Case 3342190

Land East of Walsham Road, Wattisfield, Suffolk, IP22 1PB

Mid Suffolk District Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
11 December 2024
Authority
Mid Suffolk District Council
Inspector
Pearce J
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Outline
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Mr Richard Syrett
LPA reference
DC/23/05549
ONS LPA code
E07000203
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
11 June 2024

Summary AI

The application for an award of costs against Mid Suffolk District Council was dismissed. The inspector found that the council's actions were not unreasonable, despite providing contradictory advice during the planning application process.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Land East of Walsham Road, Wattisfield, Suffolk, IP22 1PB — Mid Suffolk District Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 18 November 2024 by J Pearce MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11th December 2024 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/W3520/W/24/3342190 • 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 Richard Syrett for a full award of costs against Mid Suffolk District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of 1no. dwelling and cartlodge. Land East of Walsham Road, Wattisfield, Diss IP22 1PB 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

Land East of Walsham Road, Wattisfield, Suffolk, IP22 1PB — Mid Suffolk District Council — Costs Decision The applicant considers that the Council provided advice contrary to the reasons for refusal during the course of the application, including whether flood risk is a matter relevant for consideration within the permission in principle stage. 4. The officer indicated that they “think Policy LP01 would give support, especially for infill development facing the road as we have here”. The application was subsequently refused, with the Council concluding that the proposal would conflict with Policy LP01. I acknowledge that receiving an outcome in direct contradiction to the officer’s advice would be frustrating. However, the Council is not bound by an officer’s indication of approval during the application process. Moreover, planning permission is not granted until the decision notice is issued. 5. The applicant states that the officer had advised that a Flood Risk Assessment was not required on the basis that such matters fell outside the scope of the considerations at the permission in principle stage. The application was subsequently refused due to surface water flooding at the site.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Land East of Walsham Road, Wattisfield, Suffolk, IP22 1PB — Mid Suffolk District Council — Costs Decision While the officer’s advice during the course of the application was contrary to the reason for refusal within the decision notice, it is not unreasonable for flood risk to fall within considerations of location and land use and therefore the remit of permission in principle. 6. In respect of both grounds of the application for an award of costs, although the officer provided contradictory advice during the planning application process, the Council went on to substantiate its reasons for refusal with https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

Land East of Walsham Road, Wattisfield, Suffolk, IP22 1PB — Mid Suffolk District Council — Costs Decision While the officer’s advice during the course of the application was contrary to the reason for refusal within the decision notice, it is not unreasonable for flood risk to fall within considerations of location and land use and therefore the remit of permission in principle. 6. In respect of both grounds of the application for an award of costs, although the officer provided contradictory advice during the planning application process, the Council went on to substantiate its reasons for refusal with https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/W3520/W/24/3342190 reference to relevant local plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework in the decision notice and the Officer’s Report. I drew the same conclusions on this matter in the appeal decision. 7. Therefore, while I acknowledge and appreciate the frustrations of the applicant, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not occurred and an award of costs is not warranted.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 J Pearce

Land East of Walsham Road, Wattisfield, Suffolk, IP22 1PB — Mid Suffolk District Council — J Pearce 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
¶2

The inspector noted that the applicant received contradictory advice during the application process, but the council went on to substantiate its reasons for refusal with reference to relevant local plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶5

The inspector acknowledged that the officer's advice was contrary to the reason for refusal, but found that the council's actions were not unreasonable, as flood risk can fall within considerations of location and land use.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶7

The inspector concluded that the council's actions were not unreasonable and did not result in unnecessary or wasted expense, dismissing the application for an award of costs.

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 11 December 2024 under the Open Government Licence.