Vannes KFT v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Ors

Vannes KFT v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Ors

The Inspector was not required to resolve the conflicting expert evidence on economic viability where the input figures were unreliable and would not produce a robust result. The principal issue was whether there should be a provision for affordable housing, not the precise viability calculation. The Inspector evaluated the evidence, explained why he could not rely on the figures, and considered all relevant policy factors. There was no error of law in his approach or reasoning.

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 (planning) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Affordable Housing, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Affordable Housing Planning Permission Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 (planning) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by failing to determine 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 required to resolve the conflicting expert evidence on economic viability where the input figures were unreliable and would not produce a robust result. The principal issue was whether there should be a provision for affordable housing, not the precise viability calculation. The Inspector evaluated the evidence, explained why he could not rely on the figures, and considered all relevant policy factors. There was no error of law in his approach or reasoning.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

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