Harlow District Council v Powerrapid Limited [2023] EWHC 586 (KB)
Harlow compulsory purchase costs is a High Court authority on the scope of a successful objector’s costs after a compulsory purchase order is not confirmed.
The case confirms that recoverable inquiry costs are not necessarily confined to expenditure incurred after the formal CPO notice. Reasonable pre-notification and incidental costs may fall within the award, subject to detailed assessment.
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
- [2023] EWHC 586 (KB)
- Court
- High Court, King's Bench Division
- Judgment date
- 17th March 2023
- Judge
- Mr Justice Choudhury, sitting with Costs Judge Rowley
- Case number
- QA-2022-000009
What Harlow decided
Harlow District Council made a compulsory purchase order affecting land owned by Powerrapid at the Nortel Complex in Harlow.
Powerrapid successfully resisted the CPO. The Secretary of State awarded it the costs of the inquiry, and a later dispute arose over how far that award extended.
Harlow challenged decisions of the Costs Judge which allowed, in principle, categories including costs incurred before formal notification of the CPO, costs incidental to the inquiry and costs relating to an overage dispute.
The High Court dismissed the council’s appeal.
CPO costs are not the same as ordinary planning appeal costs
In an ordinary planning appeal, costs normally depend on unreasonable behaviour causing unnecessary expense. Compulsory purchase is different because the process seeks to take away rights or interests in land.
A successful remaining objector will normally be entitled to costs unless there is a good reason otherwise.
Planning Geek’s guide to planning appeal costs explains the ordinary appeal regime; Harlow should not be used to erase that distinction.
Costs can begin before the formal notice
The court rejected a rigid rule that nothing incurred before formal notification of the CPO could be recovered.
Where the statutory compulsory-purchase process is already generating reasonable and proportionate professional work, those costs may be capable of falling within the eventual costs award.
Whether a particular item is actually recoverable remains a matter for detailed assessment.
Incidental costs may also be recoverable
The award was not confined to work physically carried out at the inquiry itself. Costs reasonably incidental to the inquiry process could also be included.
That could encompass negotiations, valuation and legal work where they were sufficiently connected to the compulsory-purchase process.
The overage dispute was capable of falling within the award
A major issue between the parties concerned an overage covenant affecting the value and development of the land. The court upheld the conclusion that reasonable work relating to that issue could in principle form part of the recoverable costs because it was intertwined with the CPO process.
The detailed assessment would still decide whether individual items were reasonably incurred and proportionate.
Why Harlow matters
The case is useful for authorities and landowners involved in compulsory purchase because it warns against treating published guidance dates as an absolute legal cut-off for every item of expenditure.
The proper question is whether the claimed cost falls within the statutory award and is reasonable and proportionate on assessment.
Read the full Harlow judgment
The full High Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Harlow Compulsory Purchase Costs Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026