Remove existing porch to front of 8 Pope Carr Road and erect new porch. The Porch will be constructed of painted lap timber sat on one course of dressed sandstone. Roof will be slate. Existing front door to house will still remain in place. New Front Door wood. Window to match existing white plastic glazing to rest of house

Costs Decision Site visit made on 5 December 2017 by Stephen Normington BSc DipTP MRICS MRTPI FIQ FIHE an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 9 January 2018 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/P1045/D/17/3183434 8 Pope Carr Road, Matlock DE4 3FF  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 Ashley Pigott for a full award of costs against Derbyshire Dales District Council.  The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for prosed development described as remove existing porch to front of 8 Pope Carr Road and erect new porch. The Porch will be constructed of painted lap timber sat on one course of dressed sandstone. Roof will be slate. Existing front door to house will still remain in place. New Front Door wood. Window to match existing white plastic glazing to rest of house. Decision 1. The application for an award of full costs is refused. Reasons 2. 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 local planning authorities are at risk of an award of costs if they fail to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal. 3. The basis of the appellant’s application for costs is on the grounds that the Council acted unreasonably by failing to undertake adequate communication with the appellant during the consideration of the planning application and consequently did not provide an opportunity to understand the design issues or entered into any negotiations to enable revisions to be made to the submitted scheme. 4. I have no substantive evidence to indicate the extent to which any communication with the Council was undertaken or remained unanswered, the extent to which this was relevant to the planning merits of the case or the extent to which this may have enabled revisions to be made to the scheme. Whilst I recognise the appellant’s concerns regarding communication with the Council, this is a matter that should be addressed to the Council in the first instance through its complaints procedures. The appellant’s satisfaction, or otherwise, with the Council’s communication procedures is not a matter relevant to the consideration of the planning merits of this appeal. 5. The reasons for the refusal of planning permission as set out in the decision notice are specific and relevant to the application. It also clearly states the Costs Decision APP/P1045/D/17/3183434 2 saved policies of the Derbyshire Dales Local Plan (2005) (Local Plan) that the proposal would be in conflict with. This reason was adequately substantiated by the Council in the Officer Report that demonstrates how the scale and mass of the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 6. From the evidence before me it was clear that the Council considered the design of the proposed porch against the relevant saved policies contained in the Local Plan. For the reasons set out in the appeal decision, I too have concerns that the proposal would cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. I came to this decision on the basis of my consideration of the details and merits of the proposal, having regard to all of the evidence submitted. 7. I found that the width of the proposal in particular contributed to its incongruity when compared to other porches on this part of Pope Carr Road. I agree with the Council that this issue could only have been resolved by a complete redesign as oppose to minor design amendments as any changes would affect the roof design and fenestration details. 8. I have no evidence that is substantiated by means of copies of any correspondence or telephone dates to indicate the extent to which the appellant sought to communicate with the Council sufficient to clearly demonstrate that there was a purposeful lack of co-operation by the Council during the determination of the planning application. The Council indicate that had the scheme been considered acceptable subject to a minor alteration to its design negotiations would have ensued to seek such amendments. 9. Accordingly, given the extent of design changes required, I have no evidence to suggest that any alleged lack of communication on the part of the Council would have been material to the consideration of the planning merits of the proposal or resulted in any different outcome on the application. In addition, I do not consider that the Council failed to properly evaluate the application, consider the planning merits or adequately state the reasons for the refusal of planning permission by reference to the appropriate policies contained in the development plan that the proposal was in conflict with. I have found that the Council had reasonable concerns about the design of the porch which justified its decision. 10. Consequently, I have no substantive evidence to conclusively prove that any lack of communication on behalf of the Council was relevant to its consideration of the planning merits of the proposal to an extent that this would constitute unreasonable behaviour as described in the PPG. 11. For these reasons, I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated and having regard to all other matters raised, an award of costs is not justified. Stephen Normington INSPECTOR