Aitchison Raffety, attained outline planning consent on appeal for up to 21 dwellings at Raunds in North Northamptonshire.
The scheme retained the existing dwelling fronting Brick Kiln Road, and involves the clearance of a number of commercial and agricultural barns. Part of the proposals is the development site, along its northern boundary, pushed into the open countryside.
The proposal was recommended for approval by the case officer to members of the planning committee. Unfortunately, members of the planning committee deferred its determination for a total of three times before then issuing two reasons for refusal on grounds that: (1) the proposal would result in vehicular intensification of an access in comparison to the low vehicular activity level of the existing access point; and (2) that the proposed access would result in inadequate junction visibility.
Within the Inspector’s appeal decision, the Inspector was satisfied that visibility from the proposed access would be clear and unobstructed in both directions. The appellants Highway Impact Statement was also found to demonstrate fewer and more dispersed traffic movements in and out of the site than its current unrestricted commercial use; as well as replacing the existing access with a new junction with enhanced geometry. The Inspector was therefore satisfied that the proposed access and intensity of use, would represent betterment in comparison to the existing situation.
In addition, the scheme connected to a section of the highway found to have a low risk of accidents, with the proposal including an extension to the footway in front of the site. As a result, the highway improvements were found to create a safer environment for both new and existing local residents. Accordingly, the Inspector was satisfied with the appeal proposal.
When submitting the appeal proposal, Aitchison Raffety made a full application to recover costs from the Council. They argued the Council had acted unreasonably in issuing the reasons for refusal.
Within the appeal costs decision, the Inspector noted that there was no evidence that members of the Council undertook a site visit prior to making their decision and that the Council had failed to provide any evidence to illustrate that the appellants evidence was fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, the Council’s evidence did not include any new highway information or survey work that might have enabled the Council to have articulated their concerns more meaningfully.
The Council’s assertions with respect to highway safety were therefore unsubstantiated, and the decision to refuse the scheme was found flawed and without foundation. The Inspector accordingly found that the Council had acted unreasonably resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, resulting in a full award of costs being granted to the Appellant to cover the expense of preparing and submitting the appeal.
For further information please contact the Planning and Development Advisory team via planning@argroup.co.uk or call us on 01604 880 163.