Peter Mansell is on a bit of a roll at present having been successful in three planning appeals in the past six months, all involving costs applications.
176 High Street, Portishead, North Somerset
Having acted for Bristol City Council, as landowner, on the planning application, Peter was retained to give evidence at the appeal in December 2008 against North Somerset Council’s decision to refuse outline planning permission for the development of about 31 dwellings on a smallholding at 176 High Street, Portishead (PINS Ref APP/D0121/A/08/2082512). The case was somewhat unusual in that the planning and highways officers, who had recommended approval of the planning application, gave evidence on factual matters and two North Somerset Councillors produced evidence and appeared at the appeal to defend the decision.
Peter was able to demonstrate that the proposed access junction was fully in accordance with guidance contained in Manual for Streets and that the reason for refusal on highway safety was groundless. Judith Bridges giving landscape evidence, and Fran Chick of CSJ Planning successfully demonstrated that the planning policy reason for refusal was also groundless. Gary Grant of Counsel was successful in the application for a full award of costs. Working on a controversial planning appeal on a site in his home town was of concern to Peter but the Inspector did recognise in his decision the local knowledge gained from being a long standing resident. Peter’s delight at the Inspector’s decision was slightly tempered by the realisation that the significant costs involved with the appeal would have to be met by the Council Tax payers, himself included!
The White Swan Public House, Vauxhall Bridge Road, London
In February 2009, Peter acted for The Spirit Group in its planning appeal against the decision to refuse planning consent for the placing of three tables and twelve chairs on the footway outside The White Swan public house. City of Westminster Council had refused the planning application on the recommendation of the highway authority, Transport for London, due to the creation of a pinch point and the impact on pedestrian flows along the footway. KTC was appointed just a week before the Informal Hearing, giving Peter limited time to review the hearing statements and develop the case. A site visit during the evening peak the night before the hearing proved to be very worthwhile with, unbeknown to Peter, the Inspector also carrying out a site visit at the same time and therefore also witnessing the conditions.
Working alongside Christian Silk of TLT Solicitors, who is a solicitor and a chartered town planner, Peter was able to demonstrate that the positioning of the tables and chairs would meet City of Westminster Council’s own guidelines and, using pedestrian capacity guidelines, would not cause an unacceptable obstruction to pedestrians. During his research for the case, Peter unearthed a Transport for London guidance document that also supported the case being made on behalf of the appellant. The Inspector upheld the appeal and awarded full costs to the appellant. A report on the Inspector’s decision (PINS Ref APP/X5990/A/08/2084764) also featured in Planning Journal in April 2009.
Woollard Lane, Whitchurch, Bristol
The third and most recent planning appeal also required Peter Mansell to rapidly develop a case to present at the inquiry. Peter received a call on a Friday in February 2009 from a solicitor at Bath & North East Somerset Council to establish whether he would act for the Council at a forthcoming inquiry where the deadline for exchange of evidence was the following Tuesday – fortunately B&NES had managed to secure a weeks extension to the deadline. The work had been kindly referred to Peter by Gary Grant, Counsel on the Portishead appeal above. B&NES members had refused planning consent for a single gypsy pitch against the recommendation of officers and therefore needed to employ consultants to support the reasons for refusal.
Peter quickly organised a traffic count and speed survey adjacent to the proposed site access, and visited site to establish the strength of the reason for refusal on highway safety grounds. Peter considered that the quality of mapping used by the applicant for showing the proposed site access and visibility splays was inadequate to be able to robustly demonstrate that the required visibility splays could be achieved on land within the applicants’ control. Peter therefore submitted a proof of evidence to demonstrate this point and also to assert that Manual for Streets was not the appropriate design guide for the highway adjoining the site, leading to further doubt about the adequacy of the visibility splays proposed.
Peter gave evidence at the inquiry alongside Mike Muston who was defending the Green Belt reason for refusal. The Inspector dismissed the appeal (PINS Ref APP/F0114/A/08/2089663) and accepted Peter’s assertions that the development proposal would result in significant harm to highway safety. He also supported the Green Belt reason for refusal and refused the appellants costs application. Whilst a bit more time to prepare evidence would have been welcome, Peter was delighted to be able to support B&NES and help them avoid the award of costs.
For further details of any of these cases, please contact Peter at peter.mansell@key-transport.com .