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

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

The council did not misinterpret or misapply the sequential test in paragraph 87 of the NPPF. The determination that alternative sites were not 'available' was a lawful exercise of planning judgment based on the facts at the time of decision, and did not depend on the identity of the applicant or intended operator. The appeal was dismissed as there was no error of law in the council's or the High Court's approach.

Parties
Appellant: Tesco Stores Limited; First Respondent: Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council; Second Respondent: Lidl Great Britain Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sequential Test, Retail Development, Interpretation of Planning Policy, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Judicial Review
Planning Law Administrative Law Sequential Test Retail Development Interpretation of Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Judicial Review

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 3 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 Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local planning authority misunderstood and misapplied the 'sequential test' in national and development plan policy for retail development under paragraph 87 of the NPPF when determining an application for planning permission for an out-of-centre food store.

Ratio Decidendi

The council did not misinterpret or misapply the sequential test in paragraph 87 of the NPPF. The determination that alternative sites were not 'available' was a lawful exercise of planning judgment based on the facts at the time of decision, and did not depend on the identity of the applicant or intended operator. The appeal was dismissed as there was no error of law in the council's or the High Court's approach.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; order of the High Court upheld; planning permission for Lidl's proposed development stands.