Kebbell Developments Ltd v Leeds City Council

Kebbell Developments Ltd v Leeds City Council

The Court held that Leeds City Council acted within its statutory powers in making the modifications to the neighbourhood plan, provided adequate reasons for its decisions, and was not required to consult further on the modifications, either under statute or at common law. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Kebbell Developments Ltd.; Respondent: Leeds City Council; Interested Party: Collingham with Linton Parish Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (appeal) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Neighbourhood Planning, Statutory Interpretation, Consultation Requirements, Judicial Review, Development Plans

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kebbell Developments Ltd.

Appellant

Leeds City Council

Respondent

Collingham with Linton Parish Council

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (appeal) / Court of Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the local planning authority acted outside its powers under paragraph 12(6)(a) of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by departing from the examiner’s recommendations when modifying the neighbourhood plan.
  2. 2 Whether the local planning authority failed to give sufficient reasons for its modifications as required under paragraph 12(11)(b) of Schedule 4B and regulation 18 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.
  3. 3 Whether the local planning authority was required to consult on the modifications under paragraph 13 of Schedule 4B and regulation 17A of the 2012 regulations or at common law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Leeds City Council acted within its statutory powers in making the modifications to the neighbourhood plan, provided adequate reasons for its decisions, and was not required to consult further on the modifications, either under statute or at common law. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed