Planning permission Balancing rights of the developer and rights of those affected by proposed development Proportionality Whether inspector failed
The High Court has rejected an appeal by the Co-op against the grant of outline planning permission for a Marks & Spencers store in West Bridgford town centre.
Rushcliffe Borough Council gave M&S outline permission for the 18,300 sq ft (1,700m2) food store on the site of the Manor pub in June 2003. The Central West Bridgford Community Association and the Co-op, which has a nearby store, subsequently contested the decision.
Sullivan J has held that, in granting consent, the council had correctly identified the proposed site as lying within the town centre, and had therefore applied the correct tests for the purposes of planning policy guidance on retail development (PPG 6).
The Co-op challenged the decision on the basis that the council had erred in concluding that the site lay within the town centre for the purposes of PPG 6.
It argued that, in reality, the site constituted an “edge-of-centre” location as defined by PPG 6, thereby triggering a requirement for the developer to demonstrate the need for additional facilities.
Sullivan J held that, although the site was not situated within a designated shopping centre for the purposes of the local plan, the council had been entitled to find that it lay within the town centre.
He maintained that a town centre was usually more extensive than the main shopping area, and that a site falling within the main shopping area would also come within the town centre.
However, construction will not take place until M&S has submitted a detailed planning application, covering the exact size and shape of the store, and the materials that will be used in its construction.
R (on the application of Co-operative Group (CWS) Ltd) v Rushcliffe Borough Council Queen’s Bench Division: Administrative Court (Sullivan J) 28 July 2004.
References: EGi Legal News 29/07/04
