Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Selby District Council

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Selby District Council

The duty to co-operate under s33A does not apply after plan submission for examination; further work during suspension is not plan preparation. Apparent bias in an advisory group does not taint the decision-making body unless there is a real possibility of bias. Sustainability appraisal for windfall housing was adequate given the unpredictability of such sites. Village designations and Green Belt review are matters of planning judgment. The Council's engagement with SSOBT was sufficient and SSOBT's Vision was not a strategic alternative requiring environmental assessment.

Parties
Claimant: Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster); Defendant: Selby District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty to Co Operate, Apparent Bias, Sustainability Appraisal, Environmental Assessment, Local Development Plan, Housing Policy, Green Belt Review, Stakeholder Engagement, Strategic Planning, Legitimate Expectation
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Duty to Co Operate Apparent Bias Sustainability Appraisal Environmental Assessment Local Development Plan +5 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster)

Claimant

Selby District Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the duty to co-operate under s33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 applied during the suspension of public examination
  2. 2 Whether the Council's housing policies were tainted by apparent bias
  3. 3 Whether the sustainability appraisal of windfall housing was unlawfully omitted

Ratio Decidendi

The duty to co-operate under s33A does not apply after plan submission for examination; further work during suspension is not plan preparation. Apparent bias in an advisory group does not taint the decision-making body unless there is a real possibility of bias. Sustainability appraisal for windfall housing was adequate given the unpredictability of such sites. Village designations and Green Belt review are matters of planning judgment. The Council's engagement with SSOBT was sufficient and SSOBT's Vision was not a strategic alternative requiring environmental assessment.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed