The Cottage In The Wood, Hobbs Lane, Beckley, RYE, East Sussex, TN31 6TX
Rother District Council — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 2 February 2024
- Authority
- Rother District Council
- Inspector
- Jolly J
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- Development type
- Change of use
- Appellant
- Ms E Nicholson
- LPA reference
- RR/2023/560/FN
- ONS LPA code
- E07000064
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 31 October 2023
Summary AI
The Council's costs application for unreasonable behaviour was dismissed. The inspector found that the Council's actions were part of normal planning procedures and did not result in unnecessary expense for the appellant.
PDF text
The Cottage In The Wood, Hobbs Lane, Beckley, RYE, East Sussex, TN31 6TX — Rother District Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 22 January 2024 by J E Jolly BA (Hons) MA MSc MCIH MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 February 2024 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/U1430/W/23/3321733 The Cottage in the Woods, Hobbs Lane, Beckley, East Sussex TN31 6TX • 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 Ms E Nicholson for a full award of costs against Rother District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of the Council to issue a notice of their decision within the prescribed period on an application for an agricultural building to be used for storage of machinery, tools, feed, and general farming materials. The building will also have space for a farm office and workshop. Decision 1. The application for a full award of costs is dismissed. Reasons 2. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may be awarded where a party has behaved unreasonably, and that unreasonable behaviour has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 3.
The Cottage In The Wood, Hobbs Lane, Beckley, RYE, East Sussex, TN31 6TX — Rother District Council — Costs Decision The applicant submits that the design of the proposed barn would have been found to be acceptable if the Council had consulted the authority’s conservation officer. In addition, the applicant contends that the Council also failed to consult an agricultural consultant or a rural surveyor, either of which would have been able to make a judgement on the barn’s suitability for agricultural use. 4. In a rebuttal, the Council has brought to my attention that a conservation consultant contributed to its statement of case. The Council also argues that the proposal was assessed by a suitably experienced officer and endorsed by senior managers who determined that the domestic type design of the building was not suitable for agricultural purposes. 5. While not referred to specifically, I nonetheless have no reason to doubt that the Council included comments from a conservation consultant in its statement of case. In any event, as the Council refused the proposal on design matters, there would have been no necessity to seek the views of an agricultural consultant in this case.
The Cottage In The Wood, Hobbs Lane, Beckley, RYE, East Sussex, TN31 6TX — Rother District Council — Costs Decision Moreover, even if the Council had found otherwise, as part of the application process the onus was on the appellant to submit accurate evidence in support of her case. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
The Cottage In The Wood, Hobbs Lane, Beckley, RYE, East Sussex, TN31 6TX — Rother District Council — Costs Decision Moreover, even if the Council had found otherwise, as part of the application process the onus was on the appellant to submit accurate evidence in support of her case. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/00000/ 6. Furthermore, these were activities that in the main occurred prior to the appeal being submitted. The PPG is clear in that the primary focus of the costs regime in planning appeals is centred on unreasonable behaviour occurring during the appeals process. Nonetheless, I acknowledge the evidence submitted by both parties. Indeed, I don’t doubt that both parties were seeking to find an acceptable resolution. 7. Therefore, as the Council were carrying out the normal activities and steps associated with a planning application, I cannot agree that the Council has acted unreasonably in this case. As such there can be no question that the applicant was put to unnecessary or wasted expense. Conclusion 8. Therefore, I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated.
The Cottage In The Wood, Hobbs Lane, Beckley, RYE, East Sussex, TN31 6TX — Rother District Council — J E Jolly INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶3-6
The inspector found that the Council's actions, including not consulting an agricultural consultant, were reasonable and not in breach of planning obligations.
Character and appearance Against appellant ¶5-7
The inspector found that the Council's refusal of the proposal on design grounds was reasonable, and the appellant failed to provide accurate evidence in support of their case.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| Planning Practice Guidance |
Moderate |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 2 February 2024 under the Open Government Licence.