Costs awards against objectors and parish councils

A costs award against an objector or a parish council in a planning appeal is possible, and it is rare. The test is unreasonable behaviour that caused another party to incur wasted expense, not simply being on the losing side. An ordinary neighbour who writes a letter raising amenity concerns, or a parish council that objects on grounds its members honestly hold, is not at risk. The exposure arises when a third party takes on a formal role, makes allegations it cannot support, or forces a procedure and then fails to turn up.

Knowing where the line sits lets a community group participate properly instead of either staying silent or overreaching.

Whether a third party can face costs

The power to award costs in planning appeals comes from section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972, applied to planning proceedings through section 322 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Planning Practice Guidance sets out how the Secretary of State and inspectors approach it.

Awards are generally confined to appeals that involve an inquiry or a hearing. That alone protects most objectors, because the overwhelming majority of appeals are decided on written representations, and someone who sends a letter of objection in a written representations appeal faces effectively no costs risk.

The governing principle is the same for everyone. A party may be awarded costs against another where that other party has behaved unreasonably and the behaviour caused unnecessary or wasted expense. Losing is not unreasonable behaviour. Holding a view an inspector rejects is not unreasonable behaviour.

Behaviour that attracts an award

The conduct that gets criticised falls into recognisable categories.

• Pursuing an objection after it has been shown to be groundless, particularly where the objector was told so in writing and given the evidence.
• Introducing a wholly new ground late, so that another party has to prepare fresh evidence at short notice.
• Requesting an inquiry or a hearing and then not attending, or withdrawing at the last moment after everyone has instructed counsel.
• Making allegations of dishonesty, bad faith or corruption without evidence.
• Putting forward evidence that is plainly misleading, or refusing to correct an error once it is pointed out.
• Failing to comply with the inspector's directions on timetabling or document length.

Note the common thread: each one imposes avoidable cost on somebody else. An objection that is simply wrong, or weak, or based on a misunderstanding of policy, does not.

Rule 6 parties and their exposure

The real change in risk comes with formal status. At an inquiry, a third party can be given the status of a main party, commonly described as a rule 6 party after the rule in the inquiry procedure rules under which it is named.

That status brings rights. The party exchanges statements of case and proofs of evidence, calls witnesses, cross examines, and makes closing submissions. It also brings obligations, and with them exposure. A rule 6 party is treated as a main party for costs, so the same standards of conduct and compliance apply to it as to the appellant and the authority.

Community groups should decide this consciously rather than drifting into it. If the group can fund expert evidence and meet the timetable, rule 6 status gives it real influence. If it cannot, participating as an interested party preserves the ability to speak without taking on main party duties, and the limits of that role are set out in third party involvement in someone else's appeal.

Costs applications against appellants

The traffic runs both ways, and objectors sometimes forget that the authority or a rule 6 party can seek costs from an appellant.

Typical grounds include pursuing an appeal with no reasonable prospect of success on a settled policy point, ignoring clear and specific advice given at pre-application stage, failing to provide information the authority asked for before refusal, and withdrawing the appeal after the authority has incurred the cost of preparing evidence.

There is also the mirror image, where an appellant seeks costs from an authority. Refusing an application against unambiguous officer advice and without evidence to support the reasons for refusal is the classic example, and it is one reason why the pattern of committee refusals against officer advice matters to everyone involved.

How applications are made and decided

The procedure is short and the deadlines are strict.

1. At an inquiry or hearing, the application is normally made orally before the proceedings close, with the other party given the chance to respond there and then.
2. Where an event does not take place, or the point arises later, the application is made in writing within the period the Inspectorate specifies.
3. The inspector or the Secretary of State decides whether an award is justified, and the decision on costs is usually issued with or shortly after the appeal decision.
4. An award settles liability in principle, not amount. The parties then agree the sum, or it is assessed, and that second stage can take longer than the appeal did.

A refusal to award costs is not an endorsement of the conduct complained about, and inspectors sometimes criticise behaviour in the decision while declining to award costs. Read appeal decisions on this topic as an indication of how inspectors have approached the issue rather than as precedent, which is the same caution that applies to using appeal decisions in a planning application.

Protecting a community group

Most of the protection is in how the objection is written and managed.

Keep every point to a material planning consideration. Loss of a private view, property values, competition between businesses and the identity of the applicant are not material, and pressing them after being told so is the kind of persistence that attracts criticism.

Avoid allegations about people. Say that the submitted daylight assessment used the wrong window positions, with the drawing reference. Do not say the applicant falsified it.

Be proportionate about volume. A 90 page submission with no index, repeating the same point in several forms, imposes cost on the other parties and irritates the inspector.

Withdraw cleanly if the position changes. A group that accepts a revised scheme and says so in writing is in a far better position than one that fights on because the campaign has momentum.

And take advice before accepting rule 6 status. For a parish council spending precept money, the question is whether the objection is right and also whether the council can meet the cost of running it properly.

Participating safely

For a parish council or residents' group that wants influence without undue risk, four habits do most of the work.

Write once, early and well, to the planning authority during the application, because a reasoned objection on the file carries into the appeal automatically. Ask to speak at the hearing or inquiry as an interested party rather than seeking main party status, unless the group is resourced for it. Attend, because an objector who requests the chance to speak and then does not appear is exactly the conduct that gets mentioned in a costs decision. And keep a short written record of what the group said and when, so a later allegation of shifting ground can be answered.

One honest uncertainty: inspectors differ in how readily they criticise third party conduct, and the published guidance leaves them discretion. The safe assumption is that reasonable, focused and timely participation carries no real risk, and that anything which makes other parties redo work does.

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 are on the other side of the counter and preparing an application, enter the site postcode on PlanScope to see which supporting documents it is likely to need. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.