Robert Hitchins Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 1157 (Admin) (27 May 2010)

Robert Hitchins Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 1157 (Admin) (27 May 2010)

The Inspector and Secretary of State lawfully refused planning permission because the proposed development failed to provide an adequate proportion of affordable housing, contrary to the development plan and PPS3 objectives. The Inspector properly considered the temporary nature of economic downturn, the strategic importance of the site, and the planning policy framework. The decision was a legitimate exercise of planning judgment and reasons were adequate.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1157 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Robert Hitchins Ltd; 1st Defendant: Secretary Of State For Communities And Local Government; 2nd Defendant: Forest Of Dean District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Affordable Housing, Planning Permission, Section 106 Agreements, Viability Assessment, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Planning Policy Statements
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Affordable Housing Planning Permission Section 106 Agreements Viability Assessment Judicial Review +1 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Hitchins Ltd

Claimant

Secretary Of State For Communities And Local Government

1st Defendant

Forest Of Dean District Council

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State and Inspector lawfully refused planning permission for insufficient affordable housing provision
  2. 2 Whether general economic conditions are a material consideration in assessing viability for affordable housing
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of 'suitability' under PPS3 for planning purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector and Secretary of State lawfully refused planning permission because the proposed development failed to provide an adequate proportion of affordable housing, contrary to the development plan and PPS3 objectives. The Inspector properly considered the temporary nature of economic downturn, the strategic importance of the site, and the planning policy framework. The decision was a legitimate exercise of planning judgment and reasons were adequate.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed