How costs awards at appeal are assessed and paid

An appeal costs award does not follow the outcome of the appeal. Winning is not enough. A party recovers costs only where the other side behaved unreasonably and that behaviour caused unnecessary or wasted expense. An appellant can win the appeal outright and recover nothing, and a council can successfully defend a refusal and still pay, if it ran a reason for refusal it could not evidence.

That separation catches out clients more than it catches out agents. Explain it before the appeal starts, not after the decision arrives.

Where the power comes from

The power is statutory rather than a matter of the Inspectorate's discretion alone. For inquiries and hearings it derives from section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972, applied to planning proceedings, and section 322 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 extends comparable powers to cases decided without an inquiry. National planning guidance then sets the policy on when an award should be made.

Two features follow from the statutory base. Awards are made against a party, not against an individual officer or member. And the decision on costs is a separate decision from the appeal decision, with its own reasoning, which is why it usually arrives as a distinct letter.

The two limbs of the test

Both limbs have to be satisfied.

The first is unreasonable behaviour. Guidance treats this as behaviour falling outside what a reasonable party would do in the circumstances, judged against the procedural requirements of the appeal and against the ordinary standards of decision making.

The second is causation. The behaviour must have caused the other party to incur expense that would otherwise have been avoided. Unreasonable conduct that costs nobody anything produces no award. This is where many applications fail: the behaviour is criticised in the decision letter, but the applicant cannot point to work that would not otherwise have been done.

Procedural and substantive unreasonable behaviour

Procedural failings concern the running of the appeal. Missing timetable deadlines, failing to produce a statement of common ground, withdrawing at the last minute, not attending a hearing, introducing new material late, or requiring evidence on a matter that was never in dispute.

Substantive failings concern the planning merits. The recurring examples are a refusal with vague or generalised assertions about harm, unsupported by objective evidence. A reason for refusal that the council does not then defend. Failure to review the case once the appeal is lodged and circumstances have changed. And refusing an application that plainly accords with the development plan without clear planning reasons for departing from it.

Our note on when costs awards are actually made works through the behaviour side in more detail. What matters for budgeting is that evidencing a reason for refusal is the single most common flashpoint, which is why the quality of the Planning Statement and the technical evidence submitted with the original application matters long after the decision.

When the application has to be made

Timing is unforgiving. For an inquiry or a hearing, the application is made before the event closes, normally orally and then confirmed in writing. For written representations, it must be made by the deadline for final comments. Miss the window and the claim is gone, whatever its merits.

Make the application in writing wherever possible, structured as: the behaviour complained of, the guidance it breaches, the expense caused, and the period or work the claim covers. A list of grievances without that structure reads as a complaint rather than an application.

What the costs decision actually decides

The decision determines entitlement. It says whether an award is made, against whom, and in what terms, whether full or partial. It does not fix a sum. Inspectors do not audit invoices and do not rule on hourly rates.

So the costs decision is best understood as a door being opened. Everything about how much money changes hands happens afterwards, between the parties.

Agreeing the sum, or going to assessment

Most awards settle. The receiving party sends a schedule of costs with supporting invoices and time records, the paying party queries the rates and the hours, and a figure is agreed.

Where they cannot agree, the award can be taken to a detailed assessment by the court, which applies the ordinary rules on reasonableness and proportionality that govern litigation costs. That route brings its own cost and delay, so the practical bargaining position of a party facing a modest disputed balance is weak.

Keep the records that make agreement easy. Time recorded against the appeal by task, dated invoices from technical consultants, and a clear separation between work that would have been done anyway and work caused by the unreasonable behaviour. A claim that bundles the whole appeal cost into one figure invites a proportionate reduction.

Partial awards and how they are framed

Partial awards are common and are usually expressed by reference to an issue or a period. An award might cover the costs of dealing with a single reason for refusal, or the costs incurred after the date a council withdrew its objection but before the appeal was formally disposed of.

Read the wording closely, because it controls the schedule. An award framed by issue requires your time records to be apportioned by issue, which is impossible to reconstruct honestly after the event. Record time that way from the start of any appeal where a costs application looks likely.

Costs against appellants, and deciding whether to apply

Awards run both ways. An appellant risks costs by pursuing an appeal with no reasonable prospect on the facts, by failing to provide information the authority had asked for at application stage, by lodging an appeal and then not engaging, or by withdrawing late once the council has prepared its case.

Before applying, weigh four things honestly. Is the behaviour clearly outside the guidance, or merely a decision you disagree with? Can you identify specific wasted work? Is the sum worth the recovery exercise? And do you have a continuing relationship with the authority that a contested application will affect?

That last point is real and rarely written down. Many agents deal with the same case officers for years. Applying for costs is a legitimate part of the process and sometimes the right call, but it is not costless in the wider sense.

Budget for it either way. The expense of running an appeal sits alongside the other costs of getting an application right first time, and the costs award that saves the most money is the one nobody needs to apply for.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.

See PlanScope pricing if you are costing the evidence base for an appeal or a resubmission.