RE: Planning Permission18 Jan 2020 09:01
https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3221694 documents
The Inspector wrote:-
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.
16. The Council’s professional officers and its consultants recommended that planning permission should be granted, subject to conditions. The reason for refusal was generalised and, as it subsequently transpired, unsupported by any objective analysis. The aim of the costs regime is to encourage local planning authorities to properly exercise their development management responsibilities and to rely only on reasons for refusal which stand up to scrutiny. The authority did not exercise its functions in this way.
17. This unreasonable behaviour was compounded by the subsequent delay by the authority. The Council’s Statement of Case was inadequate, and there was a further delay of two months. This delay was unreasonable and continued to contribute to the appellant’s unnecessary expense.
18. After the delay the authority finally withdrew its case and accepted that conditional planning permission should be granted. There was never any evidence to substantiate the refusal or explain that it was a reasonable response to the application. PPG advises that failure to substantiate reasons for refusal is unreasonable and that one example of behaviour that may give rise to a procedural award against a local planning authority is withdrawal of a reason for refusal (in this case the sole reason). It is unreasonable to refuse planning permission where objections are capable of being dealt with by conditions.
19. Overall, as accepted by the Council, the authority has delayed a development which should clearly be permitted, having regard to the common ground now agreed between the parties as to the development plan, national policy and other material considerations. This is entirely at odds with the advice in the PPG and constitutes unreasonable behaviour.
20. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in PPG, has been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified.
Costs Order
21. 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 Lincolnshire Council shall pay to Egdon Resources UK Limited, the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.
22. The applicant is now invited to submit to North Lincolnshire 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.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
