LPA’s are required to work in a positive and proactive manner, seeking solutions to problems that may arise while dealing with planning applications. 8. However, in this case, as can be seen from my decision, the applicant’s Heritage Statement was woefully deficient and the plans and drawings accompanying the applications resulted in a great deal of ambiguity. This was not therefore a case where a modest submission of additional information would have overcome the LPA’s concerns. At the point of submission, it was reasonable for the LPA to have expected plans, drawings and supporting documentation of sufficient detail to adequately illustrate and/or describe the proposals in order to avoid any uncertainty over the extent of what is proposed, and to allow a robust assessment of any consequent effects.

Page 2 · Chunk 6 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a

The Red Lion, 1 London Road, Biggleswade, SG18 8ED — Central Bedfordshire — Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a The applicant’s proposals fell significantly short of that expectation. 9. My decision sets out why it would not be appropriate or reasonable to leave such substantive matters to be dealt with by conditions, therefore I cannot agree with the applicant’s assertions in this regard. Furthermore, without repeating my reasons here, I largely agree with the LPA’s assessment of the proposal and its likely consequent effects. Therefore, the LPA has demonstrated that there were sufficient grounds upon which to withhold its consent, and so it has not prevented or delayed development which should clearly have been permitted. 10. I am also satisfied that due consideration has been given to the existing on-site circumstances, and my decision details why this does not amount to a material consideration that would outweigh the harm identified in this case. 11. For all these reasons, I cannot agree that the LPA has acted unreasonably in this case. Consequently, there can be no question that the applicant incurred unnecessary or wasted expense. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 3 · Chunk 7 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a

The Red Lion, 1 London Road, Biggleswade, SG18 8ED — Central Bedfordshire — Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a Appeal Decisions APP/P0240/W/22/3313193 & APP/P0240/Y/22/3313199 Conclusion 12. I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated, and therefore an award of costs is not justified.

Page 3 · Chunk 8 J M Tweddle

The Red Lion, 1 London Road, Biggleswade, SG18 8ED — Central Bedfordshire — J M Tweddle INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶4

Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses, but costs may be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶5

The applicant alleged that the LPA acted unreasonably in handling the applications, but the inspector found that the LPA's actions were justified.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶6

The applicant also alleged that the LPA did not work in a positive and proactive manner to seek solutions, but the inspector found that the LPA's actions were reasonable.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶7

The inspector noted that the PPG requires LPA's to work in a positive and proactive manner, but found that the LPA's actions in this case were justified.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶8

The inspector found that the applicant's Heritage Statement was woefully deficient and the plans and drawings were ambiguous, and that a modest submission of additional information would not have overcome the LPA's concerns.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶9

The inspector found that it was not reasonable to leave substantive matters to be dealt with by conditions, and that the applicant's proposals fell significantly short of the LPA's expectations.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶10

The inspector found that the LPA had demonstrated sufficient grounds to withhold its consent, and that the applicant's proposals would have caused harm.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶11

The inspector found that due consideration had been given to the existing on-site circumstances, and that it did not amount to a material consideration that would outweigh the harm identified.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶12

The inspector found that the applicant had not demonstrated unreasonable behavior by the LPA, and that an award of costs was not justified.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Planning Practice Guidance
Unclear
NPPF
Unclear

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 3 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 6 February 2024 under the Open Government Licence.