4 Hornbeam Close, Ravenstone, Leicestershire, LE67 3RH
North West Leicestershire District Council — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 9 October 2025
- Authority
- North West Leicestershire District Council
- Inspector
- Robinson A
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appellant
- Mrs Judi Peatfield
- LPA reference
- 25/00182/FUL
- ONS LPA code
- E07000134
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 13 June 2025
Summary AI
The costs application was dismissed as the Council's advice did not amount to unreasonable behaviour. The applicant's dissatisfaction with the Council's responses and data breach did not impact the Council's planning reasons.
PDF text
4 Hornbeam Close, Ravenstone, Leicestershire, LE67 3RH — North West Leicestershire District Council — Costs Decision Site visit made on 9 September 2025 by A Robinson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 October 2025 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/G2435/W/25/3367234 4 Hornbeam Close, Ravenstone, Leicestershire LE67 3RH • 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 Judi Peatfield for a full award of costs against North West Leicestershire District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a feather board fence and continuation of the knee rail. 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.
4 Hornbeam Close, Ravenstone, Leicestershire, LE67 3RH — North West Leicestershire District Council — Costs Decision The Council claims a condition attached to the original planning permission for the housing development removes permitted development rights in respect of gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure. Based on this, it is understandable why the Council initially advised planning permission was required. However, as set out in my appeal decision, it is not for me within the context of an appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) to formally determine whether planning permission is required. The legality of the Council’s opinion can be formally tested under sections 191 and 192 of the Act. Ultimately, a planning application was submitted to the Council who were duty bound to determine it. The documentation required to accompany the application is required to meet both statutory and national validation requirements. Obtaining separate advice from a solicitor was an independent choice made by the applicant. Overall, I find the Council’s advice did not amount to unreasonable behaviour. 4. I appreciate the applicant is dissatisfied with the quality and timeliness of responses they received from the Council.
4 Hornbeam Close, Ravenstone, Leicestershire, LE67 3RH — North West Leicestershire District Council — Costs Decision I also sympathise with the applicant that they experienced a data breach and the personal effect this undoubtedly had on them. However, these are matters between the main parties to resolve through any relevant complaints procedures and I note the Council reported the data breach through its internal channels. Ultimately, these matters have not impacted the Council’s planning reasons for refusing the application nor resulted in unnecessary expense at the appeal stage. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
4 Hornbeam Close, Ravenstone, Leicestershire, LE67 3RH — North West Leicestershire District Council — Costs Decision I also sympathise with the applicant that they experienced a data breach and the personal effect this undoubtedly had on them. However, these are matters between the main parties to resolve through any relevant complaints procedures and I note the Council reported the data breach through its internal channels. Ultimately, these matters have not impacted the Council’s planning reasons for refusing the application nor resulted in unnecessary expense at the appeal stage. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/G2435/W/25/3367234 5. For the above reasons, I conclude that unreasonable behaviour 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.
4 Hornbeam Close, Ravenstone, Leicestershire, LE67 3RH — North West Leicestershire District Council — A Robinson INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Living conditions Against appellant ¶3
The inspector found that the Council's advice was not unreasonable, as it was based on a condition attached to the original planning permission.
Living conditions Against appellant ¶4
The inspector acknowledged the applicant's dissatisfaction with the Council's responses and data breach, but found that these did not impact the Council's planning reasons.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| Planning Practice Guidance |
Moderate |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 9 October 2025 under the Open Government Licence.