Vannes KFT v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1466 (20 December 2010)

Vannes KFT v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1466 (20 December 2010)

The Inspector was not legally obliged to resolve the conflicting expert evidence on economic viability where the evidence was unreliable; he properly evaluated the evidence, explained why it was not robust, and was entitled to give it no significant weight. The principal issue was whether affordable housing should be required, not the sub-issue of viability. The Inspector's approach did not amount to an error of law.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 1466
Parties
Appellant/second Defendant: Vannes KFT; First Respondent/claimant: Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Second Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Affordable Housing, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Decision Making by Inspectors
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Affordable Housing Planning Permission Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Decision Making by Inspectors

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vannes KFT

Appellant/second Defendant

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

First Respondent/claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Second Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by failing to decide the economic viability of providing affordable housing in a planning application.
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector was required to resolve conflicting expert evidence on viability.
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's reliance on the applicant's position was irrational.

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was not legally obliged to resolve the conflicting expert evidence on economic viability where the evidence was unreliable; he properly evaluated the evidence, explained why it was not robust, and was entitled to give it no significant weight. The principal issue was whether affordable housing should be required, not the sub-issue of viability. The Inspector's approach did not amount to an error of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Sir Michael Harrison set aside
  • Inspector's decision restored