Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 April 2018 by Robert Fallon B.Sc. (Hons) PGDipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23rd July 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/W/17/3189720 Dippingwell, Road, Farnham Common, SL2 3PU  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr S. Bowyer (Bowyer and Davis Ltd.) against the decision of District Council.  The application Ref 17/00971/FUL, dated 25 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 October 2017.  The development proposed is described on the application form as “Demolition of garage and outbuildings and erection of 6 new 3-4 bed residential dwellings in the gardens of Dippingwell and West Dippingwell including parking for existing and proposed houses.”

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of garage and outbuildings and erection of 6 new 3-4 bed residential dwellings in the gardens of Dippingwell and West Dippingwell including parking for existing and proposed houses at Dippingwell, Beaconsfield Road, Farnham Common, SL2 3PU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/00971/FUL, dated 25 May 2017, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Mr S. Bowyer (Bowyer and Davis Ltd.) against South Bucks District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Procedural matter

3. The Council has confirmed that its decision was based on amended plans, which show the dwelling on plot 3 being ‘handed’. It is not clear if interested parties were reconsulted in respect of these plans, but even if they were not, I am satisfied that this would not have been necessary as the amendments did not materially change the scheme or intensify its impact on neighbours. In view of the fact that there does not appear to be any dispute between the Council and appellant on this matter, I have proceeded to assess the scheme on the basis that the plans and details under consideration are those specified in Condition 2 below.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/17/3189720

Main issues

4. Within the context of the Council’s reason for refusal, the evidence in this case and recent case law1 relating to European protected sites, the main issues are the effect of the development on: -

 the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to density, layout, siting and scale;

 the Special Area of Conservation and Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Reasons

Appeal site context

5. The appeal site lies on a part of Beaconsfield Road which is designated by the Townscape Character Study2 as a ‘Green Suburban Road’ and an ‘Area with Particular Potential for Change’. My assessment of the appeal site’s character accords with this document, which describes it as large 2-storey detached houses on generous plots which have a leafy character due to mature landscaping and hedgerows that line the road corridor, sometimes with a mature woodland backdrop.

6. On the opposite side of Beaconsfield Road is a detached dwelling and row of 2- storey mature terraced cottages in close proximity to the road with more limited soft landscaping. Further on, there is a close named ‘Ingleglen’ which is more modern and has an open plan character with mature trees. Both of these areas are identified by the Townscape Character Study as a ‘Town Centre Fringe’ and ‘Open Plan Suburban’ area respectively. To the south lies Rosewood Way, which contains large detached houses set on spacious plots and is identified by the Townscape Character Study as a ‘Suburban Road’. Overall the wider area therefore has a mixed character.

7. The appeal site contains a large detached Arts and Crafts style house on an extremely large plot which has been separated into 2 dwellings, ‘Dippingwell’ and ‘West Dippingwell’. Two modern residential developments abut the appeal site to the north on Dell Court and Orchard Gate. To the east lies a large detached dwelling named ‘Well End’, which is accessed via a private drive and contains many significant mature trees adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of the appeal site.

8. At the time of my visit, the site had been substantially cleared and the slabs of the dwellings on plots 4, 5 and 6 were almost complete; - such works having possibly taken place in accordance with the Planning Permission previously granted for 3 detached houses in 2017 (see Paragraph 15 below for details). The appeal site lies approximately 300 metres to the east of Burnham Beeches, which is identified in the Core Strategy3 as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a National Nature Reserve (NNR) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

1 People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta, 12 April 2018, (C-323/17), ECLI:EU:C:2018:244 2 South Bucks Townscape Character Study Part 2 Revision A, July 2015. 3 South Bucks District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document, adopted February 2011. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/17/3189720

Character and appearance

9. Although there are minimal open gaps between the proposed dwellings on plots 4, 5 and 6 at the front of the site, I would not consider this tightly-knit appearance to be out of character with the area given the two neighbouring detached dwellings to the south of the site access point which also have a minimal separation gap and the narrow terraced cottages opposite. Furthermore, the proposed dwellings would be set well back from the road broadly level with the established building line, which would as a consequence enable a substantial amount of new soft landscaping to be planted along the site frontage to maintain and enhance the road’s green suburban character.

