31C Mount Pleasant, Aspley Guise, MILTON KEYNES, MK17 8JZ

31C Mount Pleasant, Aspley Guise, MILTON KEYNES, MK17 8JZ — Central Bedfordshire — Costs Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2025 by Rachel Hall BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 May 2025 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/25/3358813 31C Mount Pleasant, Aspley Guise, Central Bedfordshire MK17 8JZ • 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 I Childerley for a full award of costs against Central Bedfordshire Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of the Council to grant planning permission for erection of ancillary outbuilding. 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. The applicant considers that the Council behaved unreasonably in failing to properly consider the change of use element of part of the proposal that involves development on land within the paddock.

31C Mount Pleasant, Aspley Guise, MILTON KEYNES, MK17 8JZ — Central Bedfordshire — Costs Decision The applicant also considers the Council’s decision involved an incorrect assessment of the parameters of relevant permitted development rights. 3. The Council’s assessment of the appeal building was that it did not fall under any of the exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Consideration of such matters involves planning judgement. Whether or not the Council’s assessment included for the change of use of the part falling within the boundary of the paddock, the Council was entitled to reach a view that the proposal would be inappropriate development. Although it will be seen from the reasoning in the appeal decision that I reached a different view, it has not been clearly demonstrated that the Council’s approach was unreasonable. 4. Similarly, there is a dispute between the applicant and the Council about the relevance of permitted development rights and parameters for outbuildings. Nonetheless, as set out in the appeal decision, application of those parameters was not required to justify the development. 5. Therefore, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated.

31C Mount Pleasant, Aspley Guise, MILTON KEYNES, MK17 8JZ — Central Bedfordshire — Rachel Hall INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate