Sweet & Anor, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

Sweet & Anor, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

The claimants failed to demonstrate any error of law or procedural irregularity in the Inspector's reasoning or the Secretary of State's adoption of that reasoning. The environmental statement was inadequate, peat extracted for sale is a mineral under the statutory definition, and the proposed development did not accord with relevant planning policies. No grounds existed to quash the Secretary of State's decision under section 288.

Parties
Claimant: Mervyn Clifford Sweet; Claimant: Barbara Maude Sweet; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Somerset County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Application) / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Challenge to Planning Decision, Environmental Impact Assessment, Definition of Mineral, Compensation for Land Use Restriction
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Challenge to Planning Decision Environmental Impact Assessment Definition of Mineral Compensation for Land Use Restriction

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

Parties

Mervyn Clifford Sweet

Claimant

Barbara Maude Sweet

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Somerset County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Application) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State's decision to dismiss the section 78 appeal was unlawful under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the environmental statement provided by the claimants was adequate under the 1999 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations
  3. 3 Whether peat constitutes a mineral under section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to demonstrate any error of law or procedural irregularity in the Inspector's reasoning or the Secretary of State's adoption of that reasoning. The environmental statement was inadequate, peat extracted for sale is a mineral under the statutory definition, and the proposed development did not accord with relevant planning policies. No grounds existed to quash the Secretary of State's decision under section 288.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants to pay the first and second defendants' costs, to be assessed on a detailed basis if not agreed.
  • Permission to appeal refused on grounds of no reasonable prospect of success.