London Borough Of Barnet v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2001] EWHC Admin 642 (23rd August, 2001)

London Borough Of Barnet v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2001] EWHC Admin 642 (23rd August, 2001)

The Inspector failed to give adequate reasons for his decision by not addressing the availability of grant aid and the financial viability of developing the site wholly for affordable housing, and relied on assertions unsupported by evidence regarding development costs. This inadequacy of reasoning was material to the decision and rendered it liable to be quashed.

Citation
[2001] EWHC Admin 642
Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Barnet; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions; Second Defendant: McCarthy & Stone (Developments) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; Inspector's decision quashed; costs awarded to Claimant.
Legal Topics
Affordable Housing, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Inspector's Reasons, Financial Viability, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Affordable Housing Planning Permission Judicial Review Inspector's Reasons Financial Viability 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Barnet

Claimant

Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions

First Defendant

McCarthy & Stone (Developments) 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 gave adequate reasons for his decision to allow the appeal and grant planning permission without affordable housing
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector properly considered the financial viability and availability of grant aid for affordable housing
  3. 3 Whether a financial contribution towards affordable housing elsewhere should have been required

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector failed to give adequate reasons for his decision by not addressing the availability of grant aid and the financial viability of developing the site wholly for affordable housing, and relied on assertions unsupported by evidence regarding development costs. This inadequacy of reasoning was material to the decision and rendered it liable to be quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Inspector's decision quashed; costs awarded to Claimant.

Orders

  • Order quashing the Inspector's decision granting planning permission to the Second Defendant.
  • Order for costs: First Defendant to pay Claimant £2,570; Second Defendant to pay Claimant £6,804.