Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

The Secretary of State erred in law by failing to consider overtrading as a possible indicator of quantitative need and by providing inadequate and unintelligible reasons for refusing planning permission, despite unchallenged expert evidence supporting the existence of quantitative need. The decision was thus quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Cherwell District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Claim to Quash Planning Refusal
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning, Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Retail Development, Policy Guidance Interpretation
Administrative Law Planning Law Town and Country Planning Judicial Review Planning Permission Retail Development Policy Guidance Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Cherwell District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Claim to Quash Planning Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State erred in law in refusing planning permission for an extension to an out-of-town retail store by misapplying the test for quantitative need under PPG6 and subsequent ministerial guidance.
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to give adequate reasons for his decision and failed to take into account material considerations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State erred in law by failing to consider overtrading as a possible indicator of quantitative need and by providing inadequate and unintelligible reasons for refusing planning permission, despite unchallenged expert evidence supporting the existence of quantitative need. The decision was thus quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • The decision of the Secretary of State refusing planning permission is quashed.
  • Costs in the agreed sum of £18,500 awarded to the claimant.