London Borough of Islington, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

London Borough of Islington, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

The Inspector did not err in law or fail to give adequate reasons. He was entitled to conclude that the proposed development made efficient use of the site and that, in the present policy climate, there was no requirement to provide affordable housing for a scheme of 10 units. The Inspector's reasoning was sufficient and addressed the main issues. There was no basis to quash the decision.

Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Islington; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Securivin Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Affordable Housing, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Costs Orders
Planning Law Administrative Law Affordable Housing Planning Permission Judicial Review Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Islington

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Securivin Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by failing to require affordable housing provision in a development of 10 units
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector gave adequate reasons for his decision to grant planning permission without affordable housing
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector properly considered relevant planning policies and guidance

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law or fail to give adequate reasons. He was entitled to conclude that the proposed development made efficient use of the site and that, in the present policy climate, there was no requirement to provide affordable housing for a scheme of 10 units. The Inspector's reasoning was sufficient and addressed the main issues. There was no basis to quash the decision.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review dismissed
  • Costs of £5,600 awarded to the first defendant (Secretary of State)