It is unusual for a principal party to be awarded costs at a planning appeal. The possibility of a third party receiving a costs award is almost unheard of and this makes the award in this case especially interesting. The Secretary of State’s decision letter is appended and it makes interesting reading as to the approach. The Secretary of State was concerned about tactical errors by the Appellant which led it to the unwise decision to withdraw an appeal and this has been the principal motivation for the costs penalty against the appellant in this case.
The decision was the subject of a challenge in the court which has subsequently been abandoned.
I would be pleased to discuss this further if it has implications for any existing cases.
