Recovering a Planning Appeal Costs Award

 

Winning an award of costs at a planning appeal does not produce a cheque. The Inspector decides whether you are entitled to recover costs and whether the award is full or partial, but normally does not decide the amount.

The next stage is about proving what you actually spent, identifying which costs fall within the wording of the award and agreeing a sensible figure with the paying party. If agreement fails, the dispute can move into the court costs system.

This page starts where our guide to an award of costs in a planning appeal finishes. It explains quantification, the scope of the order, standard and indemnity assessment, proportionality, negotiation and detailed assessment.

 

The award decides entitlement, not the final bill

 

The Planning Inspectorate’s current guidance is straightforward: a successful party receives a full or partial award, but the award itself does not state how much must be paid. The receiving party has to prove the expenditure and the parties are expected to try to agree the amount.

A full award can cover the recoverable appeal costs within the order, including the reasonable cost of making the costs application itself. A partial award is limited to the wasted expense caused by the unreasonable behaviour identified.

The first document to read is therefore the costs order itself. Do not start from your invoices and assume everything connected with the appeal is recoverable.

 

The wording of the costs order controls the scope

 

Maiden London Limited v Ruddick and another [2018] EWHC 3684 (QB) is especially important here. The case arose from planning appeal costs and later detailed assessment proceedings.

The High Court held that a Costs Judge can interpret an order, and may look at the reasoning where the wording is genuinely ambiguous, but cannot rewrite the order to produce what the original decision-maker probably meant. If the order is wrong, the proper route is to challenge the order rather than ask the Costs Judge to repair it during assessment.

That is why a phrase such as “costs incurred from [date]” or an exclusion for common costs can make a very large difference to the recoverable total.

A detailed case report containing substantial extracts from Maiden London is available from TMC Legal. The original judgment link previously published with that report is no longer live.

 

Can you recover the cost of making the costs application?

 

Yes, where it falls within the award. Maiden London rejected the suggestion that the costs of making the planning costs application had to be excluded as a matter of policy. The reasonableness of those costs is still assessed in the ordinary way, so spending a disproportionate amount arguing about costs does not make the whole amount recoverable.

This is consistent with the Planning Inspectorate’s current guidance, which states that a full award includes the cost of claiming.

 

What about work done before the inquiry or hearing?

 

The answer depends on the wording and the connection with the proceedings. Harlow District Council v Powerrapid Limited [2023] EWHC 586 (KB) concerned a compulsory purchase inquiry rather than an ordinary section 78 appeal, but it is very useful on the assessment principles.

The High Court upheld the approach that an order for the “costs of the Inquiry” could include costs incidental to the inquiry. The practical test is not simply the date on the timesheet. Work may be recoverable where it was relevant to an issue in the proceedings and was of use and service to the case.

The case is also a warning against treating guideline hourly rates as a rigid ceiling on detailed assessment. The Costs Judge must apply the factors in CPR 44.4 to the actual work and circumstances.

 

Planning appeal costs: standard basis or indemnity basis?

 

Once the planning costs order has become an order of the High Court and the amount is being assessed, the Civil Procedure Rules apply.

CPR 44.3 provides for assessment on either the standard basis or the indemnity basis. If the order does not say which basis applies, the default is the standard basis.

That point was confirmed in Maiden London. A finding of unreasonable behaviour sufficient to justify an award of planning appeal costs does not automatically convert the later assessment into indemnity-basis costs.

On the standard basis:

• only proportionate and reasonable costs are allowed
• disproportionate costs can be reduced even where the work was reasonably or necessarily done
• doubts about reasonableness or proportionality are resolved in favour of the paying party

On the indemnity basis, proportionality does not apply in the same way and doubts about reasonableness are resolved in favour of the receiving party. An indemnity-basis order therefore matters, but it must actually be ordered rather than inferred from the word “unreasonable” in the planning decision.

 

What evidence should you send to the paying party?

 

Start with a clear schedule rather than a pile of invoices. The receiving party should be able to show:

• who did the work
• what the work was
• when it was done
• the time spent and rate charged where applicable
• counsel’s fees
• planning consultant and other professional fees
• expert fees and disbursements
• travel or other recoverable expenses
• VAT where it is genuinely irrecoverable
• how each item fits within the full or partial costs order

If the award is partial, identify the wasted element separately. A Costs Judge should not have to reverse-engineer which part of a five-day expert invoice relates to the unreasonable reason for refusal.

