Application for planning permission refused by council – Applicant appealing and applying for costs of appeal – Inspector dismissing appeal and not ordering council to pay applicant’s costs – Inspector’s decision quashed by consent – Applicant appealing against inspector’s decision not to order council to pay costs – Appeal dismissed
The applicant applied for planning permission for the change of use of parkland and agricultural land to a golf course on land at Shelswell Park, Willaston, Bicester. The council refused planning permission. The reasons cited included, inter alia, a “major impact” on the landscape and conflict with E14 of the Rural Areas Local Plan and C9 of the deposited Cherwell Local Plan. Under policy E14 there was a presumption against development which would have a detrimental effect upon the character and appearance of historic landscape parklands and gardens. However, in refusing permission the planning officer did not draw attention to policy R3 of the deposit Cherwell Local Plan, which introduced a presumption in favour of golf course proposals. The applicant appealed under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. At the inquiry the applicant applied for the council to pay the costs of her appeal pursuant to the provisions of section 25(5) of the Local Government Act 1972, and the advice contained within Circular 8/93, on the grounds that the decision of the council amounted to unreasonable behaviour, causing her to incur or waste expense unnecessarily. In May 1996 the inspector dismissed the appeal on different grounds than those given by the council and dismissed the application for costs. By a consent order made in December 1996 the court quashed the inspector’s decision in relation to the section 78 appeal. The applicant sought to quash the decision of the inspector in relation to the determination of her application for costs, contending that the inspector when considering her application had only had regard to his conclusion on the section 78 appeal, namely that the appeal should be dismissed. It was also contended that the inspector had failed to give adequate reasons, or alternatively erred in law, in rejecting the application.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. Policy R3 only applied where “the setting or appearance of a listed building, archaeological site or historical parkland or garden is not adversely affected”. The council’s reasons for refusing the application had focused on the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the historical landscape and concluded that it would have a “major impact”. Therefore, there was no realistic possibility that if the council had had regard to R3, they would have found that it applied. Accordingly the council had not acted unreasonably.
2. Although the inspector had reached his decision and refused the applicant’s appeal for different reasons than the council, it had not been because he had taken into account policy R3. That had been at the forefront of the inspector’s decision to refuse the applicant’s application for costs and his reasons had been sufficiently clear and intelligible and well founded. Therefore his reasons could not be impugned.
Peter Village (instructed by Shoosmith & Harrison, of Northampton) appeared for the appellant; Alice Robinson (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for respondents.
