We are very pleased indeed to have secured outline permission at appeal for up to 4 new dwellings in the village of Middleton, near Corby, for a new client.  Appeal ref is 3339033.

The front part of the site is in the conservation area but the majority of the site – a paddock that is not publicly visible or accessible without appointment – is not, but it does abut the conservation area.  Given the potential for heritage impacts, the client reasonably expected that there would be a site visit.  There wasn’t, and even through the appeal process, the LPA contended that they didn’t need to visit.

Conservation comments received during the application process were fundamentally inaccurate – i.e. citing that a neighbouring building was listed when it wasn’t.  This wasn’t challenged or checked and permission was refused due in part to impact on the ‘listed building’, together with harm to the character and appearance of the land – which they hadn’t visited.

During the appeal process the LPA’s consultant ecologist accused the Appellant of misleading the Inspector on one of the appeal questionnaire questions.  What they failed to realise is that the question they were referring to was not on the Appellant’s questionnaire; it only appeared on the LPA’s version, so they were only pointing fingers at themselves.

In our statement and costs claim we drew attention to the fundamental issues on procedure, and how they had resulted in a flawed decision and an avoidable appeal.

  • Did the LPA submit a statement?  – They said they would in their questionnaire, and then didn’t.
  • Did the LPA submit a list of conditions? – Eventually, but only after being prodded twice by PINS.
  • Was the appeal successful – Yes it was!  Deservedly so.
  • Was the Appellant awarded costs?  Yes they were.  Perhaps predictably, this was for the parts relating to the misidentified listed building, and harm to the site.

We work with lots of local authorities and we know that they are very busy.  Sadly this is a case where a lack of attention to detail has resulted in additional time and expense for the client and local taxpayer.  We’re very pleased for the client and look forward to seeing the scheme come forward for reserved matters in due course.