258. I do not accept that the brevity of the negotiations in itself proves that Minerva breached this obligation. There must be a more specific alleged failure; Otherwise, he would always be open to a party to say that if only her opponent had lasted a little longer, she would have achieved a better result. Such an assertion would not be refuted. It is unrealistic to think that a Wandsworth official would be brought to justice and would be prepared to say that he would have accepted a lower number if Montagu Evans had persevered. Nor do I accept that the fact that Minerva was put under pressure to settle the terms of a revised agreement on 106 in time for the building permit application before the Wandsworth Commission in October automatically means that Minerva did not take enough time to make reasonable efforts. It was a simple negotiation to determine the amount of the additional surplus and, therefore, the contribution to affordable housing to be made as a result of the amendments proposed in the Section 73 application. It is not fair to be in favour of negotiating the revised agreement of 106. 55. The details of the agreement between Greenland and Minerva regarding what would happen after the conclusion of the sales contract with respect to obtaining an extended building permit are set out in Appendix 6. Point 1.1 of Calendar 6 provides: 142. Greenland submits that neither the first nor second application for approval of the planning application met the provisions of paragraph 1.5 (a) of Schedule 6 of the sales contract. This paragraph requires Minerva to submit the “draft application” for Greenland`s approval.
Greenland asserts that this was not met because the equipment that contributed to the permit applications did not contain the cost-effectiveness test provided to Wandsworth in support of the existing building permit, nor the cost-effectiveness assessment carried out in support of the application for an extended building permit pursuant to Section 73.