Two storey side extension to create porch, utility and summer room on the ground floor, and a new en-suite/dressing room on the first floor

Costs Decision Site visit made on 18th March 2019 by Alison Roland BSc DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 March 2019 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/M9496/D/19/3219634 Hope Farm, Hope Road, Hope, Alstonefield, DE6 2GE • 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 Ms Lucy Wilson for a full award of costs against the Peak District National Park Authority. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for two storey side extension to create porch, utility and summer room on the ground floor, and a new en- suite/dressing room on the first floor. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is refused. Reasons 2. 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. The claimant maintains that the Authority failed to properly consider the matter of permitted development rights. However, it is clear from the Officer report that this matter was deliberated, although they did not expressly refer to the porch in isolation. The Authority point out that a single storey extension alone without the adjoining two storey extension would have a different visual impact and I concur. They also clearly considered the cumulative impact of all the extensions, which is materially different to a smaller extension. Whilst elements of the proposal may potentially benefit from permitted development, the totality of the development was before the Authority and they were right to consider its design. If the appellant is of the view that certain elements depicted on the plans do not require permission, it would have been open for them to have been excluded from the application or to apply for a Certificate of Lawfulness. 4. Neither do I accept that the Authority failed to appreciate the history and form of the existing building, as the report clearly describes its three distinct elements and how it likely evolved over time. Similarly, the report addresses the supporting information advanced by the applicant at the time in relation to other properties with a similar roof arrangement. The Authority rightly based their assessment on the merits of the case and took into account the character and form of the existing building. They also say that an Officer visited the site on 4 September 2018 and they have a photographic record of that visit. I have Costs Decision APP/M9496/D/19/3219634 2 no reason to doubt this. Merely because they did not seek specialist design or conservation advice does not render their assessment unsound. 5. Whilst the appellant is aggrieved that a neighbour was not notified about the application, the Authority have confirmed that they complied with their standard notification procedures and I see no procedural flaw in that. 6. Whilst the Decision Notice incorrectly cites Policy L3 and the Authority acknowledge this error, the delegated report clearly referred to Policy L1. I have not been furnished with a copy of Policy L3 which the appellant says refers to heritage assets, but it is clear from the assessment in the Officer report that the heritage interest of the building was carefully considered before the decision was taken. Merely because the report did not expressly cite paragraph 197 of the Framework, does not render this assessment incorrect. The definition of heritage asset in the Framework refers to significance because of heritage interest and I consider the Authority’s identification of the building as a non-designated heritage asset was soundly based. The reference to its age and quality as part of that assessment were legitimate matters to consider. The Authority confirm they do not keep a local list of non-designated heritage assets, so they are necessarily identified on a case by case basis. 7. Whilst the appellant refers to Policy DCM5, the Authority say there is no such Policy, although there is a Policy DMC5. Either way, I have not been furnished with a copy so I cannot assess its relevance to the appeal proposal. 8. It is not entirely clear what the appellant is referring to in their allegation that concerns were raised at the 11th hour that only became evident on reading the Officer report. However, the Authority confirmed that they corresponded with the appellant during the application process and made suggestions about how the design could be amended. Indeed, the appellant submitted revised plans based on that advice. I am not therefore persuaded that the Authority behaved improperly in communicating their concerns to the appellant. 9. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has not been demonstrated. ALISON ROLAND INSPECTOR