Appeal Decision 3256736 (Tandridge District Council) — 2021-01-28

Appeal Decision 3256736 (Tandridge District Council) — 2021-01-28
Outcome: Split decision
Case type: Planning Appeal
Development: Minor Dwellings
Appeal type: Written Representations
Location: Land adjacent to Shaw Road, Tatsfield, TN16 2BX
Postcode: TN16 2BX
LPA: Tandridge District Council
LPA code: E07000215
PINS reference: 3256736

=== FULL INSPECTOR DECISION ===

Costs Decision
Site visit made on 8 January 2021
by Grahame Gould BA MPhil MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 28th January 2021

Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/M3645/W/20/3256736
Land adjacent to Shaw Road, Tatsfield
•
•
•

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 Nick Gregory for a partial award of costs against
Tandridge District Council.
The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for development described as
‘erection of residential dwelling as limited infilling within a village’.

Decision
1.

The application for a partial award of costs is allowed in the terms set out
below.

Reasons
2.

Paragraph 030 of the Planning Practice Guidance’s (the PPG) section on
appeals advises that, irrespective of the outcome of an appeal, 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.

The applicant’s application for a partial award of costs has been made on a
substantive basis. The application contends that it was unreasonable for the
Council to have included reasons for refusal relating to the development’s
adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area (the second
reason for refusal [R/R]) and its locational sustainability (the third R/R).

4.

In determining the appeal, I have concluded that the development would have
an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, a matter
warranting the withholding of planning permission. I therefore consider that
the case made by the Council in respect of the second R/R has clearly
substantiated its decision to refuse planning permission on the grounds of
there being an unacceptable effect on the character appearance of the area.
For the purposes of paragraph 49 I consider it was entirely reasonable for the
second R/R to have formed part of the Council’s decision, with that being
something that has neither prevented nor delayed the proposed development.
I therefore consider that the Council’s inclusion of the second R/R has not
resulted in the applicant incurring unreasonable or wasted costs in responding
to this R/R in connection with his appeal.

5.

With respect to the issue raised by the third R/R, in determining the appeal I
have found for the applicant. That being on the basis of the Council failing to
demonstrate that the occupiers of the proposed dwelling would experience a

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Costs Decision APP/M3645/W/20/3256736

level of accessibility to everyday services and facilities that would be
appreciably different to the occupiers of the numerous other dwellings in
Tatsfield, including Thistle Cottage a property immediately to east of the
appeal site and for which the Council granted planning permission in
August 2015. In determining the appeal, I have concluded that in accessibility
terms the location of the proposed dwelling would be no less sustainable than
Thistle Cottage, with there being no significant change in local or national
planning policy justifying a different approach being taken by the Council with
respect to the appeal development and Thistle Cottage. I therefore consider
that the Council’s reliance on the third R/R was misguided and the case made
in defence of it by the Council has failed to substantiate its inclusion amongst
the reasons for refusal.
6.

I therefore consider that the inclusion of the third R/R was unreasonable when
regard is paid to the second bullet point (substantiation of each R/R on
appeal) in paragraph 49 of the PPG and that its inclusion resulted in the
applicant incurring some unnecessary expense in making his appeal.

Conclusion
7.

Having regard to the provisions of the PPG, most particularly paragraphs 028,
030, 032 and 049, for the reasons given above I conclude that while it was
reasonable for the Council to have included the second R/R, the inclusion of
the third R/R was unreasonable. The third R/R’s inclusion has resulted in the
applicant incurring some unnecessary or wasted expense in making his
appeal, warranting a partial award of costs, but limited to the response
relating to the third R/R.

Costs Order
8.

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 Tandridge District Council shall pay Mr Nick Gregory, the costs
of the appeal proceedings limited to those costs associated with responding to
the third reason for refusal; such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts
Costs Office if not agreed.

9.

The applicant is now invited to submit to Tandridge District 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.

Grahame Gould
INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

2