Development — Planning policy guidance — Town centre — Material considerations — Planning permission granted to build retail store — Application for judicial review — Whether defendant local authority entitled to conclude that appeal site within town centre — Application dismissed
The claimant applied for judicial review of the defendant’s outline grant of planning permission to the second interested party for the erection of a retail store in West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire. The claimant contended that the defendants had misinterpreted local and national planning policy and that it was not open to the defendant to conclude that the site lay within the “town centre” for the purposes of PPG 6.
PPG 6 set out the planning policies for retail development and outlined a “sequential approach”, with the first preference for town-centre sites, followed by edge-of-centre sites, district and local centres and only then out-of-centre sites. Subsequent ministerial policy statements established that if a site was to be located at either an edge-of-centre location or out-of-centre location, the developer would be required to demonstrate the need for additional facilities.
Annex A to PPG 6 defined the term “town centre” as covering city, town and traditional suburban centres that provided a broad range of facilities and services. “Edge-of-centre” was defined as being, for shopping purposes, a location that was within easy walking distance (namely 200-300m) of the primary shopping area.
The claimant argued that: (i) the defendants had been wrong to conclude that the “town centre” differed from the area covered by policy S2 of the 1996 adopted local plan because it did not fall within a designated shopping centre; (ii) in so concluding, they had given the policies of the adopted development plan an interpretation that the plan could not reasonably bear; and (iii) they had failed to have regard to national retail guidance as to the appropriate tests for edge-of-centre sites.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The defendants had not erred in concluding that the site fell within the town centre for the purposes of PPG 6, even though it was not within a designated shopping centre for purposes of the local plan.
The local plan did not purport to define the term “town centre”, and did not do so. Policy S2 defined the main shopping area. It was intended to protect the principal shopping frontage from an excessive proportion of retail outlets. If a site came within the main shopping area, it would also come within the town centre. However, it did not follow that if the site was not subject to local policy, it fell outside the town centre.
As a matter of common sense, and depending on local circumstances and the nature of the centre in question, a town centre was usually more extensive than the main shopping area. Furthermore, the fact that the appeal site was adjacent to a shopping area suggested that it fell within the town centre.
In all the circumstances, the defendants had been right to conclude that the appeal site fell within the town centre for planning purposes, and the second interested party was not obliged to demonstrate a need for further retail facilities.
Paul Tucker (instructed by Burgess Salmon) appeared for the claimant; James Maurici (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the defendants; Christopher Katkowski QC (instructed by Wragge & Co LLP) appeared for the second interested party; the first interested party took no part in the proceedings.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
