Case No: CO/2082/2004
Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 23 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
BEFORE THE HONONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JACK

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Monday, 17th January 2005

B E T W E E N:

	The Council for National Parks Ltd	Claimant	
	- and -		
	The Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority	Defendant
	
	- and -		
	J William McNamara
Bluestone Holdings Ltd
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd.
Pembrokeshire County Council	

Interested Parties	
------------------------------
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040,  Fax No:  020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
------------------------------
JUDGMENT

RULING ON COSTS AND PERMISSION TO APPEAL

1.	The Council for National Parks lost its application and so in the ordinary course should pay the costs of the defendant, the National Park Authority.  It is submitted that the Council should not be required to do so because the challenge made to the Bluestone planning decision was a ‘public interest’ challenge in the sense that the Council had no private interest in the outcome.  As has been put in evidence the Council has quite limited resources.  I accept that the Bluestone decision was one of public importance.  In view of that and the Council’s status and objects and its reasons for bringing its challenge, I accept that the case is one where it might be appropriate not to make the usual order for costs.  It is submitted for the Park Authority that it is a small authority with limited resources: but I have not been informed as to the amount of the costs which the Park Authority has incurred nor, and more importantly, as to the size of its resources – no financial information has been provided.  So I cannot give any real weight to this factor.  Overall I consider that this is a case where I should not make an order that the costs should follow the event.  There will not be an order that the Council pay the Park Authority’s costs.

2.	I have also to consider the application of the Developers for their costs.  This is to be decided in accordance with the guidance given by the House of Lords in Bolton M.D.C. v Secretary of State [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1176.  I accept that the Developers had an important investment to defend but I do not think that they have succeeded in showing that they had a separate interest which was sufficiently different from that of the Park Authority entitle them to their costs.  They were able to approach the questions at issue from a different view point but their answers to the points raised on behalf of the Council were no different to those urged on behalf of the Park Authority in defending its decision.  As Ouseley J. stated in R (Bedford & Clare) v London Borough of Islington and Arsenal Football Club (2002) EWHC 2044 when declining to award the Club costs, “the key … to the award of a second set of costs is a separate interest with separate arguments that have to be promoted.”  I do not think the decision in Mount Cook Ltd. v Westminster City Council [2004] 2 P & C R 22 dealing with the situation where an application for permission for judicial review is refused is applicable here.  The Developers were entitled to file an acknowledgement of service and to take part, but it should be at their own expense.  Further, if it is inappropriate that the Council should pay the Park Authority’s costs, there must be a strong argument that it is likewise inappropriate that the Council should have to pay the Developers’ costs.

3.	The Pembrokeshire County Council does not seek any order for costs.

4.	The Council for National Parks does not seek permission to appeal on its case as to apparent bias, nor on the first way in which its case under section 54A had been put – I refer to paragraphs 34 to 48 of the judgment.  The case which it is sought to take to appeal is that the economic benefit to Pembrokeshire could not be a material consideration in considering whether in particular policy GE4 should not be applied, because GE4 required an overriding national need which there was not.  The sole authority cited in support of this was the decision in the Smith case, part of Buckland [2004] J.P.L. 570.  This dealt with the situation in the Green Belt and was in my view specifically related to that.  I refer to paragraph 74 of the judgment in Buckland.  The real complaint of the Council is simply that in this instance the Park Authority did not follow the development plan.  They were not obliged to.  I do not consider that an appeal on this point would have a real prospect of success, and I accordingly refuse permission to appeal.