 

Experts, planning consultants and counsel

 

Professional fees are not disallowed simply because they are substantial. The question is whether the work falls within the award, was reasonably incurred and is reasonable in amount, with proportionality applying on the standard basis.

For experts, consider whether the evidence was genuinely required by the planning issue and whether the time and seniority used were justified. The same applies to counsel and solicitors. A complicated inquiry with technical evidence is not assessed like a routine written-representations householder appeal.

At the same time, duplication is vulnerable. If a planning consultant, solicitor, junior counsel, King’s Counsel and expert all attend the same routine meeting, the receiving party should expect the paying party to ask what each person added.

 

Try to settle the amount before detailed assessment

 

Negotiation is not a sign that the award is weak. It is what the system expects.

Send a reasoned schedule, allow the paying party to identify disputed items and respond to genuine points. Consider making a clear offer to settle the costs dispute. The court now expressly treats unreasonable failure to engage in alternative dispute resolution as relevant conduct when dealing with costs under CPR 44.2.

Detailed assessment itself creates more costs. A sensible compromise can leave the receiving party better off than winning another argument after paying for a bill of costs, points of dispute, replies and a hearing.

 

How does detailed assessment start?

 

Where the amount cannot be agreed, the planning costs order normally needs to be made an order of the High Court before detailed assessment can proceed. That was the route followed in both Maiden London and Harlow v Powerrapid.

Detailed assessment is governed by CPR Part 47 and Practice Direction 47.

The formal process can involve a notice of commencement and bill of costs, points of dispute from the paying party, an optional reply and then provisional or detailed assessment depending on the case. If points of dispute are not served in time, a default costs certificate may be available.

The Government’s detailed assessment guidance explains the current forms and procedure. Court fees were uprated again in July 2026, so check the current Senior Courts Costs Office fees rather than relying on an older figure.

 

Do not miss the detailed-assessment timetable

 

Part 47 has more than one deadline, and calling the whole process a six-month deadline is misleading. Once you have the court order giving the right to detailed assessment, CPR 47.7 ordinarily requires the receiving party to commence detailed assessment proceedings within three months. Proceedings are commenced by serving the notice of commencement and bill of costs.

The paying party then ordinarily has 21 days after service to serve points of dispute. If points of dispute are served, CPR 47.14 requires the receiving party to request the detailed assessment hearing within three months after expiry of the period for commencing the assessment proceedings. That is why GOV.UK describes the later hearing request as having to be made within six months of the original court costs order in the ordinary case.

So do not wait for month six before doing anything. The first practical deadline is normally the three-month commencement deadline. Late steps can attract sanctions, so once negotiation has clearly failed, get the Part 47 timetable under control.

 

What if the paying party simply refuses to pay?

 

The Planning Inspectorate’s current guidance says that if the other party will not pay, the receiving party can pursue the matter through the court. The correct procedural route depends on whether the dispute is about the amount of recoverable costs or whether an agreed or assessed sum simply remains unpaid.

Do not confuse enforcement of an agreed or assessed sum with detailed assessment of a disputed bill. They are different problems.

 

Practical recovery checklist

 

• Read the exact wording of the costs order before calculating anything
• Separate full and partial awards and identify any date or issue limits
• Prepare a clear schedule supported by invoices and time records
• Remove application-stage costs that are outside the award
• Explain why expert, consultant and counsel costs were reasonably required
• Remember that silence on the basis normally means standard-basis assessment
• Apply proportionality rather than assuming every reasonable item will be allowed
• Make a serious attempt to agree the figure
• Use CPR Part 47 promptly if agreement fails
• Check the current SCCO fee before starting formal assessment

 

Useful guidance and rules

 

• Planning Inspectorate:claim planning appeal costs
• Planning Practice Guidance:appeals and costs
• CPR Part 44
• CPR Part 47
• Senior Courts Costs Office fees

Other Planning Appeal Sections

 

Recovering Appeal Costs Page Updated: 29th August 2026