Newham Council ordered to pay full costs following unreasonable refusal
We recently won a planning appeal for a straightforward first-floor rear extension in Forest Gate, in the London Borough of Newham.
The refusal was particularly difficult to justify.
The extension proposed by our client was virtually identical to a number of others along the same street, including at neighbouring properties. It also followed the original proportions and design of the host dwelling. In dismissing the council’s concerns, the appeal inspector went further, concluding that the extension would in fact improve the appearance of the property.
The council had also argued that the development would harm neighbouring occupiers, claiming that it would be overbearing and would adversely affect outlook. The inspector rejected this argument, finding that the extension would be set away from neighbouring properties and would be modest in both scale and depth.
This case also sits within a wider pattern in Newham, where planning refusals are more common than in much of the country. We have looked in more detail at planning approval rates across London boroughs here.
An award of costs
Planning appeals are intended to provide an independent review of planning decisions. However, government guidance recognises that it is unreasonable for householders to incur the time and expense of an appeal where a refusal is not supported by sound planning judgement.
For that reason, appellants are entitled to apply for an award of costs where the other party has behaved unreasonably and caused unnecessary expense.
Awards of costs are not common. The general principle is that each party bears its own costs. However, the National Planning Policy Guidance sets out specific circumstances in which a costs award may be justified, including where a council:
- prevents or delays development which should clearly have been permitted, having regard to the development plan, national policy and other material considerations; or
- makes vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impacts, unsupported by objective analysis.
Why costs were awarded in this case
In this appeal, we prepared a detailed submission explaining why the council’s refusal was not supported by a robust assessment of the proposal. We identified errors in the council’s reasoning and pointed out that permission had been granted for almost identical extensions in almost identical circumstances under the same policy framework.
The inspector agreed.
In his costs decision, he concluded:
“I consider that the Council has behaved unreasonably. It has failed to clearly show why the development should not proceed and has not substantiated the reason for refusal. The Council has prevented development that should have been permitted. The appellant has therefore had to recourse to appeal and incur the associated costs of doing so, which in my view could have been avoided.
Therefore, I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified.”
A note of caution on costs applications
Not every successful appeal will justify an award of costs, and clients should not assume that costs will automatically follow success. Inspectors may also award costs against an appellant if they behave unreasonably or pursue an appeal with no realistic prospect of success.
We are careful to advise clients honestly on the strength of their case. Just Planning has never had costs sought or awarded against a client in any appeal we have handled.
If you have been refused planning permission in Newham, it may be worth considering both an appeal and whether an application for costs is justified. As part of our free initial assessment, we explain your prospects at appeal and advise whether a costs application is realistic.
You can also see examples of other successful Newham appeals on our planning appeals in Newham page.
