Tesco Stores Limited, R (on the application of) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Tesco Stores Limited, R (on the application of) v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

The Council did not misinterpret or misapply the sequential test under the NPPF; the alternative sites were not available to any operator within a reasonable period, and the New Bridge Lane site was reasonably excluded from consideration based on the agreed catchment area. Any breach of s100D Local Government Act...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Tesco Stores Limited; Defendant: Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council; Interested Party: Lidl Great Britain Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Sequential Test, Planning Permission, Retail Impact Assessment, Interpretation of Planning Policy, Local Government Act Compliance
Planning Law Administrative Law Sequential Test Planning Permission Retail Impact Assessment Interpretation of Planning Policy Local Government Act Compliance

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tesco Stores Limited

Claimant

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Defendant

Lidl Great Britain Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant misapplied the sequential test under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in granting planning permission to Lidl
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant failed to consider material considerations, specifically the availability of alternative sites
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant breached section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 by not disclosing background papers

Ratio Decidendi

The Council did not misinterpret or misapply the sequential test under the NPPF; the alternative sites were not available to any operator within a reasonable period, and the New Bridge Lane site was reasonably excluded from consideration based on the agreed catchment area. Any breach of s100D Local Government Act 1972 did not cause material prejudice to Tesco, as the substance of the retail advice was adequately summarised and Tesco had sufficient opportunity to make representations.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is dismissed.
  • No order quashing the planning permission is made.