London Borough Of Barnet v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 529 (19 March 2002)

London Borough Of Barnet v Secretary Of State For Environment, Transport & Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 529 (19 March 2002)

The inspector was entitled to accept the developer's evidence on the economic deterrent of providing affordable housing, was not required to make findings on overall site viability or the effect of social housing grant, and gave adequate reasons for his decision. The High Court judge erred in finding the inspector's decision perverse or inadequately reasoned.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 529
Parties
Claimant/first Respondent: The London Borough of Barnet; First Defendant/second Respondent: The Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions; Second Defendant/appellant: McCarthy & Stone (Developments) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Affordable Housing, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Inspector's Reasons, Unitary Development Plan, National Planning Policy, Circular 6/98, PPG 3
Administrative Law Planning Law Affordable Housing Planning Permission Judicial Review Inspector's Reasons Unitary Development Plan National Planning Policy +2 more

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The London Borough of Barnet

Claimant/first Respondent

The Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions

First Defendant/second Respondent

McCarthy & Stone (Developments) Limited

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector failed to give adequate reasons regarding the economics of affordable housing provision.
  2. 2 Whether the inspector's decision was perverse or irrational in law.
  3. 3 Whether the inspector was required to consider the viability of the site for affordable housing beyond the proposed development.

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled to accept the developer's evidence on the economic deterrent of providing affordable housing, was not required to make findings on overall site viability or the effect of social housing grant, and gave adequate reasons for his decision. The High Court judge erred in finding the inspector's decision perverse or inadequately reasoned.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Inspector's decision reinstated
  • Costs awarded to appellant (McCarthy & Stone) here and below, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed