Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The inspector's assessment of viability and affordable housing was lawful and based on sufficient evidence; procedural breaches and conduct did not cause serious prejudice or establish apparent bias; the development complied with planning and heritage policies.

Parties
Claimant: George Turner; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 2nd Defendant: Mayor of London; 3rd Defendant: The Shell International Petroleum Company and Braeburn Estates Ltd Partnership; 4th Defendant: London Borough of Lambeth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Economic Viability, Affordable Housing, Open Space, Heritage Assets, Procedural Fairness, Apparent Bias
Planning Law Administrative Law Economic Viability Affordable Housing Open Space Heritage Assets Procedural Fairness Apparent Bias

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Turner

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

1st Defendant

Mayor of London

2nd Defendant

The Shell International Petroleum Company and Braeburn Estates Ltd Partnership

3rd Defendant

London Borough of Lambeth

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in law in assessing economic viability and affordable housing provision
  2. 2 Whether procedural impropriety or apparent bias occurred during the inquiry
  3. 3 Whether the loss of open space contravened planning policy

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector's assessment of viability and affordable housing was lawful and based on sufficient evidence; procedural breaches and conduct did not cause serious prejudice or establish apparent bias; the development complied with planning and heritage policies.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed