Planning inspector makes partial costs award against council over change of position

This followed the council’s change of position from whether the development posed substantial harm or only less than substantial harm to Woodlands Castle and its surroundings.

Developer Belstone Fox sought to convert Woodlands Castle to a dwelling and to build 16 other adjacent dwellings and a 70-bedroom care home.

Somerset refused permission and Belstone Fox appealed under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Planning inspector C Rose said that while the applications conflicted with some policies, “I find that the public benefits would be sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm I have identified above to the significance of Woodlands Castle by way of harm to its setting and significance”.

The inspector said: “The adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.”

Somerset’s conduct had been unreasonable - triggering the partial costs order - the inspector found, in relation to extra work it caused Belstone Fox to undertake in preparing evidence in response its change of position in reducing the harm to the listed building from ‘substantial’ at the time of the decision to ‘less than substantial’ as part of the appeal.

A Somerset spokesperson said: “We take our responsibilities for heritage protection seriously and always aim to act in the public interest when taking decisions, often in complex and contested circumstances.

“While we are disappointed the appeal was allowed, we are satisfied that we acted reasonably and properly throughout, as confirmed by the inspector’s findings.”

The council noted the inspector explicitly rejected claims it had acted unreasonably in refusing the application overall and found it adequately justified and evidenced its reasons for refusal.

“Partial awards of costs in planning appeals are not uncommon and do not indicate maladministration or a flawed planning process,” the spokesperson said.

“We accept the inspector’s decision and will now work with the developer to ensure that any development meets the conditions imposed by the Inspector and delivers the important heritage benefits identified in the decision.”

Mark Smulian