Chichester District Council is facing £99,000 in Chichester appeal costs after planning committee members refused a 49-home scheme at Inlands Road, Nutbourne, despite officers recommending approval and the technical consultees raising no formal objection.
The money follows a partial award of costs, not a full award. The underlying housing appeal was allowed on 27 February 2026, and the council’s Cabinet has now approved payment from General Fund reserves.
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
What happened at Inlands Road?
The outline application, reference 24/01161/OUTEIA, proposed up to 49 homes with open space and sustainable drainage on land east of Inlands Road and south of the railway line in Nutbourne.
Officers recommended approval, subject to a planning obligation. The application was initially deferred by the planning committee in May 2025 and returned to members in June.
Two of the central concerns were technical ones: whether Inlands Road could safely accommodate the additional traffic and whether extra use of the nearby automatic half-barrier railway crossing would create an unacceptable safety risk.
The highway authority had no objection. Network Rail still had concerns about the crossing, but its final response before the June meeting was also not a formal objection.
Members nevertheless refused the application. If a planning committee does disagree with professional advice, that is not automatically wrong. Our guide to planning committees explains the wider role of members in decision-making.
The housing appeal was allowed
Inspector Andrew Owen allowed the planning appeal on 27 February 2026.
On highway safety, he concluded that Inlands Road was capable of serving the development and that the additional traffic would not make conditions unacceptably unsafe.
On the railway crossing, the Inspector considered Network Rail’s risk assessment and the likely increase in use. He accepted that the crossing could be misused, but concluded that the development would not create an unacceptable public-safety risk.
You can read the full appeal decision hosted by Planning Geek.
Why the Chichester appeal costs were awarded
Metis Homes applied for a full award of costs. The Inspector only allowed that application in part
The important wording is that members were expressly recognised as not being bound by officer advice. They were entitled to attach weight to planning matters as they saw fit. The problem was the evidential basis for the refusal. On technical matters such as level-crossing safety and highway capacity, the Inspector found it unreasonable for members to reach an unsupported view contrary to the evidence from officers and the relevant technical bodies. Those were the two main reasons for refusal. The Inspector concluded that refusing the scheme had made the appeal unnecessary and caused wasted expense. However, he did not uphold the applicant’s procedural complaints. The council had been entitled to expand on its reasons during the appeal, and no substantially fresh evidence had been introduced. That is why this was a partial award of appeal costs rather than a full one. You can read the separate costs decision hosted by Planning Geek. The costs decision did not itself set the final amount. It required Chichester District Council to pay the appellant’s costs relating to the substantive issues, with the amount to be agreed or assessed if necessary. That figure has now crystallised at £99,000. At its 1 September 2026 meeting, the council’s Cabinet considered the Development Management Appeal Costs report and approved the payment from General Fund reserves. For applicants and councils alike, that turns a fairly dry costs principle into a very real number. This decision should not be reduced to “councillors must follow officers”. They do not. Members are entitled to disagree with a recommendation and can refuse an application that officers would approve. But where the refusal depends on technical evidence, the committee needs a defensible planning basis for reaching a different conclusion. A concern being genuinely held does not by itself make it technically robust. If the highway authority, Network Rail or another specialist consultee has reached a reasoned conclusion, members who want to depart from it need evidence capable of supporting the alternative case. That is particularly important because a weak reason for refusal can survive long enough to force an applicant into an appeal, but still fail when tested by an Inspector. Our guide to what happens when a planning application is refused explains the next steps, while our appeal costs guide covers when unreasonable behaviour can become expensive.£99,000 now comes out of General Fund reserves
The practical lesson for planning committees
Created: 3rd September 2026: Chichester appeal costs