10. The eastern half of the development set to the rear of the appeal site would contain 3 larger dwellings at the end of an informal access road. These would be set on relatively large plots and have a spacious character broadly similar to that of Orchard Gate, an attractive modern development to the north. The lower density of this part of the scheme would also reflect the more spacious surroundings of the existing house on the site and would ensure that the existing mature trees which form the backdrop to the development are protected.

11. The architectural style of the proposed houses would reflect the character of the 2 new dwellings to the south of the site entrance and be of an acceptable design. Each dwelling would benefit from a reasonable and proportionate amount of private garden space, and in all cases there would be sufficient intervening distance between the houses and mature trees that surround the site.

12. Although the gardens to plots 2 and 3 would be overshadowed by mature trees to the south of the site, the extent of this restriction in direct sunlight would vary throughout the day and I would not consider it to be so harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers that it would be likely to lead to pressure for the removal of the trees in the future. Furthermore, given the extent of intervening distances involved, I would in any event consider there to be sufficient diffuse daylight to compensate for this overshadowing. For the same reason, I am also satisfied that the development would not appear oppressive or intrusive to neighbouring occupiers.

13. In view of the above, I conclude that the development would not constitute overdevelopment of the site or be harmful to the green suburban character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore comply with Core Policy 8 of the Core Strategy and Policies H9 and EP3 of the Local Plan4 which collectively seek, amongst other things, to ensure that new development is of a high quality design and density that is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

14. I also find that the scheme complies with the objectives of the Council’s Townscape Character Study and Residential Design Guide5, and Paragraphs 56, 60, 61 and 64 of the Framework6, which collectively seek, amongst other things, to ensure high quality design that reinforces local distinctiveness and

4 South Bucks District Local Plan, adopted March 1999. 5 South Bucks District Council Residential Design Guide, Supplementary Planning Document, October 2008. 6 National Planning Policy Framework, Communities and Local Government, March 2012. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/17/3189720

the successful integration of development into its natural and built environment.

15. In reaching this decision, I have also given substantial weight to the fallback position of two very similar schemes granted Planning Permission in 2017 and 20187, particularly as there has been no significant change in local or national policy in the intervening period and because development has already commenced on the site.

Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

16. Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy requires, amongst other things, development to demonstrate adequate measures to avoid and mitigate any potential adverse effects on a SAC. Natural has confirmed in its response that as submitted, the development would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Burnham Beeches SAC.

17. In view of the above, I have carried out an appropriate assessment of the implications of the proposal for the SAC in view of its conservation objectives as identified in the Core Strategy. Given that I consider there to be a high probability that: - (1) future occupiers of the development would visit the SAC on a regular basis; and (2) that surface water may infiltrate into the ground and travel towards the groundwater catchment of Withy Stream which flows towards the SAC, I cannot be certain that the development would not exacerbate the harm already caused to this habitat by existing visitors and surface water runoff. In view of this, the effects of the proposal may adversely affect the integrity of the site and have harmful implications for its conservation objectives.

18. However, Natural England has raised no objections to the development subject to appropriate mitigation measures and I am satisfied that these could be secured via planning condition (which have been imposed). As a consequence, I conclude that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC and SSSI and its conservation objectives, and would therefore comply with Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy. It would also accord with Paragraph 118 of the Framework in that it would not result in significant harm to an irreplaceable habitat.

Other matters

19. Although representations were made by interested parties in respect of a number of other matters, I did not consider these to be of such significance to alter my conclusions in respect of the main issues. The most significant of these other matters, if not already addressed above, are dealt with below and in the section relating to conditions.

