Holkham View 115 Burnham Road, North Creake, Norfolk, NR21 9LB

Holkham View 115 Burnham Road, North Creake, Norfolk, NR21 9LB — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 30 April 2024 by G Dring BA (Hons) MA MRTPI MAUDE an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 June 2024 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/V2635/W/23/3326108 Holkham View 115 Burnham Road, North Creake, Norfolk NR21 9LB • 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 & Mr Smith for a full award of costs against King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for replacement dwelling and garage (self-build). 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 PPG also advises that the behaviour of parties during the time of the planning application can be taken into account in deciding whether unreasonable behaviour has occurred.

Holkham View 115 Burnham Road, North Creake, Norfolk, NR21 9LB — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Costs Decision Although, the costs themselves can only be awarded in relation to unnecessary or wasted expense at the appeal. 4. The applicants contend that the Council behaved unreasonably in the way it dealt with the application, with particular regard to the advice provided by the Council’s conservation officer and that the case officer took a different view on the scheme, during the assessment of the application. 5. It is my understanding that a conservation officer’s role is to provide internal advice on relevant heritage matters for the case officer to consider in their assessment and recommendation on the application. It is possible that there may be certain situations where a case officer chooses not to follow the advice. 6. I am also conscious that it is not the case officer who typically makes the final determination of an application. In this case, according to the decision notice, the application was signed and therefore presumably determined by the Council’s Executive Director, Environment and Planning. It is evident from the emails provided that the case officer discussed the application with the Council’s Review Panel and the Planning Control Manager before making the recommendation. 7.

Holkham View 115 Burnham Road, North Creake, Norfolk, NR21 9LB — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Costs Decision My appeal decision sets out the harm that I consider would arise from the proposal. In view of my decision and taking account of the above, whilst acknowledging the frustrations expressed by the appellant, I do not consider https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Holkham View 115 Burnham Road, North Creake, Norfolk, NR21 9LB — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Costs Decision My appeal decision sets out the harm that I consider would arise from the proposal. In view of my decision and taking account of the above, whilst acknowledging the frustrations expressed by the appellant, I do not consider https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/V2635/W/23/3326108 that the Council has been unreasonable in its final decision to refuse the application which led to the appeal. 8. I accept that the Council’s consideration of the different iterations of the scheme put forward, along with the advice provided by those involved may have caused delays in the determination of the planning application. Whilst I sympathise with the appellant on this matter, this has not resulted in the applicant applying for costs relating to the appeal process. Conclusion 9. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated. An award of costs is therefore not justified.

Holkham View 115 Burnham Road, North Creake, Norfolk, NR21 9LB — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — G Dring INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2