Supermarket giant Asda has failed in a repeat attempt to stop another supermarket from being built next to one of its Leeds stores.
Developer Commercial Development Projects plans to build a retail site with a new B&M Homestore and a Lidl, located off the Middleton Ring Road in Leeds, beside an Asda.
It is be classed as an “edge of centre” development, and B&M plans to relocate from a more central location to the site.
Asda has opposed the development since it was first mooted, claiming that it would have a “significant adverse impact” on the local centre by, among other things, reducing footfall.
Even so, in 2019 Leeds City Council gave the development permission, saying that, on balance, the development would have a positive effect.
Asda appealed to the High Court in 2019, and lost. The company took it to the Court of Appeal earlier this year and, in a ruling handed down yesterday (20 January), they lost again.
According to the ruling, lawyers for Asda argued that the council used the wrong balancing exercise when considering the development. The lawyers argued that it placed greater weight on the benefits of the project than its harmful impact.
However, giving judgment, judge Sir Keith Lindblom disagreed.
“When one looks at this process of decision-making, it is, I think, impossible to find any legal error,” he said.
“The decision was one of balance. It emerged from a process in which, from beginning to end, the members knew that the officers were basing their recommendation of refusal explicitly on government policy… The policies were quoted verbatim by the chief planning officer. They were accurately represented in both reports. They were not misinterpreted in any way, nor unlawfully applied.”
He dismissed the appeal, saying the council’s decision was “entirely lawful”.
R (on the application of Asda Stores Ltd) v (1) Leeds City Council and (2) Commercial Development Projects Ltd
Court of Appeal (Lindblom SPT, Coulson LJ, Males LJ), 20 January 2021
Paul Tucker QC and Sarah Reid (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard Solicitors) appeared for the appellant. Stephanie Hall (instructed by Leeds City Council Legal Services) appeared for the first respondent. Rupert Warren QC (instructed by Birketts LLP) appeared for the second respondent.
