Mr. Philip Jones:

Section 249(5)(b)(iii) states, "make an amended decision". One could simply add ", which decision shall not materially alter the development which was approved". If it is an immaterial change, it is fine. All that is needed is the wording "make an amended decision, which decision shall not materially alter the development as originally decided upon". That gets around the problem. If it changes a board order, requiring the production of an environmental impact statement that was not produced properly, that is fine. As long as the decision is not materially different from the original, the board is just correcting an error. It saves everybody money. It is only fair that, in those circumstances, both the applicant and the notice party should be paid their costs up to that point by the board or planning authority, as the case may be. If there is a dispute as to costs, the usual phrase is, "In a dispute as to the costs, the matter shall be taxed by the courts." I think there is such a phrase in the courts legislation. I believe it is simply to the effect that failing agreement on the costs, they shall be taxed. Then it goes to the taxing master.