Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2008] EWHC 1313 (Admin) (13 June 2008)

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2008] EWHC 1313 (Admin) (13 June 2008)

The Secretary of State did not err in law: financial viability and demand were considered as material considerations, the reasons given were adequate, and condition 7 was lawful and enforceable. The decision to grant planning permission was within the Secretary of State's discretion, balancing all relevant factors.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1313 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) (an unlimited company); 1st Defendant: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 2nd Defendant: Selby District Council; 3rd Defendant: UK Coal Mining Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Material Considerations, Development Plan, Planning Conditions, Judicial Review, Reasoning Adequacy, Financial Viability, Need and Demand, Enforceability of Conditions
Planning Law Administrative Law Public Law Planning Permission Material Considerations Development Plan Planning Conditions Judicial Review +4 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) (an unlimited company)

Claimant

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

1st Defendant

Selby District Council

2nd Defendant

UK Coal Mining Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State failed to consider or give adequate reasons regarding financial viability of the proposed development.
  2. 2 Whether there was evidence of need or demand for the buildings to justify departure from the development plan.
  3. 3 Whether planning condition 7 was lawful, reasonable, and enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State did not err in law: financial viability and demand were considered as material considerations, the reasons given were adequate, and condition 7 was lawful and enforceable. The decision to grant planning permission was within the Secretary of State's discretion, balancing all relevant factors.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash the Secretary of State's decision refused.