Kebbell Development Ltd v First Secretary of State & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 1855 (05 December 2003)

Kebbell Development Ltd v First Secretary of State & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 1855 (05 December 2003)

The Inspector did not err in law; he took into account all material considerations, including the section 106 agreement and its obligations. The so-called continuing obligation under the agreement was not material to the section 73 application because it only arose if the development proceeded, which would not occur if permission was refused. There was no legitimate expectation of an extension beyond what the law provides. The High Court judge was wrong to quash the Inspector's decision.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1855
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Kebbell Development Limited; First Defendant/appellant: The First Secretary of State; First Defendant: Harrogate Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 106 Agreements, Legitimate Expectation, Planning Permission, Section 73 Applications, Material Considerations
Planning Law Administrative Law Section 106 Agreements Legitimate Expectation Planning Permission Section 73 Applications Material Considerations

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kebbell Development Limited

Claimant/respondent

The First Secretary of State

First Defendant/appellant

Harrogate Borough Council

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to take into account a continuing obligation under a section 106 agreement when refusing a section 73 application to extend time for approval of reserved matters
  2. 2 Whether the developer had a legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit due to the section 106 agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law; he took into account all material considerations, including the section 106 agreement and its obligations. The so-called continuing obligation under the agreement was not material to the section 73 application because it only arose if the development proceeded, which would not occur if permission was refused. There was no legitimate expectation of an extension beyond what the law provides. The High Court judge was wrong to quash the Inspector's decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the judge below set aside
  • Statutory application dismissed