Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, R (on the application of) v ARLA Foods UK Property Company Ltd

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, R (on the application of) v ARLA Foods UK Property Company Ltd

The defendant's decision to grant planning permission for ARLA 2 was lawful because the officers' report concluded that the proposal would not likely have a significant adverse impact on committed and planned investment, the sequential test was passed as the claimant's site was committed for its own development, and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd; Defendant: London Borough of Hillingdon; First Interested Party: Albemarle Developments Ltd; Second Interested Party: Arla Foods UK Property Company Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Sequential Test, Retail Impact Assessment, Development Plan, Material Considerations, Consistency in Decision Making
Planning Law Administrative Law Sequential Test Retail Impact Assessment Development Plan Material Considerations Consistency in Decision Making

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd

Claimant

London Borough of Hillingdon

Defendant

Albemarle Developments Ltd

First Interested Party

Arla Foods UK Property Company Ltd

Second Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of planning permission for ARLA 2 failed the sequential and impact tests under the National Planning Policy Framework
  2. 2 Whether the decision was inconsistent with the previous refusal of ARLA 1 and lacked adequate reasons for the change

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's decision to grant planning permission for ARLA 2 was lawful because the officers' report concluded that the proposal would not likely have a significant adverse impact on committed and planned investment, the sequential test was passed as the claimant's site was committed for its own development, and even if there was conflict with retail policy, the regenerative benefits of ARLA 2 outweighed the disbenefits. The change from the previous refusal of ARLA 1 was justified by differences in the proposals and robust independent retail analysis.

Court Disposition

Judicial review dismissed