Two storey side extension. Single storey rear extension

Costs Decision Site visit made on 18th December 2018 by D Jackman BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 March 2019 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/18/3213508 29 High View Road, South Woodford, London E18 2HL • 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 N Talbot for a full award of costs against the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a two storey side extension. Single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. 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. Examples of unreasonable behaviour of the local planning authority include not determining similar cases in a consistent manner, persisting in objections to a scheme or elements of a scheme which the Secretary of State or an Inspector has previously indicated to be acceptable and acting contrary to, or not following, established case law. 3. The PPG also makes it clear that a local planning authority is at risk of an award of costs if it prevents or delays development which should clearly have been permitted having regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material planning considerations or fails to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal at appeal and/or makes vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact which are unsupported by any objective analysis. 4. The Applicant submits that the Council has failed to apply a consistent assessment of the application when compared to numerous other extensions granted within the borough and more specifically on High View Road1. It is argued that the Council has been unreasonable in their assertions on the proposal’s impact due to the implementation of subjective design views instead of reliance on more than one substantive material planning consideration. They have vigorously applied inconsistent rules without proper assessment of other precedent developments allowed in the immediate area with similar site circumstances. 1Including those at 61 High View Road (ref 0500/08), 40 High View Road and an appeal decision at 2 Stonehall Avenue Ilford (ref APP/W5780/D/16/3153944) Costs Decision APP/W5780/18/3213508 2 5. It is also considered that the Council has failed to fully consider the gable end roof, previously constructed under permitted development rights, as a material planning consideration. The applicant says that the Council have not provided any substantive evidence for its reason for refusal beyond a generalised assertion of the proposal’s harm on the character of the area. Furthermore, the applicant considers it is clear that the case officer either did not take note of such advice or carry out a thorough character appraisal of the surrounding area or planning application research of their own records. It is also suggested that the Council would not engage with them following attempts to discuss the scheme. 6. In addition to the above, the applicant has drawn my attention to a recent appeal and costs decision2 where there were a number of similarities between the appeal development and the adjoining property. 7. The applicant considers that this behaviour has led them to incur unnecessary delay and expense in having to appeal the refusal when planning permission should have been granted. 8. In response, the Council considers it acted reasonably and that the development conflicts with the relevant Development Plan policies. It also refutes the suggested assertion that no objective analysis had been carried out and this was evidenced by the officers delegated report. 9. With reference to the other developments on High View Road, the Council considers each site to be different and as such each application should be assessed on its own merits. Additionally, the Council say that, in the intervening period between the cited approval at 61 High View Road and the refusal of the appeal proposal, a Local Development Framework was adopted in May 2008 which was then superseded by the Council’s Local Plan (2015-2030) in March 2018. The scheme at 40 High View Road was originally approved prior to the scheme at no. 61, with subsequent approvals in 2008 all occurring under a different policy regime. The Council also indicate, quoting from the Stonehall Avenue appeal decision, that each case must be taken on its own merits and particular individual circumstances and any such precedent is not compelling. 10. The Council also considers that it has attempted to work proactively with the applicant, with discussions taking place. It refutes the suggestion that the applicant has been forced to appeal given the previous grant of planning permission for a two storey side extension at the property. The Council therefore considers that it acted reasonably, that the development conflicts with relevant policies, and that there is good reason for refusal. 11. I consider that the Council’s report did recognise that examples can be found in the road where the visual separation has been eroded by gable end roofs over two storey side extensions. However, the report went on to state that these do not form the predominant characteristic of the road. The report identified why the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the street scene and be contrary to the identified policies. Whilst this includes a subjective planning judgement, I consider its assertions have not been vague, generalised or inaccurate. The Council considered the individual merits of the proposal and it sufficiently distinguished the predominant characteristic of the road. 2 APP/W5780/D/17/3184392 relating to 46 Bryon Avenue, South Woodford Costs Decision APP/W5780/18/3213508 3 12. In terms of the consistency of decision making, it is clear that some two-storey side extensions have been permitted on High View Road and on other streets. The Council have also highlighted the changes to Development Plan policies since some of the developments referred to were granted planning permission. To my mind, the presence of other developments on High View Road (and elsewhere within the Borough) do not set a precedent or provide a justification for the appeal development which I identified in my decision as being harmful to the character and appearance of the area. 13. With respect to the appeal and costs decisions put before me, I have not been provided with full details of these cases. Notwithstanding that, from the limited information before me, the Bryon Avenue case is not a comparable development to the one before me. I am also unaware what information was put before that Inspector. Taking this into account it does not provide a compelling reason why costs should be awarded against the Council. 14. In respect to other guidance on the award of costs in planning appeals, I consider that this is not a case where the proposed development should clearly have been given permission having regard to development plan policy, national policy and other material considerations. In my decision there were sufficient grounds for refusing planning permission related to harm to the character and appearance of the area. Although the Council did not mention the existing gable end in their officer’s report, it was not necessary for them to do so, as it was the location of the proposal on the boundary and the loss of visual separation that were the key issues and these were fully justified. The absence of reference to the gable end roof constructed under permitted development rights, other than in the relevant planning history section, did not result in a failure to consider all relevant planning considerations. Conclusion 15. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated and an award of costs is not justified. D Jackman INSPECTOR