Case 3363530

Land North of 28 Ferry Road, Wawne, East Riding of Yorkshire, HU7 5XY

East Riding of Yorkshire Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
16 September 2025
Authority
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Inspector
Cowley R
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Ms Juliet and Elizabeth Shuttleworth
LPA reference
22/03139/PLF
ONS LPA code
E06000011
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
15 April 2025

Summary AI

The applicant for costs argued that the Council behaved unreasonably, but the inspector found no evidence to support this claim. The inspector agreed with the Council on the drafting of the Unilateral Undertaking, and the applicant's expenses were not unnecessarily incurred.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

Land North of 28 Ferry Road, Wawne, East Riding of Yorkshire, HU7 5XY — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 18 June 2025 by Ryan Cowley MPlan (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 September 2025 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/E2001/W/25/3363530 Land to the north east of Ferry Road, Wawne HU7 5XY • 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 E and J Shuttleworth for a full award of costs against East Riding of Yorkshire Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for erection of 9 'First Home' dwellings with associated infrastructure. 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. Local planning authorities are required to behave reasonably in relation to procedural matters at the appeal and with respect to the substance of the matter under appeal.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Costs Decision

Land North of 28 Ferry Road, Wawne, East Riding of Yorkshire, HU7 5XY — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Costs Decision Examples of unreasonable behaviour may include introducing fresh and substantial evidence at a late stage, preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted, refusing planning permission on a planning ground capable of being dealt with by conditions, or requiring that the appellant enter into a planning obligation which does not accord with the law or relevant national policy. 4. The applicant for costs contends that the Council has behaved unreasonably by failing to consider an executed Unilateral Undertaking (UU), revised plan and proposed conditions supplied by the applicant prior to the Council determining the application, especially as there had been a change in circumstances. The applicant also considers the Council’s late submission of evidence regarding the Humber Estuary Strategic Access Mitigation and Monitoring Strategy (SAMMS) to have been unreasonable. 5. The evidence before me indicates that the Council did respond to the applicant following the receipt of a signed, albeit undated, UU on 22 November 2024, prior to its determination of the application on 29 November 2024. In its appeal statement, the Council also acknowledged the agreement provided by the appellant in the appeal.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

Land North of 28 Ferry Road, Wawne, East Riding of Yorkshire, HU7 5XY — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Costs Decision Nevertheless, the UU originally submitted with the appeal was also undated. The Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England states that the appellant must ensure that an executed and certified copy of the planning obligation is supplied at the time of making their appeal. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

Land North of 28 Ferry Road, Wawne, East Riding of Yorkshire, HU7 5XY — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Costs Decision Nevertheless, the UU originally submitted with the appeal was also undated. The Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England states that the appellant must ensure that an executed and certified copy of the planning obligation is supplied at the time of making their appeal. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Costs Decision

Land North of 28 Ferry Road, Wawne, East Riding of Yorkshire, HU7 5XY — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/E2001/W/25/3363530 6. While an executed UU was submitted later in the appeal process, it will be seen from my decision that I agree with the Council with regards to issues in the drafting of the UU, and that it does not adequately secure the requisite planning obligations as currently worded. 7. I recognise that, following the decision of the Council’s planning committee, the Parish Council were successful in securing ownership of the land adjacent to the application site, thereby altering the terms by which trees along the boundary of the site could be protected by a Section 106 agreement. 8. However, while the Framework states that local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants, the Council is not obligated to accept amendments during the course of an application. Moreover, no compelling reason has been presented as to why the interest of the Parish Council in the land would preclude the applicant from entering into a Section 106 agreement with all interested parties, in line with the original resolution of the planning committee. 9.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 Costs Decision

Land North of 28 Ferry Road, Wawne, East Riding of Yorkshire, HU7 5XY — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Costs Decision Accordingly, I do not consider that the Council acted unreasonably in respect of their consideration of the planning obligations during the application or at appeal. 10. Additionally, the SAMMS was published alongside the Local Plan Update, which was adopted after the Council’s decision on the application. I recognise these matters were only raised after the Council submitted its appeal statement. However, the appellant has indicated that the UU submitted as part of the appeal is the same document that was sent to the Council prior to determination of the application. Had the Council included this information in its appeal statement, a Deed of Variation to the UU would thus still have been required. 11. Even if I were to find that the Council acted unreasonably in raising this matter at the stage that it did, the costs incurred in preparing a Deed of Variation would still have occurred if the matter were raised earlier in the appeal process, and so it is not clear that the applicant was put to unnecessary or wasted expense as a result. Conclusion 12. I therefore conclude that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated.

Page 2 · Chunk 6 Ryan Cowley

Land North of 28 Ferry Road, Wawne, East Riding of Yorkshire, HU7 5XY — East Riding of Yorkshire Council — Ryan Cowley 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
¶4

The applicant alleged that the Council failed to consider an executed Unilateral Undertaking, but the inspector found that the Council did respond to the applicant and the UU was not adequately secured as worded.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶5

The inspector agreed with the Council that the Unilateral Undertaking was not adequately secured and that the applicant's drafting was flawed.

External appearance
Against appellant
¶6

The inspector agreed with the Council on the drafting of the Unilateral Undertaking, and that it did not adequately secure the requisite planning obligations.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶7

The inspector found that the Parish Council's interest in the land did not preclude the applicant from entering into a Section 106 agreement with all interested parties.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶10

The inspector found that the SAMMS was published after the Council's decision, and that the appellant had indicated that the UU submitted as part of the appeal was the same document sent to the Council prior to determination.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶11

The inspector found that the costs incurred in preparing a Deed of Variation would still have occurred if the matter were raised earlier in the appeal process.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
PPG
Moderate

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 16 September 2025 under the Open Government Licence.