Latest News

Overview

This case concerns a successful appeal against Warwick District Council’s refusal to grant a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) for the proposed erection of gates, railings, and brick piers at Eathorpe Hall, a Grade II listed property in Warwickshire. The Planning Inspector not only allowed the appeal but also awarded full costs against the Council due to its unreasonable behaviour during the appeal process.

Key Facts

• The proposal related to new gates, railings, and brick piers positioned across the estate driveway approximately 21 metres from the public highway and around 94 metres from Eathorpe Hall.
• The application sought a Certificate of Lawfulness on the basis that the works constituted permitted development under Class A, Part 2, Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO).
• Warwick District Council refused the application, arguing that the development would be within the curtilage of a listed building and therefore would not benefit from permitted development rights.

Appeal Outcome

We relied on case law and relevant appeal decisions to convince the Inspector that the proposal falls outside the curtilage of the listed building, hence, is permitted development. The Inspector agreed with us that the Council’s decision was not well-founded, and the appeal was allowed and a Lawful Development Certificate was issued confirming the lawfulness of the proposed works.

Costs Decision

We also sought an award of costs against the Council for what we considered to be its unreasonable behaviour in causing an unnecessary appeal, and the Inspector agreed with us resulting in a full award of costs.

Why Costs Were Awarded

• The Council’s reasoning for refusal was limited and inadequately explained.
• The delegated report did not clearly explain how the Council reached its conclusion on curtilage.
• There was no evidence that key case law relied upon by the appellant had been properly considered.
• The Council failed to submit an appeal statement to substantiate its refusal or respond to the appellant’s grounds of appeal.
• Attempts to justify the refusal were made only after the appeal timetable had passed and could not remedy the failure to support the original decision.

The Inspector concluded that the Council had failed to substantiate its reason for refusal, causing the appellant to incur unnecessary expense in lodging an appeal, and this amounted to unreasonable behaviour.  

Are you struggling to get planning consent for your project? We specialise in appeals as well as full planning applications, so contact Abel to discuss further.