HERSCH SCHNECK v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR LEVELLING UP, HOUSING & COMMUNITIES

HERSCH SCHNECK v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR LEVELLING UP, HOUSING & COMMUNITIES

The Inspector erred in law by misinterpreting Policy CS6, failing to recognise that viability evidence satisfied the policy, and by applying an incorrect threshold to the fallback argument. The Inspector's reasoning on flood risk was lawful and adequate.

Parties
Claimant: Hersch Schneck; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities; Second Defendant: West Berkshire District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Grounds 1 and 3 succeed; ground 2 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Affordable Housing, Flood Risk, Permitted Development Rights, Viability Assessment, Fallback Argument
Planning Law Administrative Law Affordable Housing Flood Risk Permitted Development Rights Viability Assessment Fallback Argument

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hersch Schneck

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities

First Defendant

West Berkshire District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in interpreting Policy CS6 regarding affordable housing and viability
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in law in applying flood risk policy and the sequential test
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector erred in law in considering the fallback argument based on permitted development rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in law by misinterpreting Policy CS6, failing to recognise that viability evidence satisfied the policy, and by applying an incorrect threshold to the fallback argument. The Inspector's reasoning on flood risk was lawful and adequate.

Court Disposition

Grounds 1 and 3 succeed; ground 2 dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission granted for ground 3; Inspector's decision quashed on grounds 1 and 3; parties to agree form of Order or make submissions on costs and supplementary matters.