36 Vernon Walk, TADWORTH, KT20 5QP
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 19 August 2024
- Authority
- Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
- Inspector
- Knight A
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Minor Dwellings
- Appellant
- Mr A Taylor
- LPA reference
- 22/00570/F
- ONS LPA code
- E07000211
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 4 April 2024
Summary AI
The application for costs was refused as the applicant's costs were not incurred as a result of the Council's unreasonable behaviour. The appeal process was not necessary due to the applicant's alterations to the original plans. The Inspector found no evidence that an earlier decision would have avoided the need for the appeal.
PDF text
36 Vernon Walk, TADWORTH, KT20 5QP — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 10 July 2024 by A Knight BA PG Dip MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19th August 2024 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/L3625/W/23/3336125 36 Vernon Walk, Tadworth, Surrey KT20 5QP 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 Council sought amended plans from the applicant during the life of the planning application, before issuing a refusal. If the scheme was ultimately considered unacceptable to the Council despite alterations they had requested, then it would certainly have been so beforehand. Accordingly, the applicant would not have been saved the cost of an appeal had the Council reached its decision on the initial set of plans, and so has been put to no extra costs in that respect. 4.
36 Vernon Walk, TADWORTH, KT20 5QP — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — Costs Decision Regarding timeliness, the applicant’s costs claim details the application validation date, the determination deadline, and the decision date, along with correspondence between times. Although the application took longer than 8 weeks and the delay was frustrating for the applicant, as set out above I see no evidence that an earlier decision would have avoided the need for the appeal, and the costs incurred in making it. 5. In view of the above, I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has not been demonstrated. Therefore, an award of costs is not justified.
36 Vernon Walk, TADWORTH, KT20 5QP — Reigate and Banstead Borough Council — A Knight INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Main issues and findings
External appearance Against appellant ¶3
The applicant's changes to the original plans meant that the Council's decision would have been the same regardless of the appeal, so no extra costs were incurred.
Living conditions Against appellant ¶4
Although the application took longer than 8 weeks, there was no evidence that an earlier decision would have avoided the need for the appeal.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) |
Unclear |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 1 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 19 August 2024 under the Open Government Licence.