Parkhurst Road Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Parkhurst Road Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

The Inspector's decision to reject PRL's proposal for 10% affordable housing was based on robust, untainted reasoning that PRL's viability evidence was not adequately comparable and failed to demonstrate the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing. Any legal error in the Inspector's acceptance of LBI's BLV was immaterial to the outcome, as the decision would inevitably have been the same based on other grounds.

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
Statutory Review of Planning Decision / Judgment on Application for Statutory Review
Outcome
Application for statutory review dismissed
Legal Topics
Affordable Housing, Viability Assessment, Benchmark Land Value, Planning Policy, Statutory Review
Planning Law Administrative Law Affordable Housing Viability Assessment Benchmark Land Value Planning Policy Statutory Review

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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

Statutory Review of Planning Decision / Judgment on Application for Statutory Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in determining Benchmark Land Value for viability assessment
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's reasoning on affordable housing provision was legally adequate
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's acceptance of the Council's BLV was vitiated by legal error

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision to reject PRL's proposal for 10% affordable housing was based on robust, untainted reasoning that PRL's viability evidence was not adequately comparable and failed to demonstrate the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing. Any legal error in the Inspector's acceptance of LBI's BLV was immaterial to the outcome, as the decision would inevitably have been the same based on other grounds.

Court Disposition

Application for statutory review dismissed