Claimant successfully appealing against local authority’s refusal of planning permission and enforcement notice – Inspector finding in favour of claimant on each issue – Claimant seeking judicial review of costs decision – Whether inspector erring in exercise of discretion – Whether failing to apply guidance properly – Circular 8/93 – Claim dismissed
The claimant successfully appealed against a local authority’s refusal of planning permission for development and against an enforcement notice served on him. The inspector resolved each of the four issues raised on the appeal in the claimant’s favour. However, the inspector went on to reject the claimant’s application for costs against the local authority. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision on the ground that the inspector had failed properly to apply the guidance contained in Circular 8/93. Section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provided a discretionary power for an award of costs to be made in planning applications. Circular 8/93 contained guidance on the exercise of that discretion, and provided that a costs award could be made in circumstances where, inter alia, the party against whom costs were being sought had behaved unreasonably and caused the other party to incur unnecessary expenditure. The claimant submitted that the local authority’s refusal of planning permission had been unreasonable.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The inspector had taken account of the local authority’s arguments but had not been persuaded by them. It could not be inferred from the inspector’s findings on certain issues that the local authority’s stance on those matters had been an unreasonable one. Although the inspector had dismissed the local authority’s case in the clearest of terms, it did not follow that the authority had failed to produce evidence to substantiate its case. The inspector had simply not been persuaded by the evidence. In any event, it could not be said that the claimant had incurred any unnecessary costs. Thus, the inspector had not erred in the exercise of his discretion in relation to costs by failing to take account of Circular 8/93.
Nathalie Lieven (instructed by Burgess Salmon, of Bristol) appeared for the claimant; Rupert Warren (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
