Tesco Stores Ltd, R (on the application of) v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council [2025] EWHC 2547 (Admin) (02 October 2025)

Tesco Stores Ltd, R (on the application of) v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council [2025] EWHC 2547 (Admin) (02 October 2025)

The Council did not misinterpret or misapply Policy SADM5; highways impact assessment methodology was not legally flawed; the identity of the intended occupier was not a material consideration for the sequential test; all grounds are unarguable and permission is refused.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2547 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Tesco Stores Limited; Defendant: Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council; Interested Party: Coal Pension Properties Limited; Interested Party: Marks and Spencer PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome
Permission refused
Legal Topics
Sequential Test, Local Plan Interpretation, Highways Impact, Material Considerations, Delegated Powers
Planning Law Administrative Law Sequential Test Local Plan Interpretation Highways Impact Material Considerations Delegated Powers

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

Parties

Tesco Stores Limited

Claimant

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

Defendant

Coal Pension Properties Limited

Interested Party

Marks and Spencer PLC

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council misinterpreted Policy SADM5 of the Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan
  2. 2 Whether highways impact assessment was based on a material error of fact
  3. 3 Whether the Council failed to consider the intended occupier in the sequential test

Ratio Decidendi

The Council did not misinterpret or misapply Policy SADM5; highways impact assessment methodology was not legally flawed; the identity of the intended occupier was not a material consideration for the sequential test; all grounds are unarguable and permission is refused.

Court Disposition

Permission refused