Case 3353465

Land to rear of Abbeyspring, Down Park Drive, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 9AH

West Devon Borough Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
19 June 2025
Authority
West Devon Borough Council
Inspector
Kent R
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Messrs . Greening and Campbell
LPA reference
0522/24/FUL
ONS LPA code
E07000047
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
5 November 2024

Summary AI

The application for costs against West Devon Borough Council was refused due to the appellants' inability to demonstrate unreasonable behaviour by the Council.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Land to rear of Abbeyspring, Down Park Drive, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 9AH — West Devon Borough Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2025 by R Kent BA (Hons) MTP DipM MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19th June 2025 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Q1153/W/24/3353465 Land to rear of Abbeyspring, Down Park Drive, Tavistock, Devon PL19 9AH • 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 M.Greening and Mr and Mrs Campbell for a full award of costs against West Devon Borough Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the construction of two new dwellings. 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 to rear of Abbeyspring, Down Park Drive, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 9AH — West Devon Borough Council — Costs Decision Whilst the appellants seek a full award of costs against the Council, their grounds for doing so focus solely on the third reason for refusal and the costs of providing an Arboricultural appeal statement. 4. The Council assessed the impact of the proposed development on the trees on the site using the Tree Survey and Constraints Plan submitted with the planning application. It was not unreasonable for the Council to use that information to inform its assessment of the proposed development. 5. The evidence indicates that the appellants amended their previous categorisation of the lime tree, labelled T5 on the Tree Survey and Constraints Plan, in the Arboricultural appeal statement submitted with the appeal. The Council’s Tree Officer relied on a desk top assessment of the proposals but had knowledge of the site from previous pre-application discussions. In these circumstances, the officer did not act unreasonably in not carrying out their own site visit to corroborate whether the appellants had correctly categorised the quality of the trees. Whilst the Council may have been able to review the categorisation of the tree itself earlier in the appeal process, it did not act unreasonably in not doing so. 6.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Land to rear of Abbeyspring, Down Park Drive, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 9AH — West Devon Borough Council — Costs Decision Therefore, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not occurred and an award of costs is not warranted.

Page 1 · Chunk 3 R Kent

Land to rear of Abbeyspring, Down Park Drive, Tavistock, Devon, PL19 9AH — West Devon Borough Council — R Kent INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Flood risk
For appellant
¶3

The appellants seek a full award of costs, but their grounds focus solely on the third reason for refusal and the costs of providing an Arboricultural appeal statement.

Flood risk
Against appellant
¶4

The Council assessed the impact of the proposed development on the trees using the Tree Survey and Constraints Plan, which was not unreasonable.

Flood risk
Against appellant
¶5-6

The Council did not act unreasonably in relying on the desk top assessment of the proposals, and the appellants' categorisation of the tree was not significantly different from the previous categorisation.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
Moderate

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 1 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 19 June 2025 under the Open Government Licence.