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.
PDF text
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.
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.
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
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.
Land East of Walsham Road, Wattisfield, Suffolk, IP22 1PB — Mid Suffolk District Council — J Pearce INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
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
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 11 December 2024 under the Open Government Licence.