A partial costs award has been made against Uttlesford District Council even though a developer lost its planning appeal for five homes near Little Easton in Essex. Inspector E Catcheside dismissed the housing appeal on 12 November 2026 but separately ordered the council to meet costs arising from one inadequately supported reason for refusal.
The two decisions concern outline application UTT/25/2736/OP by Montare LLP for up to five dwellings north of Duck Street. The Inspector rejected the proposed countryside location and found serious gaps in the evidence concerning great crested newts. However, the council’s objections to surface-water drainage did not withstand scrutiny.
This partial costs award matters well beyond one Essex village. It shows that winning the substantive appeal is not a prerequisite for recovering wasted appeal expense when a particular refusal reason is unreasonable. It also shows the opposite: an authority can be criticised over one argument while successfully defending its planning decision on other grounds.
Why the partial costs award was made
The council had refused outline permission on several grounds, including the site’s location, rural character, drainage and ecology. The Inspector’s separate costs decision found that the second refusal reason, addressing drainage and discharge points, had been presented without sufficient objective analysis. The council referred to possible fluvial flooding in other material, but did not articulate that clearly in its formal reason.
Montare had submitted an outline drainage strategy, a flood risk assessment and a plan showing proposed surface-water measures and the discharge location. The Inspector found that the council had not explained what was missing in the information relevant to its adopted surface-water policy. In the costs decision, the Inspector described the council’s reasoning as vaguely expressed and lacking in objective analysis
.
That weakness caused the appellant to incur unnecessary expense preparing evidence to challenge the drainage refusal. The resulting partial costs award is restricted to expenditure attributable to contesting that one reason, not the whole appeal and not any automatic reimbursement of the planning application’s costs. The parties must seek to agree the amount, with formal assessment available if they cannot.
Why the five-home appeal still failed
The land was an open grassed field between Little Easton and Mill End. The developer argued that the site should be viewed in the context of nearby homes, but the Inspector distinguished the established village from more scattered buildings beyond it. The decision found that the site was countryside rather than part of an existing settlement.
The August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework introduced a route for some development outside settlements, including certain infill schemes and sites physically well related to existing settlements. Here, the Inspector found neither route applied. The width of the undeveloped land, its visual separation from Little Easton and the different character of Mill End counted against the proposed five dwellings.
The Inspector also concluded that buildings, access roads, parking and domestic features would harm the landscape’s open, green character. Although the final appearance and layout were reserved matters, the principle of bringing five homes onto the field would still introduce built form. The benefits were judged insufficient to outweigh the harms under the revised national policy test.
Drainage evidence was adequate for an outline scheme
The distinction between the two decisions becomes clearest in their treatment of water. The outline proposal included permeable paving, swales and underground storage, with surface water proposed to discharge to an adjacent drainage channel. The application material identified attenuation for a one-in-100-year storm with an allowance for climate change.
Although parts of the land were within Flood Zones 2 and 3, the Inspector considered that the indicative layout could keep buildings away from the areas exposed to river flooding. The Inspector saw no substantive basis for rejecting the drainage information on the grounds advanced by the council, and considered that a final detailed drainage scheme could be secured by condition if outline permission were otherwise justified.
The partial costs award therefore did not mean that flood risk never mattered. It meant the council had failed to substantiate this particular drainage objection, at the stage and level of detail relevant to the outline application. A refusal reason needs a defensible evidential basis, even when other objections are capable of defeating the scheme.
Missing newt surveys could not be left until later
Ecology produced a different result. A preliminary ecological appraisal identified a need for environmental DNA surveys of ponds and wet ditches within 500 metres because great crested newts might use the site. Those surveys were missing from the planning application, despite both the applicant’s own appraisal and earlier council advice identifying the issue.
New survey material arrived with the appeal, but the Inspector did not rely on it. The documents lacked adequate mapping and methodology, and the council’s ecological adviser had not been shown to have had an opportunity to consider the new evidence. Accepting it without proper scrutiny could have been procedurally unfair. The Inspector was consequently unable to establish that the development would avoid harm to this protected species.
The Inspector also rejected the idea of leaving the essential survey work to a planning condition, because protected-species presence and likely effects normally need to be established before permission is granted. Planning Geek’s protected species guidance explains why survey timing and evidence can determine whether an application is ready for a decision.
A costs win is not the same as a planning win
Montare sought a full award of costs, arguing that the council’s behaviour had unnecessarily delayed development and that its approach was inconsistent and insufficiently supported. The Inspector did not accept those wider complaints. The costs decision found the council’s concerns about missing great crested newt evidence reasonable and concluded that its pre-application advice had not bound the authority to grant permission.
The Inspector also noted that the applicant had been warned of likely concerns and had chosen to proceed to an appeal rather than amend its proposal. Errors in some of the council’s paperwork were treated as typographical rather than material. This was why the partial costs award applied only to the costs caused by the inadequately justified drainage reason.
For readers considering an appeal, Planning Geek’s guide to planning appeal costs explains the difference between an unfavourable planning judgement and unreasonable conduct that causes wasted expense. Losing a planning point is not, by itself, evidence that a council should pay the appellant’s costs.
What applicants and councils can learn
There are two distinct lessons. Applicants should make sure that protected-species surveys are completed early enough and submitted with the appropriate methodology, particularly where their own initial assessment identifies a risk. Late evidence cannot be assumed admissible simply because it is relevant or potentially helpful. That discipline is just as important for an outline application as for a full one.
Councils, meanwhile, need to give specific reasons when rejecting technical material. A broad statement that a drainage strategy is inadequate is vulnerable if it does not identify a genuine evidential gap in the documents, the applicable policy or the information that could reasonably be required at that stage. A partial costs award can follow even where the authority’s overall refusal is upheld.
Once costs have been awarded, agreeing what expense actually falls within the order is a separate task. The Planning Geek guide to recovering appeal costs covers that next step. The Little Easton order is confined to the cost of contesting refusal reason two, so it should not be reported as a full costs victory or as a financial amount already fixed by the Inspector.
The appeal is reference 6009888, with both the planning and separate costs decisions dated 12 November 2026. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. The Inspector’s direct words are quoted from the decision under the Open Government Licence.
0 Comments