Case 3339135

Sportsman Farm, High Halden Lane, High Halden, TN30 6SY

Ashford Borough Council — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
28 November 2024
Authority
Ashford Borough Council
Inspector
Francis L
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor general industry/storage/warehousing
Appellant
Mrs Emma Scott
LPA reference
NOT/2023/1472
ONS LPA code
E07000105
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
24 April 2024

Summary AI

The appellant's costs application was partially allowed due to the Council's unreasonable behaviour in introducing new evidence at appeal stage.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Sportsman Farm, High Halden Lane, High Halden, TN30 6SY — Ashford Borough Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 7 October 2024 by L Francis BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 November 2024 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/E2205/W/24/3339135 Sportsman Farm, High Halden Lane, High Halden, Kent TN30 6SY • 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 Mrs Emma Scott for a full award of costs against Ashford Borough Council. • The appeal was against the refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for two steel framed agricultural buildings and access track. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is partially allowed in the terms set out below. 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

Sportsman Farm, High Halden Lane, High Halden, TN30 6SY — Ashford Borough Council — Costs Decision There was no indication in either the officer’s report or the Council’s decision notice that there was any question as to whether the proposal would not meet the limitations and conditions set out in A.1 (e)(i) of Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). It was explicitly stated in the officer’s report that the Council considered the proposal to be permitted development. The report acknowledged the access track would be approximately 1276 sqm. 4. A statement by Acorus, acting as the Council’s agricultural consultant, was provided in support of the Council’s case at appeal. It states that the proposal did not meet criteria A.1 (e)(i) of Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO and requests the appeal be dismissed on that basis. 5. By providing this evidence at appeal stage which was unrelated to the reason for refusal, and effectively introducing an additional reason for refusal, the appellant then had to undertake additional work to address this element of the Council’s case at appeal. 6.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Sportsman Farm, High Halden Lane, High Halden, TN30 6SY — Ashford Borough Council — Costs Decision For the reasons given above, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has occurred in respect of whether the proposal would constitute permitted development and a partial award of costs is therefore warranted. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

Sportsman Farm, High Halden Lane, High Halden, TN30 6SY — Ashford Borough Council — Costs Decision For the reasons given above, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has occurred in respect of whether the proposal would constitute permitted development and a partial award of costs is therefore warranted. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/E2205/W/24/3339135 Costs Order 7. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ashford Borough Council shall pay to Mrs Emma Scott, the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision limited to those costs incurred in contesting the Council’s appeal statement insofar as it relates to whether the appeal proposal would comply with the limitations and conditions set out in A.1 (e)(i) of Schedule 1, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO; such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed. The applicant is now invited to submit to Ashford Borough Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 L Francis

Sportsman Farm, High Halden Lane, High Halden, TN30 6SY — Ashford Borough Council — L Francis 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

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶5

The Council introduced new evidence at appeal stage, which led to additional work for the appellant.

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 28 November 2024 under the Open Government Licence.