Land West Of The Fox And Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmer Village, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6XE

Land West Of The Fox And Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmer Village, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6XE — Chelmsford Borough Council — Costs Decisions Inquiry held on 21-24 October and 5-7 November 2025 Site visit made on 7 November 2025 by Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge BA (Hons) MTP MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th January 2026 Costs applications (A and B) in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/W1525/W/25/3365611 Land West of The Fox and Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmsford  The applications are made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).  The applications are made by the Custodians of the Chelmer Valley Water Meadows (the Custodians) for a full award of costs against Countryside Properties (UK) Limited and Stonebond Properties (Chelmsford) Ltd (the appellants).  The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for residential development comprising the construction of 55 affordable homes, provision of open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage, ground re-profiling, formation of bund, cycle and footpath links, vehicular access from Chelmer Village Way and highway changes to Chelmer Village Way. Decisions 1. Costs Applications A and B for an award of costs are both refused.

Land West Of The Fox And Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmer Village, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6XE — Chelmsford Borough Council — Costs Decisions The submissions and responses by the parties 2. The costs applications A and B were submitted by the Custodians on 5 November 2025 jointly against the Council and the appellants. Separate decisions have been written for the applications against the Council and the appellants given that these parties submitted separate responses. 3. As there was insufficient time left in the Inquiry programme following receipt of the costs applications, it was agreed that the responses and any final comments from the Custodians could be provided in writing within a specified timeframe. The appellants’ response was received on 14 November 2025 and the Custodians’ final comments were received on 20 November 2025. Reasons 4. 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 PPG states that awards against an appellant may be procedural, in regard to behaviour in relation to completing the appeal process, or substantive, relating to the planning merits of the appeal.

Land West Of The Fox And Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmer Village, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6XE — Chelmsford Borough Council — Costs Decisions The Custodians contend that the appellants have behaved unreasonably on two bases. 5. Costs Application A relates to the proposition that it is acceptable to receive a gift, unconnected to the development to be permitted, whether or not the gift provides a different public benefit. The application sets out the three tests for planning obligations from paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework with the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land West Of The Fox And Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmer Village, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6XE — Chelmsford Borough Council — Costs Decisions The Custodians contend that the appellants have behaved unreasonably on two bases. 5. Costs Application A relates to the proposition that it is acceptable to receive a gift, unconnected to the development to be permitted, whether or not the gift provides a different public benefit. The application sets out the three tests for planning obligations from paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework with the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land West Of The Fox And Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmer Village, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6XE — Chelmsford Borough Council — Costs Decisions Costs Decisions APP/W1525/W/25/3365611 contention that the ‘gift land’ (transfer land) is not necessary, directly related, or fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The Custodians contend that the offer of land was inappropriate and the appellants failed to justify the offer and how it meets the three tests. They argue that if the transfer land was removed from the proposal, then the proposed development would be in serious jeopardy and the appeal would have been unnecessary, hence full costs are sought. Even if the appeal had proceeded without the transfer land, then the Custodians seek a partial award of costs for the time spent dealing with this matter at appeal. 6. It will be seen from my appeal decision that I consider the transfer land to form a legitimate part of the proposed development and it represents a planning benefit. There is a clear connection between the transfer land and the red line site in terms of ownership and footpath links. There are also corporate and policy aspirations for enhanced public open space and no alternative scheme before me to achieve this for the transfer land.

Land West Of The Fox And Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmer Village, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6XE — Chelmsford Borough Council — Costs Decisions My decision concludes that the transfer land would pass the three tests for planning obligations. 7. I consider that the appellants adequately set out the justification for the transfer land and how it meets the three tests, from Mr Dixon’s proof of evidence to the closing submissions. Consequently, it was not inappropriate for the appellants to offer the transfer land to the Council. In any case, permission was refused for this scheme at planning committee. Therefore, even if the Council had agreed with the Custodians on the transfer land as being irrelevant or failing to meet the three tests, an appeal would still likely have been submitted by the appellants and necessary costs incurred. A partial award of costs would only be possible if I agreed with the Custodians on this matter, which I do not. 8. As part of this costs applications, the Custodians also refer to the weakening of the Council’s position during a lengthy pre-application process and the lack of public access to and involvement in meetings, with highways negotiations cited as a prime example of discussions behind closed doors.

Land West Of The Fox And Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmer Village, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6XE — Chelmsford Borough Council — Costs Decisions While these contentions are mainly directed at the Council, I have no evidence of any untoward behaviour on the part of the appellants as part of the pre-application process and highway negotiations. 9. Concluding on Costs Application A, there has been no unreasonable behaviour from the appellants that has led to unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. Thus, a full or partial award of costs against the appellants is not justified. 10. Costs Application B relates to the sequential test, which the Custodians contend was contrived and passed by defining parameters that were unreasonably narrow and exclusively relied on the inclusion of the transfer land which is not part of the development to be permitted. The Custodians argue that the area of search was too small and based on the premise that the housing and strategic open space had to be found in the same location. They contend that the appellants were at fault by putting forward such an approach and that a flawed test puts the whole permission at risk. Thus, a full award of costs is sought against an appeal that should not have been necessary. 11.

Land West Of The Fox And Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmer Village, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6XE — Chelmsford Borough Council — Costs Decisions It will be seen from my appeal decision that I found the appellants’ area of search to be acceptable and appropriate. Although the appellants’ flood risk and planning witnesses did not elaborate on the sequential test at the Inquiry, the appellants had already produced an assessment at the application stage and were happy to rely https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land West Of The Fox And Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmer Village, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6XE — Chelmsford Borough Council — Costs Decisions It will be seen from my appeal decision that I found the appellants’ area of search to be acceptable and appropriate. Although the appellants’ flood risk and planning witnesses did not elaborate on the sequential test at the Inquiry, the appellants had already produced an assessment at the application stage and were happy to rely https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land West Of The Fox And Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmer Village, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6XE — Chelmsford Borough Council — Costs Decisions Costs Decisions APP/W1525/W/25/3365611 on its contents. The appellants were entitled to put forward the transfer land as part of the proposed development. The circumstances here are very specific to this location and these appellants/landowners. Thus, it is not accurate to say that the approach was contrived or could be repeated by all owners of land in flood zone 3. 12. My appeal decision finds that it was reasonable to include the transfer land within the area of search and to focus on land to the east of Chelmsford given the corporate and policy aims of the Council. My decision also finds that the housing site and the transfer land are connected and that the proposed development was the only option before me for the delivery of improved strategic open space. 13. Nevertheless, even if I had agreed with the Custodians and concluded that the sequential test was not passed, this would not necessarily have prevented planning permission from being granted. I would have been required to consider case law and other appeal decisions to decide whether it was a matter to weigh in the planning balance rather than automatically dismiss the appeal. 14.

Land West Of The Fox And Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmer Village, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6XE — Chelmsford Borough Council — Costs Decisions Concluding on Costs Application B, there has been no unreasonable behaviour from the appellants that has led to unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. Therefore, an award of costs against the appellants is not justified.

Land West Of The Fox And Raven, Chelmer Village Way, Chelmer Village, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 6XE — Chelmsford Borough Council — Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3