Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, R (on the application of) v Wolverhampton City Council & Anor [2009] EWHC 134 (Admin) (03 February 2009)

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, R (on the application of) v Wolverhampton City Council & Anor [2009] EWHC 134 (Admin) (03 February 2009)

The Council lawfully exercised its discretion in choosing between rival developments for the RSS site, as the statutory criteria for a CPO were satisfied for that site alone. While the Council erred in treating RHS benefits as directly relevant under section 226(1A), it was entitled to consider wider planning benefits, including those secured by planning obligations, when selecting between competing schemes. There was no predetermination or bias in the Council's decision-making process.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 134 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd; Defendant: Wolverhampton City Council; Interested Party: Tesco Stores Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Orders, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Predetermination, Section 226 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Administrative Law Planning Law Compulsory Purchase Compulsory Purchase Orders Planning Permission Judicial Review Predetermination Section 226 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

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

Parties

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd

Claimant

Wolverhampton City Council

Defendant

Tesco Stores Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council lawfully considered benefits from a separate site (RHS) when deciding to exercise CPO powers for the RSS site under section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the Council's decision was tainted by predetermination or bias

Ratio Decidendi

The Council lawfully exercised its discretion in choosing between rival developments for the RSS site, as the statutory criteria for a CPO were satisfied for that site alone. While the Council erred in treating RHS benefits as directly relevant under section 226(1A), it was entitled to consider wider planning benefits, including those secured by planning obligations, when selecting between competing schemes. There was no predetermination or bias in the Council's decision-making process.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed