Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Selby District Council [2014] EWHC 3441 (Admin) (27 October 2014)

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Selby District Council [2014] EWHC 3441 (Admin) (27 October 2014)

The duty to co-operate under s33A did not apply to further work done after submission of the plan for examination, regardless of the suspension period. The process for adoption of the SDCS was not tainted by apparent bias, as the decision-making body was not affected by any bias in the advisory group, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3441 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster); Defendant: Selby District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Final Judgment in High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty to Co Operate Under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Apparent Bias in Policy Making, Sustainability Appraisal Requirements, Adoption of Local Development Plans, Statutory Interpretation of Plan Preparation and Examination Stages
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Duty to Co Operate Under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Apparent Bias in Policy Making Sustainability Appraisal Requirements Adoption of Local Development Plans Statutory Interpretation of Plan Preparation and Examination Stages

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster)

Claimant

Selby District Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Final Judgment in High Court (administrative Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the duty to co-operate under s33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 applied to further work done during suspension of public examination after plan submission
  2. 2 Whether the adoption of the Selby District Council Submission Draft Core Strategy (SDCS) was tainted by apparent bias in the policy-making process
  3. 3 Whether the Council failed to undertake a lawful sustainability appraisal of windfall housing quantification

Ratio Decidendi

The duty to co-operate under s33A did not apply to further work done after submission of the plan for examination, regardless of the suspension period. The process for adoption of the SDCS was not tainted by apparent bias, as the decision-making body was not affected by any bias in the advisory group, and the Inspector's independent examination and report confirmed soundness. The sustainability appraisal of windfall housing was lawfully conducted, and there was no breach of engagement or failure to consider reasonable alternatives.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash the adoption of the Selby District Council Submission Draft Core Strategy refused
  • No order for relief granted to the claimant