Case 3367266

The Old Drum, Chapel Street, Petersfield , Hampshire, GU32 3DP

South Downs — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
5 December 2025
Authority
South Downs
Inspector
Burley P
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Unreal Estate Limited
LPA reference
SDNP/24/04001/FUL
ONS LPA code
E26000010
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
10 June 2025

Summary AI

The costs application was made by Unreal Estate Limited against the South Downs National Park Authority, but was refused by the Inspector. The Inspector found that the Authority did not act unreasonably in refusing the planning application, and therefore did not incur unnecessary expense.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Costs Decision

The Old Drum, Chapel Street, Petersfield , Hampshire, GU32 3DP — South Downs — Costs Decision Site visit made on 2 December 2025 by P Burley BA (Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 December 2025 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Y9507/W/25/3367266 The Old Drum, Chapel Street, Petersfield, Hampshire GU32 3DP • 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 Unreal Estate Limited for a partial award of costs against the South Downs National Park Authority. • The appeal was against the refusal of the Authority to grant planning permission for the extension of existing outbuilding to create dwelling together with amenity space, bin and cycle storage. 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 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

The Old Drum, Chapel Street, Petersfield , Hampshire, GU32 3DP — South Downs — Costs Decision Whilst the applicant has said that the Authority did not provide any objective evidence to support the second reason for refusal, no internal lighting assessment was submitted with the appeal application and it is not for the Authority to commission an assessment. In the absence of such information, I do not find it unreasonable for the Authority to have based its decision on its professional judgement having regard to the site’s characteristics and its context. 4. The applicant has also referred to the Authority’s disagreement, as set out in its appeal Statement of Case, with the conclusions of the internal lighting assessment that was submitted with the appeal, noting that no reasonable authority could have concluded that internal lighting would be inadequate on the basis of that assessment. Whilst there may be disagreement between the parties on this matter, it is nevertheless the case that this information was not available to the Authority when it determined the application and, therefore, I do not find the Authority acted unreasonably in partially refusing the application on the basis that the scheme would provide inadequate light to the habitable rooms. 5.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Costs Decision

The Old Drum, Chapel Street, Petersfield , Hampshire, GU32 3DP — South Downs — Costs Decision Therefore, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has not occurred and an award of costs is not warranted.

Page 1 · Chunk 3 P Burley

The Old Drum, Chapel Street, Petersfield , Hampshire, GU32 3DP — South Downs — P Burley INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶3

The Authority did not act unreasonably in refusing the application based on its professional judgement and site characteristics.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶4

The Authority's disagreement with the internal lighting assessment did not constitute unreasonable behaviour, as this information was not available to the Authority when it determined the application.

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 1 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 5 December 2025 under the Open Government Licence.