Sherburn Sand Company Ltd v First Secretary Of State & Anor [2004] EWHC 1314 (Admin) (18 May 2004)

Sherburn Sand Company Ltd v First Secretary Of State & Anor [2004] EWHC 1314 (Admin) (18 May 2004)

The Secretary of State was entitled to disagree with the inspector's recommendation based on new regional guidelines and evidence, gave adequate reasons for rejecting the claimant's arguments on need and sterilisation, and any breach of Rule 17(5) was technical and caused no substantial prejudice; therefore, the application to quash the decision is dismissed.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1314 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Sherburn Sand Company Limited; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Durham County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Minerals Planning, Development Plan Policy, Landbank Calculation, Sterilisation of Mineral Resources, Rule 17(5) Procedure
Planning Law Administrative Law Minerals Planning Development Plan Policy Landbank Calculation Sterilisation of Mineral Resources Rule 17(5) Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sherburn Sand Company Limited

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Durham County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State failed to consider or give reasons regarding the need for concreting sand after new guidelines
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to consider or give reasons regarding sterilisation of minerals
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State failed to consider or explain the nature/extent of harm from conflict with development plan policy

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State was entitled to disagree with the inspector's recommendation based on new regional guidelines and evidence, gave adequate reasons for rejecting the claimant's arguments on need and sterilisation, and any breach of Rule 17(5) was technical and caused no substantial prejudice; therefore, the application to quash the decision is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Secretary of State's costs summarily assessed at £6,500
  • No order as to costs for Durham County Council