Hethel, R (on the application of) v South Norfolk Dc [2010] EWCA Civ 1033
[1]For the reasons set out in the approved judgement which I now hand down, the appeal is allowed. The planning permission for the three wind turbines is quashed. There are certain variations to the order of Cranston J which I need not refer to. So far as costs are concerned, the rival contentions are that the council should pay either 20%, or as much as 80%, of the claimant’s costs in the High Court. So far as the costs of the appeal are concerned, there is no issue that the respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs. So far as costs in the High Court are concerned, we have come to the conclusion that the fair order is that the respondent should pay two thirds of the appellant’s costs of the High Court proceedings. They are to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.[2]So far as a payment on account is concerned, a payment on account of £30,000. The respondent’s application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused, as is the application for a stay.Order
Appeal allowed.