Arbitration & mediation
Assets/shares buy/sell
Business start ups
Commercial & transactions
Commercial property
Company law & compliance
Competition law (UK & EU)
Confidentiality & privacy
Construction & building
Contracts drafting
Copyright (infringement & licensing)
Debt recovery & winding up
Designs (registration & infringement)
Directors' duties & liabilities
E-commerce contracts
Employment (contracts, regulations & claims)
Franchising
Insurance & reinsurance
Intellectual property
Joint ventures
Libel (defamation)
Licensing (premises)
Litigation (commercial)
Music & entertainment
Negligence (general)
Partnerships
Passing-off claims
Patents (infringement)
Planning representation
Professional (regulatory)
Professional negligence
Shareholders
Software (licensing)
Sports contracts
Trademark infringement
Trademark registration & brands
Approach to costs
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always aim to approach legal work in a financially-disciplined way. We offer competitive rates. Our charging approach is both transparent and geared to the options open to our clients. Our solicitors generally charge by reference to time spent but we can often agree fixed fees for specific work or in some cases risk-adjusted funding structures.

Send us a summary of your circumstances and objectives for a quick response.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING : PLANNING INSPECTORS : PLANNING PERMISSION : RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT : INSPECTOR'S FAILURE TO ANSWER CENTRAL QUESTION CONCERNING ECONOMIC VIABILITY : VITIATION OF DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

A planning inspector's failure to determine the question of whether it was economically viable for a developer to provide affordable housing in compliance with planning guidance constituted an error of law vitiating his decision to grant planning permission for a development which did not provide affordable housing.

The applicant local authority applied to quash a decision of the first respondent secretary of state's inspector allowing the appeal of the second respondent (X) against the refusal of planning permission in respect of the development of residential units. X wanted to convert a London hotel site into several residential units. The site was subject to planning guidance which stipulated that affordable housing should, where appropriate, be provided. A planning inspector held a public inquiry into the development. One of the principal issues was whether, in accordance with London planning policy, X was obliged to provide affordable housing. It was X's case that it would not be economically viable to provide such housing. The local authority disagreed. Both parties adduced detailed expert reports supporting their own case. The inspector concluded that he was unable to reach a conclusion on the evidence as to economic viability and went on to determine that, in the circumstances, X did not need to provide affordable housing and granted permission. The local authority submitted that the inspector had failed to grapple with the central issue of economic viability in relation to the provision of affordable housing despite having the benefit of detailed expert evidence and it was wholly irrational to grant permission when the site was subject to planning guidance which required developers to provide affordable housing.

HELD: It was incumbent upon the inspector to reach a conclusion on the issue and principle of economic viability in relation to the provision of affordable housing at the site, Barnet LBC v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2002) EWCA Civ 529 considered. It was not unusual for inspectors conducting public inquiries to have to determine difficult issues of evidence and, in the instant case, the inspector's failure to do so was an error of law vitiating his decision.

Appeal allowed

ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON & CHELSEA v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES & LOCAL GOVERNMENT (2010)

QBD (Admin) (Sir Michael Harrison) 22/4/2010

Lawtel”: 26.4.10

 

 







Humphreys & Co., solicitors Bristol

Accessibility
We take instructions from UK & international clients. Our independent lawyers are available by email, telephone & fax. With central Bristol offices we are just 90 minutes from London by road or rail and 15 minutes from Bristol International Airport. We can travel to meetings if required.

Independent approach
We are an independent professional law firm here, not a legal factory turning out mass-produced products. In our experience, determined case-handling is more likely to produce effective results.

Turnaround time
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. look to input not only careful legal work and precision but also the determination to keep matters moving. They aim to work in clients' real interests with energy and pragmatism.

Communication skills
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always try to open up the legal process by giving advice and explaining options to clients in a concise and straightforward way, identifying clear courses of action whatever the technical or legal complexities of the subject.
Solicitors authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England & Wales under no.62944
Change to our Personal Legal Affairs section or go to our Home Page lawyers@humphreys.co.uk © copyright Humphreys & Co. Solicitors