20. The local highway authority and Council have not raised any concerns in respect of visibility at the site access, refuse collection arrangements and the ability of road infrastructure to cope with the development and I see no reason to take a different view. I found there to be good visibility in both directions at my site inspection and am satisfied that 6 additional dwellings would not materially increase traffic to dangerous levels or unduly compromise its free flow. I also consider the amount of parking proposed to be adequate and

7 Planning Permission 17/00974/FUL dated 16 August 2017, and 17/02081/FUL dated 12 January 2018. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/17/3189720

commensurate with the location of the site within a built-up urban area in reasonable walking and cycling distance of local shops and services.

21. Although the development would result in the loss of some wildlife habitat, the appeal site is not designated for wildlife purposes and no European or nationally protected species of animal or plant life have been found to be present on the site. A condition is also proposed to ensure the submission of an Ecology and Management Plan. In view of this and the small-scale nature of the development, I would not consider it justifiable to withhold permission on this basis.

22. I am satisfied that the level of noise generated by future occupants, even when taking into account a greater intensity of use of the site, would be consistent with the surrounding residential area and that any significant disturbance could be suitably controlled under other legislation. Any noise and disturbance during the construction works would be temporary and could also be suitably controlled under other legislation.

23. It is a well-founded principle that the planning system does not exist to protect private interests such as value of land or property. Any shared boundary and access issues are also a private matter between the relevant parties and not within my jurisdiction.

24. The Written Ministerial Statement on small-scale developers8 and the National Planning Practice Guidance9 state that contributions for affordable housing should not be sought from small-scale developments of 10 units or less. There is also no evidence before me to demonstrate the necessity for a planning obligation for financial contributions towards local services and facilities. As a consequence, the absence of a planning obligation is not therefore a reason to find against the proposal. The matter of any payments required in connection with a Community Infrastructure Levy is a separate matter between the Council and appellant.

Conditions

25. A condition has been imposed to ensure the scheme is carried out in accordance with the submitted plans. I have attached a condition regarding the materials to be used to ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory. For the same reason, conditions for soft and hard landscaping, to include boundary treatment and tree protection measures are also necessary.

26. It is not necessary to impose a separate condition requiring the new means of access, parking and manoeuvring to be constructed before the use of the land commences as matters relating to surfacing can be satisfactorily addressed by the landscaping condition.

27. A condition for visibility splays has been imposed in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety. However, it is not necessary to impose a condition relating to development within the public highway, or connections to it, as these matters fall within the ambit of other legislation.

8 Support for small-scale developers, custom and self-builders, Written Ministerial Statement by The Minister of State for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis) on 28 November 2014 9 Paragraph 031 Reference ID: 23b-031-20161116, Revision date 16 11 2016 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/17/3189720

28. There are no objections from the relevant professional consultees on flood risk and foul and surface water drainage of the site. In view of this, and the need to maintain the quality of groundwater, conditions have been imposed relating to foul and surface water drainage.

29. The Council and Natural England have not raised, subject to conditions, any ecological concerns in respect of light, noise, dust and drainage. To protect biodiversity on the site and at the SAC, conditions have been imposed for an Ecology and Management Plan and for the development to be carried out in accordance with the hydrological assessment.

30. In view of the close proximity of some of the dwellings to boundaries with neighbouring properties, I have concerns that the privacy of neighbouring occupiers could be significantly harmed if some of the proposed windows were clear glazed and future owners decided to install additional new windows. I have as a consequence imposed conditions removing permitted development rights for the installation of new windows and requiring specific proposed windows to be fitted with obscure glazing.

31. As outlined above, I consider there to be a high probability that: - (1) future occupiers of the development would visit the SAC on a regular basis given its close proximity; and (2) that surface water may infiltrate into the ground and travel towards the groundwater catchment of Withy Stream which flows towards the SAC. In order to: - (a) retain the site’s green suburban character; (b) prevent pressure arising to fell trees in neighbouring gardens; (c) protect the SAC from visits by an increased number of occupiers (from additional accommodation); and (d) manage potential groundwater pollution from additional development, I have imposed a condition removing all permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings.

