Case 3326618

668 Southmead Road, Filton, BRISTOL, BS34 7RD

South Gloucestershire Council — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
2 February 2024
Authority
South Gloucestershire Council
Inspector
Conde L
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Mr Nick Howell
LPA reference
P23/01432/F
ONS LPA code
E06000025
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
16 November 2023

Summary AI

The application for an award of costs against South Gloucestershire Council was refused due to the Council's adequate justification of its decision.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

668 Southmead Road, Filton, BRISTOL, BS34 7RD — South Gloucestershire Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 18 January 2024 by Lewis Condé Msc, Bsc, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 February 2024 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/P0119/W/23/3326618 668 Southmead Road, Filton, South Gloucestershire BS34 7RD • 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 Nick Howell for a full award of costs against South Gloucestershire Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a proposed side extension to form a 3 bedroom self contained house with associated access. 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

668 Southmead Road, Filton, BRISTOL, BS34 7RD — South Gloucestershire Council — Costs Decision The PPG indicates examples of unreasonable behaviour, 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. The PPG also indicates that local planning authorities will be at risk of an award being made against them if they fail to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal. 4. The application essentially relies on the fact that the Council failed to adequately justify its decision in light of a similar approved scheme at no. 678 Southmead Road, and given that a two-storey extension of a highly comparable design had recently been approved at the appeal property. 5. It can be seen in the main decision that I disagree with the Council in relation to its findings on the main issue. Nevertheless, in refusing the application the evidence presented by the Council is suitably specific and detailed in relation to the perceived harm to the character of the area, and is linked to relevant associated policy. 6.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

668 Southmead Road, Filton, BRISTOL, BS34 7RD — South Gloucestershire Council — Costs Decision Additionally, the officer’s report suitably explains why the proposed new dwelling (as opposed to a residential extension) was considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, in light of both the planning history of the site and the surrounding context of development. Although I have ultimately reached an alternative view, issues surrounding the proposal’s design and its effects on the character and appearance of the area are subjective in nature and therefore a matter of judgement. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

668 Southmead Road, Filton, BRISTOL, BS34 7RD — South Gloucestershire Council — Costs Decision Additionally, the officer’s report suitably explains why the proposed new dwelling (as opposed to a residential extension) was considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, in light of both the planning history of the site and the surrounding context of development. Although I have ultimately reached an alternative view, issues surrounding the proposal’s design and its effects on the character and appearance of the area are subjective in nature and therefore a matter of judgement. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/P0119/W/23/3326618 7. Consequently, I am satisfied that the Council has shown that it was able to substantiate its reason for refusal. Therefore, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not occurred and an award of costs is not warranted.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Lewis Condé

668 Southmead Road, Filton, BRISTOL, BS34 7RD — South Gloucestershire Council — Lewis Condé INSPECTOR 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
¶5

The inspector disagreed with the Council's findings on the main issue, but noted that the Council's evidence was suitably specific and detailed.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶6

The inspector noted that the Council's officer report explained why the proposed new dwelling was harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

Other
For appellant
¶7

The inspector noted that the Council had shown that it was able to substantiate its reason for refusal, and therefore an award of costs was not warranted.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
NPPF 208
Moderate

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 2 February 2024 under the Open Government Licence.