Case 3360649

Land between 118 - 124 Battram Road, Ellistown , Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 1GB

North West Leicestershire District Council — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
4 July 2025
Authority
North West Leicestershire District Council
Inspector
Fern L
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Outline
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Mr Michael Waring
LPA reference
23/00152/OUT
ONS LPA code
E07000134
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
14 March 2025

Summary AI

The costs application was refused because the Council's behaviour was not unreasonable, and the harm from the proposed development did not significantly outweigh its benefits. The application was made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Local Government Act 1972.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Land between 118 - 124 Battram Road, Ellistown , Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 1GB — North West Leicestershire District Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 2 June 2025 by L Fern BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 JULY 2025 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/G2435/W/25/3360649 Land between 118 - 124 Battram Road, Ellistown, Coalville, Leicestershire LE67 1GB • 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 Michael Waring for a full award of costs against North West Leicestershire District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of the Council to grant planning permission for erection of a self- build dwelling. 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 (the 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 between 118 - 124 Battram Road, Ellistown , Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 1GB — North West Leicestershire District Council — Costs Decision This application essentially relies on a case that the Council has: • placed undue weight on the perceived conflict with the development plan; • failed to afford sufficient weight to the benefits of the proposed development; and • made the planning decision in an inconsistent manner, failing to have regard to relevant planning and appeal decisions. 4. In response to this, the Council maintains that the appeal proposal conflicts with its policies that restrict housing developments outside of settlements, with the planning balance and weight given to the benefits of self-build and custom-build housing clearly set out and based on an assessment of the proposal. Furthermore, the Council states that the determination of the application was consistent with other applications and appeal decisions. 5. In-line with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the Council rightly considered the proposal against any relevant policies within the development plan as a starting point in the decision-making process, which in this case were those relating to spatial strategy, despite the absence of any policies relating to self-build and custom housebuilding. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Land between 118 - 124 Battram Road, Ellistown , Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 1GB — North West Leicestershire District Council — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/G2435/W/25/3360649 6. My appeal decision confirms that I agree with the Council with regards to the proposed development’s conflict with the development plan in relation to the spatial strategy policies. 7. The Council had due regard to the earlier planning decisions for development on previous developed land (PDL) within Battram. However, it was determined that those circumstances were different, and a decision was made with regards to whether the current appeal site constituted PDL based on the site-specific circumstances and the evidence provided. 8. The Council also had due regard to other appeal decisions and to the benefits of the proposed development, particularly in relation to self-build and custom-build housing, which is apparent from their officer report and statement of case. 9. The overall findings were not dissimilar to my own. However, I found that the harm arising from the proposed development did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when undertaking a planning balancing exercise. However, the Council used planning judgement to determine otherwise, justifying this approach in their evidence, which does not amount to unreasonable behaviour. Conclusion 10.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

Land between 118 - 124 Battram Road, Ellistown , Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 1GB — North West Leicestershire District Council — Costs Decision I therefore conclude that unreasonable behaviour on substantive grounds resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated. Therefore, the application for an award of costs is refused.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 L Fern

Land between 118 - 124 Battram Road, Ellistown , Coalville, Leicestershire, LE67 1GB — North West Leicestershire District Council — L Fern 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

Heritage impact
Against appellant
¶6

The proposed development conflicted with the development plan's spatial strategy policies.

Flood risk
Neutral
¶null

The Council considered the proposal against relevant policies, but the inspector disagreed with the proposed development's conflict with the development plan.

Living conditions
Neutral
¶null

The Council had due regard to earlier planning decisions, but the inspector found that the harm from the proposed development did not significantly outweigh its benefits.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
National Planning Policy Framework
Moderate
Local Plan's spatial strategy policies
Substantial

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 4 July 2025 under the Open Government Licence.