World Society for the Protection of Animals v Welsh Ministers & Ors

World Society for the Protection of Animals v Welsh Ministers & Ors

The Minister lawfully weighed the economic benefits of the proposed development against the considerable harm to heritage assets, gave the required special weight to the statutory duty under section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act, and provided adequate reasons; none of the grounds for quashing the decision were made out.

Parties
Claimant: The World Society for the Protection of Animals; First Defendant: The Welsh Ministers; Second Defendant: Powys County Council; Third Defendant: Fraser Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning, Statutory Duty Under Listed Buildings Act, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Economic Benefits in Planning, Reasons for 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 7 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The World Society for the Protection of Animals

Claimant

The Welsh Ministers

First Defendant

Powys County Council

Second Defendant

Fraser Jones

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Minister failed to take into account material considerations
  2. 2 Whether the Minister misunderstood or misapplied section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act
  3. 3 Whether the Minister's decision was irrational (Wednesbury unreasonableness)

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister lawfully weighed the economic benefits of the proposed development against the considerable harm to heritage assets, gave the required special weight to the statutory duty under section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act, and provided adequate reasons; none of the grounds for quashing the decision were made out.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed