The High Court has upheld two orders for costs against Halton Council following the collapse of a planning inquiry into a controversial scheme to flatten the Pavilions clubhouse in Runcorn and build 139 homes.

Developers MJ Gleeson first submitted proposals in 2017 to bulldoze the sports and social club on Sandy Lane and construct properties on the site. But the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) objected due to concerns over how close it was to Runcorn Chemicals Complex. An objection was also received from energy-from-waste giant Viridor.

But Halton planning chiefs approved it in late 2020 but the decision was called in by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the HSE for a public inquiry.

A virtual inquiry was conducted in early 2021 largely behind closed doors under regulations reserved for issues of ‘national security or measures taken to ensure the security of premises or property', where disclosure of information would be ‘contrary to the national interest’. But before a decision was announced, the applicant pulled the plug on the application.

Now a judgement recently published by the High Court has revealed that when he was cross-examined by HSE's advocate on day three of the inquiry, Halton Council’s expert witness Mr Hopwood agreed that - if he were in a Planning Inspector's position - he would have to advise the Secretary of State strongly against the granting of planning permission.

The court judgement said that this had a ‘domino effect’. There was an adjournment of the inquiry hearing and HSE’s legal team said:

“In light of the evidence provided by Mr Hopwood, HSE sees no basis on which the council's [support for the planning application] can be maintained in respect of the public safety matters. The council responded recognising that it could no longer maintain its support for the application. The developer's agent then wrote to say that, in those circumstances, it was withdrawing the application.”

That brought the inquiry to an end.

HSE and Viridor made applications for decisions ordering the council to pay their costs, in full or in part. In planning proceedings, costs are only awarded on the grounds of 'unreasonable' behaviour, resulting in any wasted or unnecessary expense.

And in his recent judgement, Mr Justice Fordham upheld the decision to award costs.

He said: “The council had responsibilities. These were to appoint its expert witness; to satisfy itself of the strength of the expert's advice; to satisfy itself that they could rely on it standing up to scrutiny; to ensure it was in a position to prosecute the case through to decision; and to appraise the position, ensuring that its grounds remained.”

Halton Council declined to comment.