Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government and Anor

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government and Anor

The Secretary of State's decision to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission was lawful. He gave adequate and intelligible reasons, properly identified and weighed policy conflicts and material considerations, and was not required to allow further opportunity for revision of the affordable housing proposal. No public law error or substantial prejudice was established.

Parties
Claimant: Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision Under Section 288 TCPA 1990
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Affordable Housing, Heritage Assets, Daylight and Sunlight, Section 106 Agreements
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Judicial Review Planning Permission Affordable Housing Heritage Assets Daylight and Sunlight +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision Under Section 288 TCPA 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State's refusal to grant planning permission was irrational, unintelligible, or inadequately reasoned
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to take account of relevant considerations or material considerations in the planning balance
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State should have allowed the applicant to revise the affordable housing proposal via a further section 106 agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's decision to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission was lawful. He gave adequate and intelligible reasons, properly identified and weighed policy conflicts and material considerations, and was not required to allow further opportunity for revision of the affordable housing proposal. No public law error or substantial prejudice was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed