| Topic: | Re:Re:Chiswick Village Penthouses | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 26/08/15 03:05:00 |
| Greeting all from a warm but cloudy Vegas... I haven't seen the appeal decision notices but presumably, based on the front page article, a costs application made by the developer as part of the appeal claiming the Council behaved unreasonably was successful. Usually such successful costs applications relate to situations where a Council has refused an application on a technical ground without sufficient evidence to be able to back up that ground. It is very rare for a costs application to be successful in respect of reasons for refusal based on subjective matters like design, appearance or bulk/massing. The front page article suggests the Council refused the application on transport/parking grounds and that is a common ground upon which developers successfully make costs claims. John's post confirms that Members overturned Officers, and perhaps it was Members who decided to include a parking reason for refusal which essentially the Council couldn't possibly defend at appeal hence the successful costs claim. But I must stress I haven't seen the costs decision (might try to locate it later although its 7pm here and Vegas has plenty of other distractions !) so I am making an educated guess. |