Lochailort Investments Ltd v Secretary of State
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HON MR JUSTICE FOSKETT
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a judicial review of a planning inspector's decision not to award costs to the Claimant, who had successfully appealed against a local planning authority's refusal of planning permission. The court found that the inspector's reasons were inadequate, quashed the decision, and remitted the matter for further consideration. Key principles include the need for adequate reasoning in decisions and the conditions under which costs should be awarded in planning appeals.
Judgment
Mr Justice Foskett :
This claim for judicial review is brought with permission granted by Haddon-Cave J. It relates to a decision by a planning inspector acting on behalf of the Secretary of State concerning the costs of a planning appeal determined by written representations.
The Claimant was the successful appellant. The Interested Party was the local planning authority.
The appeal to the Secretary of State concerned a planning application to demolish an existing dwelling in a village some seven miles from Bath in Somerset and to erect on the site three new dwellings. As I have indicated, the inspector allowed the appeal against the refusal of the application by the Interested Party. The Claimant’s planning consultant had submitted a written application for costs against the Interested Party in the normal way in the event that it was successful before the outcome of the appeal was known. I will say a little more about the basis of the application shortly. However, in due course, the inspector declined to make the order sought and it is that decision that is the subject of the present challenge.
Mr Martin Edwards has advanced the application on the Claimant’s behalf and I am grateful to him for his assistance. Unfortunately and most surprisingly, neither the Defendant nor the Interested Party acknowledged service of these proceedings and neither has been represented before me or made any other kind of written submission. It is, of course, always helpful to have the countervailing arguments advanced even in a case, such as this, where the Claimant’s arguments have been advanced fairly and helpfully. Furthermore, it is hardly fair to the inspector that someone has not taken a position on her behalf: it could have been to argue that her decision letter cannot be impugned or, alternatively, it could involve a recognition that the decision letter was inadequate. As it is, I am left in some doubt about the attitude of the Secretary of State. However, notwithstanding that, I must consider the merits of the application.
The Circular that sets the policy framework for consideration of issues of costs in this context is Costs Circular 03/2009. I do not intend to extend this judgment by an extensive citation of extracts from the Circular, but I will refer to a few relevant paragraphs shortly. Before doing so, I should summarise the local planning authority’s reasons for refusing the application for planning permission. In order to understand those rea