Warners Retail (Moreton) Ltd v Cotswold District Council & Ors

Warners Retail (Moreton) Ltd v Cotswold District Council & Ors

The council lawfully interpreted and applied the sequential test for retail development under the NPPF and practice guidance. The Budgens site was properly considered and found not to be available or suitable for the proposed development. The officer's advice to the committee was not materially deficient or misleading, and the decision to grant planning permission was not unlawful.

Parties
Appellant: Warners Retail (Moreton) Ltd.; First Respondent: Cotswold District Council; Second Respondent: Minton Healthcare Ltd.; Third Respondent: Glamar Leisure Ltd.; Fourth Respondent: Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sequential Test, Retail Development, Interpretation of Planning Policy, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Sequential Test Retail Development Interpretation of Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Judicial Review of Planning Decisions

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 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warners Retail (Moreton) Ltd.

Appellant

Cotswold District Council

First Respondent

Minton Healthcare Ltd.

Second Respondent

Glamar Leisure Ltd.

Third Respondent

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd.

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the council lawfully interpreted and applied the sequential test for retail development under paragraph 24 of the NPPF and related guidance
  2. 2 Whether the planning committee was misdirected on the relevance of alternative sites, particularly the Budgens site, in the sequential assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The council lawfully interpreted and applied the sequential test for retail development under the NPPF and practice guidance. The Budgens site was properly considered and found not to be available or suitable for the proposed development. The officer's advice to the committee was not materially deficient or misleading, and the decision to grant planning permission was not unlawful.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld; no error of law in the council's decision to grant planning permission for Minton's proposed development.