Parkhurst Road Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2018] EWHC 991 (Admin) (27 April 2018)

Parkhurst Road Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2018] EWHC 991 (Admin) (27 April 2018)

The Inspector did not err in law in his assessment of the Benchmark Land Value or in rejecting the claimant's viability appraisal. The Inspector was entitled to conclude that the claimant had not demonstrated that its proposal provided the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing as required by planning policy. The Inspector's reasoning was adequate and his reliance on the Council's evidence was within the scope of planning judgment. Any alleged errors in the assessment of BLV were immaterial to the outcome, as the claimant failed to discharge the evidential burden imposed by policy.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 991 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Parkhurst Road Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: The Council of the London Borough of Islington
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (statutory Review of Planning Decision) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Affordable Housing, Viability Assessment, Benchmark Land Value, Planning Permission, Statutory Review, Policy Compliance
Planning Law Administrative Law Property Law Affordable Housing Viability Assessment Benchmark Land Value Planning Permission Statutory 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parkhurst Road Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

The Council of the London Borough of Islington

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (statutory Review of Planning Decision) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in assessing the Benchmark Land Value (BLV) for the site and thus the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing required by planning policy.
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector lawfully rejected the claimant's viability appraisal and approach to BLV.
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's reasoning and reliance on the Council's evidence was legally sound.

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law in his assessment of the Benchmark Land Value or in rejecting the claimant's viability appraisal. The Inspector was entitled to conclude that the claimant had not demonstrated that its proposal provided the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing as required by planning policy. The Inspector's reasoning was adequate and his reliance on the Council's evidence was within the scope of planning judgment. Any alleged errors in the assessment of BLV were immaterial to the outcome, as the claimant failed to discharge the evidential burden imposed by policy.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is refused.
  • No order for quashing the Inspector's decision.