Case 3313952

Land Opposite Higher Tolcarne House, Tolcarne St Day, Redruth, TR16 5HA

Cornwall Council — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
4 September 2023
Authority
Cornwall Council
Inspector
Marigold O
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Mr R Davies
LPA reference
PA22/00864
ONS LPA code
E06000052
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
4 May 2023

Summary AI

The applicant's costs application was refused as the inspector found no evidence of unreasonable behaviour by the Council. The inspector considered the proposal would not comply with the Cornwall Local Plan, but would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the area.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Land Opposite Higher Tolcarne House, Tolcarne St Day, Redruth, TR16 5HA — Cornwall Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 9 August 2023 by O Marigold BSc DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 September 2023 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/W/22/3313952 Land Opposite Higher Tolcarne House, Tolcarne, St Day, Redruth TR16 5HA • 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 R Davies for a full award of costs against Cornwall Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the change in the use of domestic recreation and storage land to a mixed use for the stationing of a residential lodge and ancillary recreation land. 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.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

Land Opposite Higher Tolcarne House, Tolcarne St Day, Redruth, TR16 5HA — Cornwall Council — Costs Decision The PPG1 makes clear 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 unreasonably refusing a planning application. This includes 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. 4. The applicant considers that the proposal would clearly comply with Policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan (CLP), adopted November 2016. This is because it would lie within an undisputed settlement of Tolcarne, on a site that would ‘round off’ the settlement. The Council has not, in the applicant’s view, provided evidence of the importance of the landscape or justification for its finding of harm. 5. In my decision letter, I have concluded that the proposal would not accord with CLP Policy 3 or in some respects comply with the Council’s guidance2 on rounding off. However, I have found that it would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the area and would accord with the Development Plan as a whole.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Land Opposite Higher Tolcarne House, Tolcarne St Day, Redruth, TR16 5HA — Cornwall Council — Costs Decision The Council has provided landscape evidence to support its case, including in reference to the former County Council’s Landscape Character Study, June 2008. These are ultimately matters of planning 1 Paragraph: 049 Reference ID: 16-049-20140306 2 Chief Planning Officer Advice Note on Infilling and Rounding Off, dated December 2017 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

Land Opposite Higher Tolcarne House, Tolcarne St Day, Redruth, TR16 5HA — Cornwall Council — Costs Decision The Council has provided landscape evidence to support its case, including in reference to the former County Council’s Landscape Character Study, June 2008. These are ultimately matters of planning 1 Paragraph: 049 Reference ID: 16-049-20140306 2 Chief Planning Officer Advice Note on Infilling and Rounding Off, dated December 2017 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/D0840/W/22/3313952 judgement and I do not consider that the Council has been unreasonable in its decision-making. 6. The applicant has referred to PPG paragraph 483. However, this relates to the circumstance where the Local Planning Authority has failed to determine an application within the time limits. I have no evidence to suggest that the Council has been unreasonable in this regard. 7. For the reasons given above, I conclude that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not occurred. An award of costs is not therefore warranted.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 O Marigold

Land Opposite Higher Tolcarne House, Tolcarne St Day, Redruth, TR16 5HA — Cornwall Council — O Marigold INSPECTOR 3 Paragraph: 048 Reference ID: 16-048-20140306 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

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

Main issues and findings

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶048

The inspector found that the proposal would not comply with the Cornwall Local Plan, but would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the area.

Heritage impact
Against appellant
¶048

The inspector found that the proposal would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the area.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
CLP Policy 3
Limited
Chief Planning Officer Advice Note on Infilling and Rounding Off
Limited

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 4 September 2023 under the Open Government Licence.