Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government and Anor [2020] EWHC 270 (Admin) (13 February 2020)

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government and Anor [2020] EWHC 270 (Admin) (13 February 2020)

The Secretary of State's decision was not irrational or inadequately reasoned. He was entitled to disagree with the Inspector on the planning balance, gave sufficient reasons for his conclusions, and properly identified and weighed conflicts with the development plan, including harm to heritage assets, daylight/sunlight loss, and affordable housing segregation. The refusal of planning permission was lawful.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 270 (Admin)
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 Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Affordable Housing, Heritage Assets, Daylight and Sunlight, Development Plan, Section 106 Agreements, Statutory Interpretation, Reason Giving in Administrative Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Planning Permission Affordable Housing Heritage Assets Daylight and Sunlight Development Plan +3 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 17 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 Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State's refusal of planning permission was irrational, inadequately reasoned, or failed to take account of relevant considerations, particularly regarding affordable housing location and daylight/sunlight impacts.
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to provide the claimant an opportunity to address concerns about affordable housing integration via a revised section 106 agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State's decision was in overall conflict with the development plan and whether material considerations justified refusal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's decision was not irrational or inadequately reasoned. He was entitled to disagree with the Inspector on the planning balance, gave sufficient reasons for his conclusions, and properly identified and weighed conflicts with the development plan, including harm to heritage assets, daylight/sunlight loss, and affordable housing segregation. The refusal of planning permission was lawful.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash the Secretary of State's decision refused
  • Planning permission remains refused