Kemball, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 3338 (Admin) (15 October 2015)

Kemball, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 3338 (Admin) (15 October 2015)

The claimant failed to prove that the area covered by the March 1957 permission included the appeal site; the Inspector was correct in law to conclude that the permissions did not extend to the appeal site, and thus the refusal of the certificate was lawful regardless of whether the permissions had been implemented.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3338 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Robert Kemball; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 TCPA 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Permissions, Lawful Development Certificates, Burden of Proof in Planning Appeals, Incorporation of Plans by Reference, Legitimate Expectation in Planning, Implementation and Lapse of Planning Permissions
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Permissions Lawful Development Certificates Burden of Proof in Planning Appeals Incorporation of Plans by Reference Legitimate Expectation in Planning Implementation and Lapse of Planning Permissions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Kemball

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 TCPA 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by failing to treat subsequent detailed permissions as approvals of reserved matters under the 1957 outline permissions (Etheridge principle)
  2. 2 Whether the area covered by the March and September 1957 permissions included the appeal site
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to give adequate reasons or consider material considerations regarding implementation of the 1957 permissions

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove that the area covered by the March 1957 permission included the appeal site; the Inspector was correct in law to conclude that the permissions did not extend to the appeal site, and thus the refusal of the certificate was lawful regardless of whether the permissions had been implemented.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Claimant to pay the First Defendant's costs assessed at £7,850