Three families in the village of St Osyth have been forced to pay £47,000 from their own pockets in costs to a property developer following a planning inquiry. Working as part of the community action group called Save Our St Osyth (SOS)they organised a six year campaign to articulate the concerns of the majority of village residents who wished to protect the culture and historic value of the ancient village Priory and local environment. The impact on these families is immeasurable. We are now crowdfunding to try to repay these members of the village.

SOS held countless public meetings and fundraising events, as well as attending council meetings and submitting responses to planning applications. They also encouraged hundreds of people to attend council meetings and submit their own responses to the planning applications. SOS had the backing of the vast majority of local residents, who did not want the development to go ahead. Over 2,300 people signed up to be members of the community action group.

Eventually both SOS and the Parish Council represented the local community at a public enquiry. Although the property developers were not granted permission to build on the Priory at the first public enquiry, they were granted permission to claim costs. The property developers initially sought to claim over £120,000 from SOS.

Following a highly stressful two year legal battle the punitive cost claim was finally reduced to £56,303.55, payable immediately to prevent further costs and interest accruing. Fundraising and donations from local residents have raised nearly £10,000 but this left the elected committee members to muster £47,000 from their own personal savings.

SOS are still working hard to raise the funds to repay these amazing people who gave so much of their time and energy to fight for our village. Please give generously and share widely to help us reach our fundraising target. There are about 2,000 households in the village of St Osyth: If each household donated just £20, this would go a huge way to enabling us to give back the tens of thousands of pounds that these three local families were forced to pay out.

This case appears to be a precedent resulting from a change in the law governing public inquiries whereby minor participants in public inquiries (so called ‘Rule 6’ parties) may now be held liable for costs. This should serve as a warning to other campaign groups opposing large, well funded property developers.