W Morrisons Supermarket Plc v London Borough of Hounslow

W Morrisons Supermarket Plc v London Borough of Hounslow

The Officer's Report erred in not stating that the proposal did not comply with the wording of the site allocation and IMP2, but this did not affect the outcome as the proposal accorded with the development plan as a whole. There was no requirement for a retail impact assessment for temporary closure, and the Council lawfully judged the s106 agreement provisions sufficient. Any legitimate expectation of consultation was not breached in substance, as Morrisons had the opportunity to comment and failed to do so. Relief is refused as it is highly likely the outcome would have been the same.

Parties
Claimant: W Morrisons Supermarket PLC; Defendant: London Borough of Hounslow; Interested Party: Essential Living (Brentford) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Plan Interpretation, Section 106 Agreements, Legitimate Expectation, Retail Impact Assessment, Local Government Decision Making
Planning Law Administrative Law Development Plan Interpretation Section 106 Agreements Legitimate Expectation Retail Impact Assessment Local Government Decision Making

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W Morrisons Supermarket PLC

Claimant

London Borough of Hounslow

Defendant

Essential Living (Brentford) Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning permission granted was in accordance with the development plan, specifically policy IMP2 and the site allocation.
  2. 2 Whether the Council lawfully considered the impact of the closure of the existing supermarket on the vitality and viability of Brentford town centre.
  3. 3 Whether Morrisons had a legitimate expectation of consultation on the section 106 agreement and whether it was breached.

Ratio Decidendi

The Officer's Report erred in not stating that the proposal did not comply with the wording of the site allocation and IMP2, but this did not affect the outcome as the proposal accorded with the development plan as a whole. There was no requirement for a retail impact assessment for temporary closure, and the Council lawfully judged the s106 agreement provisions sufficient. Any legitimate expectation of consultation was not breached in substance, as Morrisons had the opportunity to comment and failed to do so. Relief is refused as it is highly likely the outcome would have been the same.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed