R (Halton Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] EWCA Civ 1566
Halton planning inquiry costs is an important Court of Appeal judgment on when a party may be ordered to pay costs after its expert evidence changes during a called-in planning inquiry.
The Court of Appeal allowed Halton’s appeal and quashed the partial costs award. A council is not normally required to rehearse, stress-test or second-guess apparently competent independent expert evidence before an inquiry simply because that evidence later fails under cross-examination.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2025] EWCA Civ 1566
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 3rd December 2025
- Judge
- Lord Justice Lewison, Lady Justice Asplin and Lord Justice Coulson
- Case number
- CA-2024-002273
What Halton decided
The case arose from a called-in application for 139 homes in Runcorn near the Runcorn Chemicals Complex. The Health and Safety Executive had serious public-safety concerns.
Halton Borough Council had initially supported the development. During a closed session of the inquiry, however, the council’s expert accepted under cross-examination that applying the relevant guidance he would advise strongly against planning permission.
The council withdrew its support. The developer then withdrew the application and the inquiry ended. The Secretary of State made partial awards of costs against Halton in favour of the Health and Safety Executive and Viridor, concluding that the council’s late change of position was unreasonable.
The High Court upheld that decision, but the Court of Appeal reversed it.
A called-in application is different from defending a refusal
Costs guidance distinguishes a called-in application from an ordinary planning appeal. In a called-in case, the council is not defending its own refusal or non-determination because the Secretary of State is deciding the application.
For that reason the guidance does not normally envisage costs for unreasonable conduct relating to the substance of the council’s case or action taken before call-in. Procedural unreasonableness during the inquiry can still justify costs.
There is no normal duty to pre-test your own expert
The Court of Appeal rejected the proposition that Halton should have discovered before the inquiry that its expert’s position would not survive cross-examination.
A party is ordinarily entitled to rely on an apparently competent independent expert. There is no general procedural requirement to rehearse cross-examination, second-guess the expert or guarantee that the evidence will remain unchanged when tested.
That does not give a party licence to rely on obviously defective evidence. If serious weaknesses are apparent, or cogent contrary material should plainly cause the party to reconsider its position, persistence may still be unreasonable.
The expert’s concession was a good reason to change position
Once the council’s principal safety expert accepted that he would advise against permission, Halton had an obvious and material reason to reconsider its support for the scheme.
The Court of Appeal considered it difficult to conceive of a better reason for withdrawing support than the council’s own expert no longer being able to maintain the case which had justified that support.
The costs decision had treated the timing of the council’s change of position as unreasonable without identifying a lawful basis for saying the council should have changed earlier.
Losing an argument is not the same as acting unreasonably
Planning costs are compensatory, not a penalty for being wrong. Evidence must have a respectable basis, but it need not ultimately persuade the Inspector or survive every challenge.
If every expert concession or unsuccessful evidential case exposed a party to costs, the threshold between losing and behaving unreasonably would disappear.
The costs award was quashed
The Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State’s reasoning could not support the conclusion that Halton had behaved unreasonably. The council’s appeal was therefore allowed and the partial costs award was quashed.
For the wider costs rules see Planning Geek’s guide to awards of costs in planning appeals and inquiries.
Why Halton matters in practice
The judgment is reassuring for councils, appellants and Rule 6 parties using genuine expert evidence. An expert is there to give independent evidence, not to guarantee the instructing party’s desired outcome.
But Halton should not be read as protection for weak cases maintained in the face of obvious problems. The question remains whether the party’s conduct, judged in context and against the costs guidance, was unreasonable and caused unnecessary or wasted expense.
Read the full Halton judgment
The full Court of Appeal judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Halton Planning Inquiry Costs Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026