Kemball, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Kemball, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

The March 1957 planning permission did not cover the appeal site; the Inspector's decision was correct in law as the area approved for development was defined by the layout plan, which excluded the appeal site. Any error in not applying Etheridge principles was immaterial as the appeal site was outside the scope of both 1957 permissions.

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 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Permissions, Outline Planning Permission, Reserved Matters, Legitimate Expectation, Section 192 Certificate, Section 288 TCPA Challenge
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Permissions Outline Planning Permission Reserved Matters Legitimate Expectation Section 192 Certificate Section 288 TCPA Challenge

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 4 Authorities cited 17 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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the March 1957 planning permission covered the appeal site
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in law by failing to treat subsequent detailed permissions as approvals of reserved matters under Etheridge
  3. 3 Whether the area covered by the September 1957 permission was limited to the layout shown on the incorporated plan

Ratio Decidendi

The March 1957 planning permission did not cover the appeal site; the Inspector's decision was correct in law as the area approved for development was defined by the layout plan, which excluded the appeal site. Any error in not applying Etheridge principles was immaterial as the appeal site was outside the scope of both 1957 permissions.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay First Defendant's costs assessed at £7,850
  • Permission to appeal refused