Costs Decisions Inquiry held on 1 February 2011 Site visit made on 8 February 2011 by Christine Thorby MRTPI, IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 17 May 2011

Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/E5900/A/10/2131760 307 Burdett Road, London E14 7DR • • •

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 Trillium (Prime) Property Group Ltd for a full award of costs against the Council of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the redevelopment of the site involving the erection of a part 6 and part 11 storey building and lower ground floor level adjacent to Limehouse Cut to provide 56 residential units, 658 square metres of commercial floor space (use Class A1/A3 and A4) at ground and lower ground floor level, cycle parking, amenity space and other associated works.

Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/E5900/E/10/2131773 307 Burdett Road, London E14 7DR •

• •

The application is made under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, sections 20, 74, 89 and Schedule 3, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). The application is made by Telereal Trillium for a full award of costs against the Council of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against refusal of conservation area consent for the demolition of the existing part 2 and part 3 storey vacant unemployment benefit office building plus basement and a single storey wing at the rear.

Decision 1. I refuse the applications for an award of costs for appeal A and appeal B. The submissions for Telereal Trillium/Trillium (Prime) Property Group Ltd 2. The costs applications were submitted in writing. A full award is sought for both appeals and reference is made to paragraphs A12, B15, B16, B19, B20 and B21 of Circular 03/2009. The response by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets 3. The responses were made in writing. Reasons 4. Circular 03/2009 advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

Costs Decisions APP/E5900/E/10/2131773, APP/E5900/A/10/2131760

thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. 5. Appeal A and B: One of the main issues between the parties was the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Limehouse Cut Conservation Area. The conservation area designation was quashed by Order of the High Court on 9th February 2011. Nevertheless, because the Inquiry sat prior to the Order being issued, it was agreed at the Inquiry by all parties that the Limehouse Cut Conservation Area remained a valid designation for the duration of the Inquiry. The Inquiry proceeded on this basis. 6. The Council therefore, not unreasonably, put forward a professional conservation witness to support their case. The Council’s evidence both in writing and at the Inquiry was realistic and specific about the consequences, having particular regard to their duty at that time to consider whether the proposals would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. This was satisfactorily supported in written submissions and at the Inquiry by an analysis of the conservation area and of the character of the wider area. 7. The Council’s concerns about design were clearly expressed and substantive, and took into account the context of the appeal site. When cross examined, the Council satisfactorily addressed the benefits put forward by the appellant and whether these would outweigh the harm they had identified to the conservation area. The Council, not unreasonably, questioned the marketing evidence at the Inquiry which was put forward in the proof of evidence, but not raised in the appellant’s statement of case. The Council were able to defend their view of the historic and architectural merit of the existing building and they were not unduly swayed by the extent of local opinion or opposition. 8. Appeal A: The scheme for appeal A had been recommended for approval by planning officers prior to the designation of the Limehouse Cut Conservation Area. Even though the conservation area was eventually quashed, it was not unreasonable for the Council to refuse the appeal scheme at the time once the original conservation area designation was made, as the policy considerations were significantly different. 9. Although the Council’s comments about the roof top location for amenity space were unfounded given the support of London Plan guidance, they substantiated their position on the adequacy and appropriateness of amenity space in terms of concerns about buffer zones and layout. Their position was not unreasonable in the light of the timing of further evidence, including revised layouts and child’s play space calculations, produced by the appellant just before the Inquiry, when there was little time for close examination. 10. Despite the outcome of the appeals, it is considered that the Council referred to the relevant policies and were able to substantiate their reasons for refusal for both appeals. Therefore, unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expenditure by the Council has not been demonstrated.

Christine Thorby INSPECTOR

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

2