In a recent appeal against a planning enforcement notice, the Inspector roundly dismissed the appeal and upheld the enforcement notice on all grounds. However, when the Council went further and applied for a full costs award against the appellant who was a householder and unrepresented at the appeal, the Planning Inspector refused the award.
The Inspector set out in their decision the relevant sections of the Planning Practice Guidance advising when costs may be awarded. They agreed with the Council that the evidence in support of the appeal itself had been minimal, but they also took into account the fact that the appellant had previously engaged with the Council and had been granted a Certificate of Lawful Development. The evidence that the appellant had submitted to the appeal, such that it was, appeared to suggest that she had relied on what her builder had told her. She felt she had reason to believe that the building was lawful and that the Council’s action in serving an enforcement notice was unjustified.
In the costs decision notice, the Inspector thought that it had not, therefore, been unreasonable for the appellant to think that her appeal could succeed.
The Council had also argued that as the appellant lives at the property, she should have been aware of the facts. However, the Inspector found that the appellant had not provided evidence that was manifestly inaccurate or untrue.
A conclusion that could be drawn from this costs decision is that the Inspector seems to have thought that, in making this application for a full award of costs, the Council acted in a heavy-handed way. The implication is that the Council should have considered more carefully whether a costs application against an unrepresented householder would be worthwhile. Instead, it could have simply been content with winning the appeal.
