Case 3365403

108 Kestrel Road, Corby, North Northamptonshire, NN17 5FP

North Northamptonshire — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
14 April 2026
Authority
North Northamptonshire
Inspector
Craddock K
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Householder developments
Appellant
Mr David Bonilla-Saavedra
LPA reference
NC/24/00329/DPA
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
4 December 2025

Summary AI

The application for costs was successful due to the Council's unreasonable behaviour in failing to determine the planning application in a timely manner, which impacted the applicant's research and thesis. The Council's actions resulted in unnecessary and wasted expense.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

108 Kestrel Road, Corby, North Northamptonshire, NN17 5FP — North Northamptonshire — Costs Decision Site visit made on 3 March 2026 by K Craddock BA (Hons) MAUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 April 2026 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/M2840/W/25/3365403 108 Kestrel Road, Corby, North Northamptonshire NN17 5FP • 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 David Bonilla-Saavedra for a full award of costs against North Northamptonshire Council. • The appeal was against the failure of the Council to issue a notice of their decision within the prescribed period on an application for planning permission for a micro wind turbine installation located under the roof and exterior to the loft, controlled by automatisation. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below. 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

108 Kestrel Road, Corby, North Northamptonshire, NN17 5FP — North Northamptonshire — Costs Decision The applicant contends that the Council acted unreasonably by failing to determine within the statutory timescales, imposing a six-month temporary condition on the original consent and requiring a new planning application when it expired, the effect on the applicant’s research and thesis, and the costs associated with a new noise assessment including vibration. 4. The aim of the costs regime is to encourage local planning authorities to properly exercise their development management responsibilities and not to add to development costs through avoidable delay. The PPG explains that local planning authorities are at risk from an award of costs where they have not determined similar cases in a consistent manner or they have failed to grant a further permission for a scheme that is the subject of a recently expired permission where there has been no material change in circumstances. 5. In any appeal against non-determination, the local planning authority should explain their reasons for not reaching a decision within the relevant time limit. 6. The Council has not responded directly to the application for costs and there is no evidence before me to explain the delay in determining the planning application.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

108 Kestrel Road, Corby, North Northamptonshire, NN17 5FP — North Northamptonshire — Costs Decision The failure to deal with the planning application in a consistent and timely manner, leading to this subsequent appeal, constitutes unreasonable behaviour. 7. I agree with the applicant that restricting the original consent to a six-month temporary permission was an unreasonable constraint and this necessitated having https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Costs Decision

108 Kestrel Road, Corby, North Northamptonshire, NN17 5FP — North Northamptonshire — Costs Decision The failure to deal with the planning application in a consistent and timely manner, leading to this subsequent appeal, constitutes unreasonable behaviour. 7. I agree with the applicant that restricting the original consent to a six-month temporary permission was an unreasonable constraint and this necessitated having https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Costs Decision

108 Kestrel Road, Corby, North Northamptonshire, NN17 5FP — North Northamptonshire — Costs Decision Costs Decision APP/M2840/W/25/3365403 to submit a new planning application once it expired. However, this appeal can only be concerned with the non-determined planning application and I cannot take into account matters concerning the original consent in this decision. 8. The applicant’s evidence sets out that the wind turbine was to be the basis of the research for their thesis. This was impacted by the Council’s failure to determine the planning application. As the Council had processed a recently expired permission for the same development and there had been no material change in circumstances, I find the Council’s failure to determine it unreasonable. 9. The noise and vibration impact assessment is necessary to establish whether the proposal would have an acceptable impact upon living conditions. Good practice would encourage this report to be submitted at the start of the application and considered as part of the process. As the report would be necessary whether it was being submitted at the beginning of the application or, as in this case, to discharge conditions post-decision, the need for it is the same and I do not find that the applicant has experienced unwarranted costs in this regard. Conclusion 10.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 Costs Decision

108 Kestrel Road, Corby, North Northamptonshire, NN17 5FP — North Northamptonshire — Costs Decision The Council’s failure to determine the application resulting in the applicant having to submit an appeal, and the subsequent impact upon their research and thesis, means that I find unreasonable behaviour by the Council. This has resulted in unnecessary and wasted expense, as described in the PPG, and it has been demonstrated that a partial award of costs is justified. Costs Order 11. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that North Northamptonshire Council shall pay to Mr David Bonilla-Saavedra, the partial costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision, limited to those costs incurred in submitting the appeal and the impact upon the applicant’s research and thesis. Such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed. 12. The applicant is now invited to submit to North Northamptonshire Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount.

Page 2 · Chunk 6 K Craddock

108 Kestrel Road, Corby, North Northamptonshire, NN17 5FP — North Northamptonshire — K Craddock 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

Housing land supply
For appellant
¶6

The Council failed to determine the planning application within the statutory timescales, and did not provide any explanation for the delay.

Living conditions
Neutral
¶9

The noise and vibration impact assessment was necessary to establish whether the proposal would have an acceptable impact on living conditions, but the need for it was the same whether submitted at the start of the application or post-decision.

Affordable housing
Against appellant
¶7

The restriction of the original consent to a six-month temporary permission was an unreasonable constraint, but this could only be taken into account in a separate decision.

Other
For appellant
¶8

The Council's failure to determine the planning application had an unreasonable impact on the applicant's research and thesis.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5)
Determinative
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6
Determinative

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 14 April 2026 under the Open Government Licence.