Anti-vivisectionists have failed to persuade the high court to overturn John Prescott's decision to give Cambridge University planning permission for a primate research centre.
The university abandoned the proposed laboratory for research into cures for neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, in January.
Animal Aid and the National Anti-Vivisection Society (Navs) brought the case regardless, arguing that the deputy prime minister's decision to override an independent planning inquiry's refusal of planning permission was illegal.
Neil King QC, for the coalition, told the court earlier this week that his decision was a "pre-ordained, foregone conclusion taken regardless of expert reports as a matter of government policy".
But Mr Justice Collins said: "In my judgment, the [inquiry] inspector's approach was wrong and the secretary of state was correct to deal with the matter in the way that he did."
Mr Prescott would have acted wrongly if he had not applied government policy.
Planning permission was rejected twice by South Cambridgeshire district council on the grounds that protests by animal rights campaigners outside the laboratory would hinder traffic and could become a nuisance to residents.
The subsequent public inquiry recommended that it should not be built on the grounds that it was not of national importance.
In November Mr Prescott overruled the recommendations. Animal rights groups accused him of being swayed by the science minister, Lord Sainsbury, who was a vocal supporter of the lab.
The university then said the project had become too expensive when their finances were unstable, but it denied that it had caved in to the anti-vivisectionists.
"This is a sad day for democracy," the Navs chief executive, Jan Creamer, said yesterday.
"We won the planning inquiry fair and square. But one letter from one minister is now all that is needed for public opinion to be ignored by the government. It's a foregone conclusion as the prime minister and Lord Sainsbury said this monkey lab was needed. Therefore the planning inquiry was meaningless."
