Midcounties Co-Operative Ltd, R (on the application of) v Wyre Forest District Council

Midcounties Co-Operative Ltd, R (on the application of) v Wyre Forest District Council

Condition 6 of the planning permission was not void for uncertainty and did not permit more than was applied for or assessed; the tailpiece to condition 6 was unlawful but could be severed without affecting the validity of the permission; there was no procedural unfairness or prejudice in the consultation on the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Midcounties Co-operative Limited; Defendant: Wyre Forest District Council; Interested Party: Tesco Stores Limited and Santon Group Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed except for severance of tailpiece to condition 6
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Planning Conditions, Section 106 Agreements, Procedural Fairness, Conservation Areas, Road Safety, Air Quality, Reasons for Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Planning Permission Judicial Review Interpretation of Planning Conditions Section 106 Agreements Procedural Fairness +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midcounties Co-operative Limited

Claimant

Wyre Forest District Council

Defendant

Tesco Stores Limited and Santon Group Developments Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condition 6 of the planning permission was uncertain or unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the planning permission exceeded what was applied for or assessed
  3. 3 Whether the tailpiece to condition 6 was unlawful and could be severed

Ratio Decidendi

Condition 6 of the planning permission was not void for uncertainty and did not permit more than was applied for or assessed; the tailpiece to condition 6 was unlawful but could be severed without affecting the validity of the permission; there was no procedural unfairness or prejudice in the consultation on the section 106 agreement; all material considerations were addressed; and the reasons for the grant of permission were legally adequate.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed except for severance of tailpiece to condition 6

Orders

  • Tailpiece to condition 6 of the planning permission to be excised
  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs