Cases - Patel v Brent London Borough Council
Record details
- Name
- Patel v Brent London Borough Council
- Date
- [2005]
- Citation
- EWCA Civ 644
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Planning control
- Summary
-
The appellants deposited £550,000 with the local authority for highway improvements. Any unexpended balance was to be returned to the appellants. The section 106 agreement required the authority to use their reasonable endeavours to complete the improvements within 2 years of the grant of planning permission. In fact it took 10 years. It was contended that the agreement was discharged by repudiatory breach and that the money should be refunded.
The Court of Appeal held that the terms of section 106A (under which an obligation can be modified or discharged by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State on appeal) precluded discharge under contract law. Nevertheless a form of trust had been created and some of the money had been spent on altering a junction on a tributary road not covered by the agreement. The council's claim that they could draw down funds for any works 'connected in some way' to the highway improvements required went too far. So there should be an inquiry into the extent of the work that satisfied the requirements of the planning obligation.