The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to grant planning permission to Tescos to extend their supermarket.
Held: Review was refused. The application succeeded on one of the four grounds claimed, but that defect in the decision making process was insufficient to justify setting the permission aside. The officers had not sufficiently clearly interpreted the local and national planning policies as to how they impacted on the applications, and in particular whether a refusal would act as a disincentive to the planning applicants.
Judges:
Wilkie J
Citations:
[2012] EWHC 3744 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 11-May-1995
Three companies had applied for permission to build retail food superstores in Witney. The Inspector had recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the respondent rejected it. Tesco’s had offered to provide by way of a section 106 agreement full funding for . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .
Cited – Salford Estates [No 2] Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Dalton Park Ltd and Others Admn 19-Sep-2012
The court was asked whether the town of Peterlee could truly accommodate four large retail stores.
Held: The claim for review was rejected.
Richardson QC Judge said: ‘It is also a paradigm of the system of planning control in England and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.467640