Tesco Stores Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Lidl Great Britain Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 610 (09 May 2025)

Tesco Stores Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Lidl Great Britain Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 610 (09 May 2025)

The council lawfully concluded that the sequentially preferable sites were not 'available' within the meaning of paragraph 87 of the NPPF, as they were committed to other occupiers and not commercially available to any operator. The policy does not require that a site be available to any hypothetical applicant if it is already committed for the relevant use. The council's application of the sequential test was a lawful exercise of planning judgment, and there was no misinterpretation or misapplication of policy.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 610
Parties
Appellant: Tesco Stores Limited; First Respondent: Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council; Second Respondent: Lidl Great Britain Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sequential Test, Retail Development, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Development Plan Policy, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Planning Policy
Planning Law Administrative Law Sequential Test Retail Development National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Development Plan Policy Judicial Review Interpretation of Planning Policy

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

Parties

Tesco Stores Limited

Appellant

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

First Respondent

Lidl Great Britain Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local planning authority misunderstood and misapplied the 'sequential test' in paragraph 87 of the NPPF when determining Lidl's planning application for an out-of-centre food store; specifically, whether sites already committed to other occupiers are 'available' for the purposes of the sequential test.

Ratio Decidendi

The council lawfully concluded that the sequentially preferable sites were not 'available' within the meaning of paragraph 87 of the NPPF, as they were committed to other occupiers and not commercially available to any operator. The policy does not require that a site be available to any hypothetical applicant if it is already committed for the relevant use. The council's application of the sequential test was a lawful exercise of planning judgment, and there was no misinterpretation or misapplication of policy.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the order of the High Court is affirmed.