Mulberry Lodge, 64a Wycombe Road, Prestwood, Buckinghamshire, HP16 0PQ

Mulberry Lodge, 64a Wycombe Road, Prestwood, Buckinghamshire, HP16 0PQ — Buckinghamshire Council - Chiltern Area * — Costs Decision Site visit made on 20 June 2023 by S Harrington MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 July 2023 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/X0415/W/22/3313552 Mulberry Lodge, 64a Wycombe Road, Prestwood, Buckinghamshire HP16 0PQ • 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 Buckinghamshire Council - East Area (Chiltern) for full award of costs against Mrs Carole Eaden. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for proposed detached dwelling and garage, subdivision of garden. 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. 3. The Council contends that the applicant has acted unreasonably, in that it considers the applicant’s appeal to be spurious, with no chance of success.

Mulberry Lodge, 64a Wycombe Road, Prestwood, Buckinghamshire, HP16 0PQ — Buckinghamshire Council - Chiltern Area * — Costs Decision The Council submits that the appeal the subject of this costs application follows a recent appeal decision1 in respect of a very similar development on the same site, for the same applicant, where an Inspector had concluded that the proposal was unacceptable. The Council further submits that the site circumstances, relevant development plan policies and national guidance have not changed in the intervening period. 4. The PPG outlines examples of unreasonable behaviour, including ‘where the development is clearly not in accordance with the development plan, and no other material considerations such as national planning policy are advanced that indicate the decision should have been made otherwise, or where other material considerations are advanced, there is inadequate supporting evidence and the appeal follows a recent appeal decision in respect of the same, or a very similar, development on the same, or substantially the same site where the Secretary of State or an Inspector decided that the proposal was unacceptable and circumstances have not materially changed in the intervening period’.2 1 APP/X0415/W/21/3267390 2 Paragraph: 053 Reference ID: 16-053-20140306 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Mulberry Lodge, 64a Wycombe Road, Prestwood, Buckinghamshire, HP16 0PQ — Buckinghamshire Council - Chiltern Area * — Costs Decision Appeal Decision APP/X0415/W/22/3313552 5. From the evidence provided to me, I note a planning application3 was submitted dated 26 August 2020 proposing a detached dwelling and garage, subdivision of garden. This was refused by notice dated 11 December 2020, with an appeal then being submitted on 21 January 2021, and dismissed on 5 July 2021. 6. The appeal the subject to this costs application, relates to a similar development to that that was considered within the previous appeal decision. However, my attention has been brought to various changes to the proposal, as well as other factors that the applicant has suggested are additional material considerations. Amendments to the proposal include, as noted within the applicants ‘Supplementary Information Design, Access & Planning Statement’, site plan revised to show neighbouring development to the west; width of the dwelling reduced; dormer windows in the roof replaced with skylights; proposed chalet bungalow relocated within the site; and change of driveway surface. 7.

Mulberry Lodge, 64a Wycombe Road, Prestwood, Buckinghamshire, HP16 0PQ — Buckinghamshire Council - Chiltern Area * — Costs Decision Numerous additional material considerations are also cited, including additional case law and planning history, clarification of surrounding development and changes to the Council’s 5-year housing land supply. 8. Furthermore, I have been provided with correspondence between the parties relating to the applicants exercising of the Council’s formal complaint procedure and the Council’s handling of the original planning application. While the matter of the Council’s alleged conduct is not a matter for me, within the correspondence I particularly note an e:mail dated 27 July 2022 from the Council’s Deputy Chief Executive which concludes ‘I understand that you have submitted a new planning application for the same development which is currently being considered. The Council considers this is the appropriate route to have your application reviewed’. Given this correspondence, it is not unreasonable for the applicant to have continued with the planning process. 9.

Mulberry Lodge, 64a Wycombe Road, Prestwood, Buckinghamshire, HP16 0PQ — Buckinghamshire Council - Chiltern Area * — Costs Decision Notwithstanding, I also find that although the appeal proposal is for a similar development to that subject to an appeal that an Inspector concluded was unacceptable, sufficient material amendments had been made to the proposal in light of the Inspectors findings and additional considerations were advanced resulting in the appellants exercising of the appeal process not being unreasonable. 10. Taking all the above points into account I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has not been demonstrated.

Mulberry Lodge, 64a Wycombe Road, Prestwood, Buckinghamshire, HP16 0PQ — Buckinghamshire Council - Chiltern Area * — S Harrington MA MRTPI INSPECTOR 3 PL/20/2843/FA https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2