Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Wolverhampton City Council

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Wolverhampton City Council

The Council was lawfully entitled to take into account the cross-subsidy and regeneration benefits of the Royal Hospital Site as falling within section 226(1A) because those benefits were likely to flow from the redevelopment of the Raglan Street Site, and such wider well-being benefits are precisely what the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd; Respondent: Wolverhampton City Council; Interested Party: Tesco Stores Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Administrative Court (elias J) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Orders, Material Considerations in Planning, Section 226 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Cross Subsidy in Redevelopment
Administrative Law Planning Law Compulsory Acquisition Compulsory Purchase Orders Material Considerations in Planning Section 226 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Cross Subsidy in Redevelopment

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd

Appellant

Wolverhampton City Council

Respondent

Tesco Stores Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Administrative Court (elias J) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Wolverhampton City Council could lawfully take into account the cross-subsidy and regeneration benefits of the Royal Hospital Site (RHS) when deciding to make a compulsory purchase order (CPO) for the Raglan Street Site (RSS) under section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
  2. 2 Whether the benefits arising from the redevelopment of the RHS fell within the statutory requirements of section 226(1A) as 'well-being' benefits.

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was lawfully entitled to take into account the cross-subsidy and regeneration benefits of the Royal Hospital Site as falling within section 226(1A) because those benefits were likely to flow from the redevelopment of the Raglan Street Site, and such wider well-being benefits are precisely what the statute requires to be considered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Elias J upheld; appeal dismissed.