R (on the application of Leppard) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

Enforcement notice — Caravans — Residential use — Claimant’s appeal against enforcement notice allowed — Award of costs refused on basis that planning authority had acted reasonably in serving notice — Whether planning inspector erred in law in refusing to make an order for costs in favour of claimant — Section 320(2) of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 — Section 250(5) of Local Government Act 1972 — Application dismissedAn enforcement notice was served on the claimant in respect of two caravans situated on his farm. The claimant moved the caravans from one part of the farm to another, which allegedly changed the land use to mixed agricultural and residential use. The claimant appealed. At a public inquiry, the inspector concluded that the appeal in respect of one of the caravans should succeed, on the basis that its use was immune from enforcement action because it had been on the farm for more than 10 years. In respect of the other caravan, the inspector decided to grant planning permission for its retention, subject to a condition relating to landscaping. The claimant’s application for costs was refused. No challenge was brought with regard to the inspector’s decision on the substantive appeal, but the claimant challenged the refusal to award costs. The respondent’s policy on awarding costs was expressed in Circular 8/93, Annex 3 of which stated that costs were compensatory and not punitive, and should be awarded in planning proceedings only where one of the parties to the action had acted unreasonably. Held: The application was dismissed. 1. The planning inspector had undertaken all necessary investigations before concluding that the planning authority had not acted unreasonably in issuing the enforcement notice. Such a decision was rational and reasonable, and there was no substance in any of the claimant’s criticisms. 2. An award of costs was an exercise of discretion, in which the inspector was best placed to judge not merely whether the evidence was well-founded in terms of the planning merits of the matter, but also whether a party had acted unreasonably: see R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ealing London Borough Council, 22 April 1999 unreported. 3. The inspector, in stating his reasons, had to have regard to every material consideration; it was not, however, necessary to mention them all. The only significance of the absence of reasons was that if all other known facts and circumstances pointed overwhelmingly in favour of a different conclusion, the decision maker could not complain if the court drew the inference that he had no rational reason for his decision. The costs decision letter identified the important issues, as they related to costs, and contained adequate reasons to support the inspector’s decision. Simon Randle (instructed by Knights, of Tunbridge Wells) appeared for the claimant; Timothy Morshead (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant. Eileen O’Grady, barrister