Costs awards against objectors and interested parties

Costs against an objector in a planning appeal are possible but uncommon, and the trigger is behaviour rather than outcome. Losing is not unreasonable conduct. Nor is objecting strongly, or being wrong about the planning merits. An award follows where a party has behaved unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings and that behaviour has caused someone else to spend money they would not otherwise have spent.

The exposure rises sharply at one specific point: when a community group stops being an interested party and becomes a main party at an inquiry. That is the decision to think hardest about, and it is usually taken for good reasons without anyone mentioning costs.

Who can be the subject of a costs application

The power to award costs in appeal proceedings comes from section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 as applied by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, with section 322C of the 1990 Act extending it to appeals decided without an inquiry or hearing. The power is not limited to the appellant and the local planning authority.

So the shape of the risk follows the shape of the role. The more procedural obligations you accept, the more ways there are to fall short of them, and it is falling short that generates an award rather than arguing a weak case.

Behaviour that has attracted awards

The Planning Practice Guidance on appeals sets out the principles and the Inspectorate applies them to conduct, not to merit. The patterns that have produced awards:

• Failing to comply with directions, so that a hearing or inquiry has to be adjourned or another party has to respond at short notice.
• Introducing substantial new evidence late, particularly expert evidence served after the other party's proofs have been exchanged.
• Withdrawing from the proceedings at the last moment after other parties have prepared and briefed advocates.
• Failing to attend a hearing or inquiry a party has asked to be heard at, without notice or explanation.
• Pursuing a case that has no reasonable prospect, after the point at which this has been made clear.
• Making allegations of bad faith, dishonesty or impropriety without evidence to support them.
• Prolonging proceedings by repeating points already dealt with, or by cross-examining at length on matters not in dispute.

Read that list again as a list of things to avoid rather than as a list of dangers. Almost all of it is procedural discipline, and none of it requires legal representation to get right.

Protection for ordinary written objections

If you submit a written representation, or attend to speak for a few minutes, you are in practice very unlikely to face a costs application. The appeal system depends on public participation, and the guidance treats awards against third parties exercising their right to comment as a rarity.

Two caveats worth stating plainly. The protection follows the conduct, not the label: a written representation that makes unevidenced allegations of corruption against named officers is not protected merely because it is a written representation. And a group that files a large volume of material late, requiring the appellant to respond, can cause wasted expense even without main party status.

The practical reading is that an objector who confines themselves to planning issues, files on time, and makes points they can support is at negligible risk. Our note on what objectors can do once a planning appeal starts sets out how to take part effectively within those limits.

What main party status brings with it

Rule 6 status at an inquiry makes a person or group a main party. It is a substantial advantage: you serve a statement of case, call your own evidence, cross-examine the appellant's witnesses, and make closing submissions. On a contested scheme where the council's case is weak, it is sometimes the only way the real objection gets tested.

It also brings obligations that mirror the appellant's. A statement of case by a fixed date. Proofs of evidence and summaries by another fixed date. Compliance with every direction the inspector gives. Attendance throughout. Witnesses who can be cross-examined on what they have written.

An illustrative example. A residents' association takes Rule 6 status to run a landscape case the council had not pleaded. It serves its statement of case on time, instructs a landscape witness, and complies with directions. Two weeks before the inquiry the witness becomes unavailable and the association seeks to substitute a different proof on a different basis. The appellant's landscape witness has to prepare fresh rebuttal. An application for the costs of that rebuttal is a realistic prospect, even though the association's underlying case was reasonable. This example is illustrative.

Before accepting the status, ask three questions. Can we meet every date in the timetable. Do we have a witness who will still be available in six months. And if we cannot continue, will we withdraw early enough that nobody has spent money on us.

Responding to a costs application

An application is usually made orally at the close of an inquiry or hearing, or in writing within the period allowed after a written representations appeal. If it is made against you, three things matter.

1. Ask for it in writing, with the costs claimed identified and the conduct complained of specified. A general assertion of unreasonable behaviour is answerable; a particularised one needs a particularised answer.
2. Answer the conduct, not the merits. Explain what you did, when, and why. Where you were late, say why and say what you did to limit the consequences.
3. Address causation. An award covers costs that would not otherwise have been incurred, so if the other party would have prepared that evidence anyway, say so.

Do not ignore it. Costs applications are determined on the material before the decision maker, and an unanswered application is decided on the applicant's account of events.

Where the application is made against the council rather than against you, you may still have an interest in the outcome, because a costs award against an authority occasionally affects how it approaches the next application. Our note on reading a refusal notice and turning it into a plan covers how refusal reasons and conduct interact.

Practical limits on recovery

An award of costs is a decision that one party should pay another's costs. It is not a bill. The amount is then agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, assessed by the court, and enforcement is a separate civil process.

That has three consequences for a community group. An award against an unincorporated association has to be enforced against individuals, which raises questions about who actually gave the undertaking and in what capacity. Assessment reduces claimed costs, often substantially, because the paying party can challenge rates, hours and necessity. And the appellant has to decide whether pursuing a group of residents for costs is worth the publicity, which is a calculation that frequently goes in the objectors' favour.

None of that is a reason to behave carelessly. It is a reason not to be paralysed by a threat of costs made in correspondence, which happens more often than awards do.

Reducing exposure while still objecting

Six things, in order of effect:

• Stay an interested party unless main party status is necessary. Most objections are made just as well in a written representation and a five minute statement.
• Meet every deadline. Procedural failure is the commonest route to an award.
• Confine the case to planning issues. Allegations about motive or conduct belong in a complaint to the authority, not in an appeal.
• Evidence what you assert. A photograph with a date, a policy extract, a traffic count: each of these is worth more than an adjective.
• If you must withdraw, do it early and tell every party in writing the same day.
• Keep one person responsible for correspondence and deadlines, because costs awards against groups often arise from nobody owning the timetable.

Where you need to understand the technical case you are answering, the evidence base is a good place to start, and our note on highway safety refusals and the evidence that answers them shows the level of detail an inquiry works at. The equivalent document on the applicant's side is the Planning Statement, which is usually the clearest statement of the case you are responding to.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. If you want to see which documents an application of this kind should contain, the PlanScope report index lists the report types by category.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.