London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector's interpretation of the policy was not one the words could properly bear. The policy required the market value to be assessed as if the affordable units were newly built on the subject site, not as an average of all units in the postcode area. The Inspector's approach was misconceived and contrary to the statutory requirement to have regard to the development plan.

Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Princegate Estates (Hampton) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant. Inspector's decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy, Affordable Housing Contributions, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Policy Affordable Housing Contributions Judicial Review of Planning Decisions

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Princegate Estates (Hampton) Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of development plan and supplementary planning guidance for calculating off-site affordable housing contributions
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's method for assessing market value of units for contribution calculation was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's interpretation of the policy was not one the words could properly bear. The policy required the market value to be assessed as if the affordable units were newly built on the subject site, not as an average of all units in the postcode area. The Inspector's approach was misconceived and contrary to the statutory requirement to have regard to the development plan.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant. Inspector's decision quashed.

Orders

  • Inspector's decision quashed.
  • Claimant awarded costs, reduced by £1,500 plus VAT for excessive conference fees.