Proposed flat roof with lantern single storey extension

Costs Decision Site visit made on 29 July 2026 by I Ingledew BSc (Hons) Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18th September 2026 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: 6009765 8 Orchard Close, Northampton, West Northamptonshire NN4 6HF • 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 and Mrs Titov for a full award of costs against West Northamptonshire Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of prior approval for a proposed flat roof with lantern single storey extension. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below. Procedure 2. An appeal planning officer has set out the recommendation below, to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the application. Reasons 3. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, 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. The PPG sets out various types of behaviour which may give rise to a substantive or procedural award of costs. These include failure to adhere to deadlines, preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted, and failure to produce evidence to substantiate the reason for refusal. 4. Paragraph A.1(i) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) restricts the height of the eaves where within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. The applicant contends the Council misinterpreted this paragraph by referring to the overall height of the proposed extension rather than the eaves height. However, the proposal comprises a flat-roofed extension wherein the height of the eaves and the height of the roof would be the same. Additionally, the Council specifically referred to paragraph A.1(i) in both its delegated report and reason for refusal. On the evidence before, I am satisfied the Council understood and applied the relevant provision of the GPDO and no unreasonable behaviour was demonstrated in a misinterpretation of the relevant legislation. 5. The applicant also contends the Council failed to correctly apply Article 2(2) of the GPDO and the accompanying technical guidance when identifying the appropriate Costs Decision 6009765 2 ground level from which to measure the height of the eaves. Where the level of the surface of the ground is not uniform, the level of the highest part of the surface of the ground adjacent to the building should be used. In addition, the technical guidance states that ground level would not include any addition laid on top of the ground, such as decking. The submitted plans show decking extending from the rear elevation of the existing property at a level above the surrounding ground. The information before the Council therefore suggested the higher level adjacent to the existing property may not represent the natural ground level. 6. Furthermore, the delegated report explains why the Council considered the lower level to be relevant in this case due to the rear elevation plan. Whilst I have not determined the planning merits of the proposal, I am satisfied that the Council’s approach was reasonable in this regard based on the information before them. Following from this, the Council identified the specific provision of the GPDO to which it considered the proposal failed to satisfy and explained its reasoning in both the decision notice and delegated report. The Council therefore did not show unreasonable behaviour in substantiating their reason for refusal, nor prevented or delayed development which should have clearly been permitted. 7. Paragraph A.4 (7) of the GPDO requires the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining premises where any owner or occupier of adjoining premises has objected to the proposal. As no representations were received from adjoining premises in this proposal, this was not a requirement for the Council in this case. Although the Council did an include an assessment on amenity within their delegated report, the reason for refusal solely relates to the Council’s conclusion that the proposal did not constitute permitted development. The subject of amenity would therefore not have been a determinative matter within the appeal process, and as such the Council’s consideration of amenity has not given rise to unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 8. The appeal was allowed because the Council failed to notify its decision within the statutory 42 day period, as set out in paragraph A.4 (10), and as a result, the proposal is considered to have deemed consent. Where it is clear a local planning authority will fail to determine an application within the time limits, the PPG asserts it should give the applicant a proper explanation of their reasons for not reaching a decision. There is no evidence before me to suggest communication between the applicant or the Council, nor have the Council submitted a statement justifying their actions. There is no evidence to suggest there were any substantive reasons to justify the delay and this therefore amounts to unreasonable procedural behaviour. 9. Although I have not found that the Council acted unreasonably in reaching its conclusions, its failure to adhere to the statutory deadline meant the appeal was determined solely on the basis of deemed consent. Consequently, I was not able to assess the merits of the proposal or the concerns raised by the Council. The applicant was therefore left in a position where concerns regarding whether the proposal constituted permitted development could not be tested through the appeal process. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified. Costs Order Costs Decision 6009765 3 10. 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, all other enabling powers in the behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that West Northamptonshire Council shall pay to Mr and Mrs Titov, the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision such costs to be assessed in the Senior Costs Office if not agreed. The applicant is now invited to submit to West Northamptonshire Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement to the amount. I Ingledew APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and concur that a full award of costs is justified in this case. T Law INSPECTOR