Case 3328792

Land to west of Grey Stones, Wallridge, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, NE20 0SX

Northumberland County Council — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
30 January 2024
Authority
Northumberland County Council
Inspector
Jones H
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Mesdames J Troldahl & G E Anderson-Price
LPA reference
23/02030/FUL
ONS LPA code
E06000057
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
15 September 2023

Summary AI

The application for an award of costs against Northumberland County Council was refused. The inspector found that the council's reasons for refusing the planning application were unambiguous and adequately substantiated. They also found that the council's behaviour was reasonable and did not result in unnecessary or wasted expense.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Land to west of Grey Stones, Wallridge, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, NE20 0SX — Northumberland County Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2023 by H Jones BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30th January 2024 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/P2935/W/23/3328792 Land to west of Grey Stones, Wallridge, Northumberland NE20 0SX • 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 Judith Troldahl and Gillian Elizabeth Anderson-Price for a full award of costs against Northumberland County Council. • The appeal was against the failure of the Council to issue a notice of their decision within the prescribed period on an application for planning permission for erection of holiday dwelling with associated access and residential garden. 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 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 to west of Grey Stones, Wallridge, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, NE20 0SX — Northumberland County Council — Costs Decision The Council have set out the reasons why it would have refused the planning application had it done so within the statutory time period. I find that these reasons are unambiguous and although I do not agree with them, they have been adequately substantiated. 4. Unlike the Council, I have concluded that the proposed development complies with Policies STP1 and ECN15 of the Northumberland Local Plan 2016-2036. Nevertheless, these assessments are matters of judgement. In my view, the Council exercised its planning judgement in a reasonable way. 5. The Council’s ecologist did accept the conclusions of the Ecological Impact Assessment (EIA) in relation to Great Crested Newts but it is clear from their consultation response that they were, overall, raising an objection. They considered the Amphibian Method Statement appendix required amendment before it could be considered acceptable. 6. The works to trees necessary to implement the proposed development are clearly defined within the submitted Aboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and Aboricultural Method Statement (AMS). However, trees in this area do form a part of a habitat of principal importance.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Land to west of Grey Stones, Wallridge, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, NE20 0SX — Northumberland County Council — Costs Decision Given this status, particular regard should be given to the effects of the proposed development upon conserving the biodiversity of this habitat. 7. Although I have identified that the submitted EIA, AIA and AMS were adequate, that the effects of the proposed development upon biodiversity would be acceptable and that the mitigation, enhancement and precautionary working https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

Land to west of Grey Stones, Wallridge, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, NE20 0SX — Northumberland County Council — Costs Decision Given this status, particular regard should be given to the effects of the proposed development upon conserving the biodiversity of this habitat. 7. Although I have identified that the submitted EIA, AIA and AMS were adequate, that the effects of the proposed development upon biodiversity would be acceptable and that the mitigation, enhancement and precautionary working https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/P2935/W/23/3328792 measures could be appropriately secured by condition, these are again matters of planning judgement. For the Council to come to the opposing view was not unreasonable. 8. Therefore, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not occurred and an award of costs is not warranted.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 H Jones

Land to west of Grey Stones, Wallridge, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, NE20 0SX — Northumberland County Council — H Jones 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

Ecology and biodiversity
Against appellant
¶6

The inspector found that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on biodiversity, but that the council's concerns were not unreasonable.

Ecology and biodiversity
For appellant
¶7

The inspector found that the submitted EIA, AIA, and AMS were adequate, but that the council's opposing view was not unreasonable.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶3

The inspector found that the council's reasons for refusing the planning application were unambiguous and adequately substantiated.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
STP1, ECN15
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 30 January 2024 under the Open Government Licence.