Conclusion

32. In view of the above, having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Robert Fallon INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/17/3189720

Schedule of conditions

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details:- Drawing Nos 16 DWD SL02, Site Survey 01 (Job No 5957), 16 DWD SP01 (Rev J), 16 DWD PE01 (Rev C), 16 DWD PE02 (Rev B), 16 DWD PE03 (Rev C), 16 DWD PE04 (Rev C), 16 DWD PE05 (Rev C), 16 DWD PE06 (Rev D), 16 DWD CP01 (Rev A), Architect’s Design & Access Statement DWD/2/tp/01/Rev A, Ecology Report, 163350/JDT, dated 7 December 2016, Ecology Report, Photograph Record Sheet 163350/01, Flood Risk Assessment, Ref FEDS-217128, Foul Drainage Assessment, Ref FEDS-217128, Hydrological Assessment, November 2016, Issue 1, Job No 5494, Refuse Lorry Plan, Arboricultural and Planning Integration Report, GHA/DS/14460:17, dated 10 February 2017, Tree Protection Plan (Rev D), Tree Group G12 Assessment – Shade Pattern Impact, Daylighting photos, Shadow Projection 21 June 0900 (Rev A, Aug 2017), Shadow Projection 21 June 1200 (Rev A, Aug 2017), Shadow Projection 21 June 1500 (Rev A, Aug 2017), Shadow Projection 21 June 1800 (Rev A, Aug 2017), Shadow Projection 21 April 0900 (Rev A, Aug 2017), Shadow Projection 21 April 1200 (Rev A, Aug 2017), Shadow Projection 21 April 1500 (Rev A, Aug 2017), Shadow Projection 21 April 1800 (Rev A, Aug 2017), Shadow Projection 21 September 0900 (Rev A, Aug 2017), Shadow Projection 21 September 1200 (Rev A, Aug 2017), Shadow Projection 21 September 1500 (Rev A, Aug 2017) and Shadow Projection 21 September 1800 (Rev A, Aug 2017).

3) No development shall take place above damp proof course level until samples of all external facing materials have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The relevant works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4) The development and all tree protection measures shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural and Planning Integration Report, GHA/DS/14460:17, dated 10 February 2017 and the Tree Protection Plan (Rev D). No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until the approved tree protection measures have been installed and these shall remain in place until completion of the development and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed within any fenced area, and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

5) No hard or soft landscaping works shall take place until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include:

a) all soft landscaping works to include: planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of new trees, hedgerows and plants noting species, plant supply sizes and proposed numbers/densities;

b) boundary treatments and gates, to include design, materials, colours and finishes;

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/17/3189720

c) hard surfacing materials for all parking, vehicle, pedestrian circulation areas and hardstandings (to include the new means of access, access road, vehicle turning area, parking spaces, patio areas, pathways and external seating areas);

d) an implementation programme for all soft landscaping works;

e) a management and maintenance scheme for the common areas within the site.

The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the hard surfacing works and boundary treatment works have been carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the implementation programme.

The completed landscaping scheme for the common areas shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme of management and maintenance.

6) Aside from those specified to be removed in the submitted details, any existing or proposed trees, hedges and shrubs (sited within the red and blue lines shown on Drawing No 16 DWD SL02), which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. No new tree or hedgerow planted in accordance with the above landscaping condition shall be pruned or cut in any manner within 5 years from the date of the occupation of the final dwelling to be occupied, other than in accordance with the approved plans and details, without the prior written approval of the local planning authority.

7) The following dwellings as indicated on Drawing 16 DWD SPO1(Rev J) shall not be occupied until the specified windows have been fitted with obscured glazing. Once installed the windows and any replacement windows shall be retained in that condition thereafter.

a) Plot 3 - first floor south-west facing side elevation windows;

b) Plot 4 - first floor south facing side elevation window;

c) Plot 6 - first floor north facing side elevation window.

8) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no first floor windows, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be inserted on the following dwellings and elevations as indicated on Drawing 16 DWD SPO1(Rev J) without the specific grant of planning permission from the local planning authority:

a) Plot 2 - south facing side elevation;

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/17/3189720

b) Plot 3 - south-west facing side elevation;

c) Plot 4 - south facing side elevation;

d) Plot 6 - north facing side elevation.

9) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no external alterations, extensions, porches, roof extensions and roof enlargements (to include dormer windows) shall be carried out to any part of the dwellings hereby approved and no garages, buildings, or other structures erected within any part of the curtilage of any dwelling hereby approved without the specific grant of planning permission.

10) No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until visibility splays have been provided between the edge of the carriageway and a line extending from a point 2.4 metres back from the edge of the carriageway, measured along the centre line of the access, to the points on the edge of the carriageway 43 metres in both directions from the centre of the access in accordance with the approved plans. Such splays shall thereafter be permanently maintained free from obstruction to vision between a height of 600mm and 2000mm from the level of the adjacent carriageway.

11) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures in the Hydrological Assessment, November 2016, Issue 1, Job No 5494. 12) Prior to the commencement of construction works in connection with plots 1, 2 and 3 of this permission, details of a scheme for temporary soakaways with suitable filtration devices to remove contaminants shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

13) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a surface water drainage scheme has been implemented in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the scheme shall, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority: -

a) dispose of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system, with all runoff collected and discharged via on-site soakaways; and

b) make provision for all new hard surfacing to be permeable, with excess runoff directed towards soakaways.

14) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a foul water drainage scheme has been implemented in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

15) No development of plots 1, 2 and 3 shall take place until an Ecology and Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include:

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/17/3189720

a) Methods to protect slow worms (and any other reptile) which may be present on the site during the construction stage. This may include vegetation management to reduce the risk of species being present and a watching brief and method statement to ensure reptiles are protected during demolition and construction;

b) Measures to mitigate protect and retain and create suitable habitat and movement corridors for reptiles in the long term;

c) Timeframes for the removal of all felled vegetation within the site during construction;

d) Clarification regarding tree felling in terms of bats;

e) A suitable lighting strategy for bats;

f) Measures to protect other species such as birds and hedgehogs;

g) An analysis of net biodiversity gain, using a suitable metric (or other means) to be undertaken to show that enhancements within the site are adequate and also that wildlife corridors are maintained.

The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved Ecology and Management Plan.

End of Schedule

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10

Costs Decision Site visit made on 3 April 2018 by Robert Fallon B.Sc. (Hons) PGDipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23rd July 2018

Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/W/17/3189720 Dippingwell, Beaconsfield Road, Farnham Common, SL2 3PU  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 S. Bowyer (Bowyer and Davis Ltd.) for a full award of costs against South Bucks District Council.  The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of garage and outbuildings and erection of 6 new 3-4 bed residential dwellings in the gardens of Dippingwell and West Dippingwell including parking for existing and proposed houses.

Decision

1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below.

Reasons

2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded where:

 a party has behaved unreasonably; and

 the unreasonable behaviour has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.

3. The PPG clarifies that unreasonable behaviour may either be procedural1 or substantive2. Although an application for costs may relate to events before the appeal, the PPG states that costs unrelated to the appeal are not eligible for an award3.

4. The application for costs by the appellant is based on substantive and procedural grounds in that it alleges the Council; - (1) did not properly justify and evidence its decision that the development would result in overdevelopment of the site and be harmful to the visual amenities of the area; (2) did not have regard to other material planning considerations that may have resulted in the scheme being approved; and (3) that information relating to an alternative scheme4 was withheld from the appeal documentation.

5. Although the case officer recommended approval, Councillors are not obliged to follow the recommendations of officers on the provision that they give sound and justifiable reasons for doing so. Whilst I recognise that the Council’s formal

1 Paragraph: 047 Reference ID: 16-047-20140306, Revision date: 06 03 2014 2 Paragraph: 049 Reference ID: 16-049-20140306, Revision date: 06 03 2014 3 Paragraph: 032 Reference ID: 16-032-20140306, Revision date: 06 03 2014 4 Planning Permission 17/02081/FUL dated 12 January 2018. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision APP/N0410/W/17/3189720

minutes of the committee meeting are concise and do not provide an in-depth explanation of how the decision was reached, I have no evidence before me to demonstrate that they do not accord with legal requirements, as opposed to the guidance provided by the LGA and PAS which has been referred to by the appellant.

6. However, whilst I consider the wording of the reason for refusal to be clear and precise, it is my view that the Council’s appeal statement fails to sufficiently evidence and substantiate the alleged harm referred to in this. The explanation offered by the Council was that the scheme was refused because plots 1, 2 and 3 had only been moved slightly westwards from that considered under Ref: 17/00256/FUL and that the previous reason for refusal for this scheme therefore still stood as the quantum of development had not changed. However, I do not consider this to be sufficient or acceptable for three reasons. Firstly, the scheme should have been initially considered on its own merits against development plan policy in accordance with the requirements of section 38(6) of the 2004 Act5 and section 70(2) of the 1990 Act6, and not against the previously refused scheme. Secondly, it should have been explained why the scheme would result in the alleged harm to the site and locality; and thirdly, in having regard to the previously refused scheme as a material planning consideration, an explanation of why the revised siting had not resulted in a different impact should have been explained.

7. Although the appellant states that the development should have been considered within the context of the Paragraph 14 presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in the Framework7, the application submission contained no evidence to demonstrate that the development plan was absent, silent or out of date. In the absence of this, and because the Council considered the scheme to conflict with the development plan, there would have been no policy requirement for the presumption in favour of sustainable development to be engaged.

8. Notwithstanding this, I am nonetheless of the view that it would have been necessary for the Council to carrying out a balancing exercise if there were planning benefits in favour of the scheme. However, there is no evidence in the appeal statement that any consideration was given by the Council to this, which further reinforces my view that it has behaved unreasonably on substantive grounds.

9. Although the Council correctly asserts that the development approved in 20188 was different from the appeal scheme, it was nonetheless an important material planning consideration that should have formed part of its appeal evidence as it presented a clear fallback position of development that could otherwise be implemented. In this respect, I note that the Council’s appeal statement clearly referred to the two schemes approved and refused in 20179. The fact that the Council failed to make any reference to the later 2018 Planning Permission, despite; - (a) it being contemporaneous in nature and issued not long before the Council’s appeal statement was finalised; and (b) it being clearly similar in layout, amount and form to the appeal scheme, is to my mind sufficient proof

5 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 6 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 7 National Planning Policy Framework, Communities and Local Government, March 2012. 8 Planning Permission 17/02081/FUL dated 12 January 2018. 9 Planning Permission 17/00974/FUL dated 16 August 2017, and refusal 17/00256/FUL dated 17 May 2017. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Costs Decision APP/N0410/W/17/3189720

that there was deliberate concealment of evidence that the Council may have considered to be prejudicial to its case. This also constitutes unreasonable behaviour.

Conclusion

10.I have found that unreasonable behaviour by the Council resulting in unnecessary and wasted expense has been demonstrated. I therefore conclude that a full award of costs, to cover the expense incurred by the applicant in contesting this, is justified.

Costs Order

11.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, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that South Bucks District Council shall pay to Mr S. Bowyer (Bowyer and Davis Ltd.), the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision.

12.The applicant is now invited to submit to South Bucks District Council, to whose agents a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount. In the event that the parties cannot agree on the amount, a copy of the guidance note on how to apply for a detailed assessment by the Senior Courts Costs Office is enclosed. Robert Fallon

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3