Kebbell Development Ltd., R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State

Kebbell Development Ltd., R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State

The Inspector's decision was fatally flawed because he failed to give full consideration to the continuing obligations under the section 106 Agreement and the legitimate expectation arising from it. The claimant was entitled to a substantive benefit, and it was unfair to frustrate that expectation without proper consideration.

Parties
Claimant: Kebbell Development Limited; Defendant: First Secretary of State
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision
Outcome
Application allowed; Inspector's decision quashed; costs awarded to claimant; permission to appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Section 73 Applications, Section 106 Agreements, Legitimate Expectation, Planning Permission Extension
Administrative Law Planning Law Section 73 Applications Section 106 Agreements Legitimate Expectation Planning Permission Extension

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kebbell Development Limited

Claimant

First Secretary of State

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to consider continuing obligations under a section 106 Agreement when refusing to extend time for reserved matters approval
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's decision was flawed for not considering legitimate expectation arising from the Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision was fatally flawed because he failed to give full consideration to the continuing obligations under the section 106 Agreement and the legitimate expectation arising from it. The claimant was entitled to a substantive benefit, and it was unfair to frustrate that expectation without proper consideration.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; Inspector's decision quashed; costs awarded to claimant; permission to appeal granted.

Orders

  • Inspector's decision quashed
  • Costs awarded to claimant in the sum of £8,997