24 , OLDENDS LANE, STONEHOUSE, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, GL10 2DG

24 , OLDENDS LANE, STONEHOUSE, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, GL10 2DG — Stroud District Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 12 February 2024 by B Phillips BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 March 2024 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/C1625/W/23/3325087 24 Oldends Lane, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire GL10 2DG • 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 Brendon Murray for a full award of costs against Stroud District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of existing outbuilding/canopy and erection of single bungalow to No 24 Garden / Building area. 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.

24 , OLDENDS LANE, STONEHOUSE, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, GL10 2DG — Stroud District Council — Costs Decision | | 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 or failing to determine planning | | | applications, or by unreasonably defending appeals. | |

24 , OLDENDS LANE, STONEHOUSE, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, GL10 2DG — Stroud District Council — Costs Decision | | 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 or failing to determine planning | | | applications, or by unreasonably defending appeals. | | applications, or by unreasonably defending appeals. 4. The PPG indicates that an application for costs will need to clearly demonstrate how any alleged unreasonable behaviour has resulted in unnecessary or wasted expense. Little detail regarding the alleged unreasonable behaviour on behalf of the Council has been provided by the applicant. 5. Accordingly, it has not been demonstrated that the applicant’s time and expense in defending this matter was not necessary and has resulted in unnecessary or wasted expense on their behalf. 6. Therefore, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not occurred and an award of costs is not warranted. Conclusions 7. I conclude that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated. The application for an award of costs is therefore refused.

24 , OLDENDS LANE, STONEHOUSE, GLOUCESTERSHIRE, GL10 2DG — Stroud District Council — B Phillips INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate