Yr Arolygiaeth Gynllunio, Adeilad y Goron,
The Planning Inspectorate, Crown Buildings,
Parc Cathays, Caerdydd CF10 3NQ
Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NQ
029 20823889 Ffacs 029 2082 5150
029 20823889 Fax 029 2082 5150
e-bost [email address]
email [email address]
Penderfyniad Costau
Costs Decision
Ymchwiliad a gynhaliwyd ar 09/09/08
Inquiry held on 09/09/08
Ymweliad â safle a wnaed ar 09/09/08
Site visit made on 09/09/08
gan/by Gareth A. Rennie MRTPI FRGS
Arolygydd a benodwyd gan y Gweinidog
an Inspector appointed by the Minister for
dros yr Amgylchedd, Gynaliadwyedd a
Environment, Sustainability and Housing,
Thai, un o Weinidogion Cymru
one of the Welsh Ministers
Dyddiad/Date 27/11/08
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/M6825/A/08/2072467
Site address: Maes y Coed (pt enc 7136), Hafod Bridge, Llanwrda, SA19 8BG
The Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing has transferred the
authority to decide this application for costs to me as the appointed Inspector.
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 320
and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Carmarthenshire County Council for a full award of costs
against Mr & Mrs E Thompson.
• The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for
one bungalow.
Summary of Decision: The application fails and no award of costs is made.
The Submissions for the Council
1. An application is made for the award of full costs having regard to the provisions
of circular 23/93 and in particular paragraph 11 of Annex 1, paragraphs 3 & 5 of
Annex 2, and paragraphs 1-6 of Annex 3.
2. The appellants’ agent made a telling comment during the inquiry, to the effect
that the appellants were determined to have a house on the appeal site. Other
applications for this development and an appeal have been unsuccessful. The
issues of employment and housing need for a dwelling on the site have been
tested by the Council and have been unsuccessful.
3. The appellants also introduced new issues. Evidence has been put forward of
other visual intrusions in landscape such as the adjacent chicken sheds. The idea
was subsequently presented, however, of Hafod Bridge as a settlement. This
arose after the appeal was put forward.
4. The decision was in accordance with the development plan and is abundantly
clear and in accordance with National policy. The Council considers that this
appeal was presented when it had no reasonable chance of success. The previous
appeal found against an argument based on policy H8 of the Carmarthenshire
Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the Council considers that there have been
no material changes to the proposal or policy since the date of that appeal.
Costs Decision APP/M6825/A/08/2072467
The Response by the appellants
5. The appellants dispute any unreasonable behaviour that has led to additional
costs and fail to see that new issues were introduced. All matters discussed were
already mentioned in submissions.
6. It was considered that there was a reasonable chance of success of both the
application and appeal and the appellants would not have gone to such lengths if
they considered that there was no real prospect of success. The Council also gave
no indication that it would make an application for costs and the appellants hope
that this application is not a means of imposing a financial deterrent against any
future applications.
7. The appellants also requested a meeting with the Council to discuss a Statement
of Common Ground (SOCG) which may have dealt with some of the issues
discussed during the inquiry. The Council failed to respond to this request and no
SOCG was prepared.
Conclusions
8. I have considered this application for costs in the light of Circular 23/93 and all
the relevant circumstances. This advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the
appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved
unreasonably and thereby caused another party to incur or waste expense
unnecessarily.
9. The proposed development had been the subject of a previous refusal and
subsequent appeal. The issues in that case had been based on whether there was
both a functional and financial need for Mr Thompson to live close to his work in
the forestry sector. The inspector in that case found that there was not sufficient
evidence in favour of the proposed dwelling.
10. Whilst the appellants did include reference in this appeal to Mr Thompson needing
to be close to his place of work it was made clear during the inquiry that the
appellants were not claiming either a functional or financial need but were stating
that for convenience and sustainability issues that it would be more favourable for
the appellants to live on the appeal site.
11. The basis of the appellants’ argument was that Hafod Bridge is an existing small
settlement, and that the appellants had a demonstrable need for affordable
housing. This, it was claimed, provided an exception to policies within the UDP
restricting the supply of housing.
12. It was agreed at the inquiry that the appellants met most if not all of the local
need criteria contained within policy H7 of the UDP. The appellants also produced
evidence to support their claim that Hafod Bridge could be considered as a
settlement. This argument was clearly presented within their proof of evidence
and I consider that no new evidence was presented to the inquiry. I also consider
that the appeal was based on material considerations that had not been tested at
the previous appeal.
13. I conclude that the appellants made an appeal based on a reasonable
interpretation of policies within the UDP, in particular the criteria relating to
affordable housing in minor settlements contained within H6. They did not
2
Costs Decision APP/M6825/A/08/2072467
reiterate previous arguments that had been dismissed at appeal and, my decision
notwithstanding, did not present a case that that no reasonable prospect of
success.
14. Consequently I consider that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary
expense, as described in Circular 8/93, has not been demonstrated and I
therefore conclude that an award of costs is not justified.
Formal Decision
15. I refuse the application for an award of costs.
Gareth A. Rennie
Inspector
3
