A profanity filter is employed. Please use a valid e-mail with your message and a valid name if at all possible. Please keep to the posters subject.
RICHMOND WATCHDOG OPEN FORUM
Go to Top  |  New Topic  |  Go to Topic  |  Search 
 Subject: RE: The Implications.
 
Author: Laurence Mann
Date:   11/5/2001 10:38 am WEDT
It isn't that unusual. The possibility of costs being awarded is something which we are very well aware of when considering applications.

This is from the Planning Inspectorate web site as a definition of unreasonable behaviour:

----------------

Behaviour which led directly to an unnecessary appeal to the Secretary of State might be considered. For instance, the local planning authority might be unable to produce evidence at the inquiry to support each of their reasons for refusing planning permission, or for imposing a condition on a grant of planning permission. Or the way in which one party has conducted their part of the proceedings might be considered unreasonable. For instance, through the fault of one party, the inquiry has had to be adjourned, or unnecessarily prolonged, or cancelled, resulting in unnecessary expense.

Late cancellation of the inquiry or hearing may also lead to an award of costs if it was due to unreasonable behaviour by one of the parties. Examples are if the local planning authority withdraw one of their reasons for refusing planning permission, or issuing an enforcement notice; or they concede a ground of appeal once the inquiry (or hearing) date is fixed, without good reason; or if the appellant withdraws the appeal (or ground of appeal) after the inquiry (or hearing) date is fixed, but cannot show that there has been a material change of circumstances since the appeal was first made.

Another example is if the appellant fails to attend, or be represented at, an inquiry (or hearing) without good reason. Other examples of unreasonable behaviour which may justify an award of costs are given in DOE Circular 8/93 (Welsh Office Circular 23/93).

--------

The costs award may of course be partial if, for instance, only one of several grounds for refusal is not properly substantiated.

I have not got involved in the Hampton Nursery supermarket appeal partly because I am not obsessed with the past, partly because it is not in my ward, and partly because I have other things to do.
Reply To This Message
 Previous Message  |  Next Message

 Topics Author  Date      
 Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/1/2001 5:35 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 7:13 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 10:45 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/1/2001 11:13 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 11:32 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 11:54 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 11:56 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Voter 11/1/2001 1:18 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 In need of more help 11/1/2001 2:58 pm WEDT
 STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 J. Watley 11/2/2001 0:10 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/2/2001 11:59 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 R H 11/2/2001 12:21 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Knowledgeable 11/2/2001 1:20 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 R H 11/2/2001 3:31 pm WEDT
 Still Waiting.   new  
 R H 2/24/2002 6:36 pm WEDT
 RE: Still Waiting.   new  
 Laurence Mann 2/25/2002 1:08 pm WEDT
 Minutes   new  
 R H 2/25/2002 2:07 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/2/2001 8:46 pm WEDT
 The Implications.   new  
 R H 11/3/2001 2:49 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/3/2001 10:05 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/4/2001 0:35 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 RichardMeacock 11/4/2001 8:41 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 7:56 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/4/2001 10:43 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 7:46 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/5/2001 0:35 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/5/2001 7:55 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 11:27 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.    
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 10:38 am WEDT
 Statistics.   new  
 R H 11/8/2001 3:55 pm WEDT
 RE: Statistics.   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/9/2001 9:09 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/4/2001 0:05 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 9:03 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Public Service Information 11/2/2001 8:37 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Knightsbridge LET Staff member 11/3/2001 10:23 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/4/2001 10:36 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 10:27 am WEDT
 Purpose?   new  
 R H 11/8/2001 3:23 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 3:14 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 4:47 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 8:07 pm WEDT
 Previous Topic  |  Next Topic
 Reply To This Message
 Your Name:  
 Your Email:  
 Subject:  
  Submission Validation Question: What is 33 + 39? *  
* indicates required field
     

Sexist, Racist, Rude or unnecessary messages will be removed. Tolerance to anonymous messages will be at the discretion of the administration body. Anyone who insults the owner of this forum will be barred for life. No adverts permitted.