Planning appeal allowed for up to 140 dwellings in Oakham with full costs for the Appellant.
Planning Inspector H Butcher granted outline planning permission, accepting the Appellant’s argument that there is no evidence that the Proposal would result in unacceptable highways safety impacts or severe residual cumulative impacts on the road network. The Inspector found that, although the Proposal would result in some local adverse traffic impacts, these were not of a scale which would give rise to conflict with either local or national policies, taking into account the mitigation offered. Rutland County Council has a 3 YHLS, thus the tilted balance was engaged and, ultimately, the Inspector found that the limited harms of the Proposal did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the numerous benefits.
The Inspector also awarded the Appellant their full costs of the appeal as there was “no respectable basis to substantiate the reason for refusal” (Costs DL6-8). This decision is a salutary reminder that, although decision-makers are entitled to disagree with the recommendations of a statutory consultee, this must be backed by an objective and thorough analysis of the impacts of a proposal.
Peter Goatley KC and Chatura Saravanan represented the Appellant (Taylor Wimpey UK Limited – instructed by Nichola Willder and Gary Tucker). Andrew Gore (Marrons Planning) provided the planning evidence, Simon Tucker (DTA Transportation Ltd) provided the highways evidence and James Stacey (Tetlow King Planning) provided evidence on affordable housing.
Read the appeal decision and costs decision here.
