“On or before the expiration of a period of 12 months from the last date on which the Barnsley Seam is worked (pursuant to this permission) for the purposes of getting coal, old buildings, plant and machinery will be removed from the Gascoigne Wood and Wistow sites unless otherwise agreed in writing by the County planning authority or, in default of agreement, determined by the Secretary of State; and those sites shall be restored to their former condition or otherwise treated in accordance with such scheme or schemes as may be agreed with the County planning authority, or in default of agreement, as shall be determined by the Secretary of State.”
“In the event that any retained building is not used wholly or mainly for rail related uses by occupiers using the existing rail facilities on site and their mainline connections within 5 years from the date of this permission, it shall be demolished and removed from site no later than 6 years from the date of this permission and the site shall be restored and landscaped in accordance with a scheme (which shall include a timetable for implementation and management measures) first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.”
“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
“The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the “principle important controversial issues”, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the granted permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that there are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.”
“10.34 Overall, however, I am still not convinced that, if planning permission for the proposal were granted, a user would be quickly found … who would be able to put the rail infrastructure to beneficial use together with the buildings. At the same time I am far from convinced that no suitable user would be forthcoming. Rail link sites of the quality that Gascoigne Wood offers are undoubtedly rare and, whilst the market for them is limited, there is no doubt in my mind, that the Gascoigne Wood site has significant potential to support rail linked manufacture and/or distribution. The buildings also have potential to be adapted to a variety of uses, albeit that the economics of so doing would need to be carefully considered having regard to the precise requirements of the prospective user.”