Planning permission sought for retail store away from town centre – Approach of planning authority – Demand for out of town centres – Whether government policy not to minimise harm to town centre but to sustain and enhance adequately considered – Application for leave to apply for judicial review granted
The applicant, Somerfield Stores Ltd, owned and operated a retail food store 600m from the central area of Northallerton, Yorkshire. The local planning authority granted planning permission to NUPM Ltd for the construction of a substantial store opposite the applicant’s store, which was intended to provide a retail food store of 35,000 sq ft and which, by virtue of a planning agreement between the developers and the local planning authority, was to replace the Safeway store situated in the centre of the town. There had been an earlier application in respect of the site for a petrol filling station, which was refused. That refusal took into account a consultant’s report which concluded that any loss of trade from the centre of the town would not be so great as to affect its vitality and viability.
After the proposed developers had submitted the instant application another report was commissioned, which also concluded that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the town centre and that there were no planning considerations which would justify refusal. The report referred to PPG 6, which set out the government’s objectives in balancing the demand for development of out of town retailing developments and the consequences on town centres. However, the planning officer’s advice, which referred to the reasons for the earlier refusal, indicated that the extent of harm likely to be caused to the town centre was so small as to be insufficient to justify a refusal. Permission was granted in October 1996. The applicant made reasoned submissions including representations that PPG 6 did not in any way relax the approach to out of town shopping centres and contending that, on a proper construction of the development plan and the local plan together with PPG 6, the local authority was required to make an assessment of the need for the additional retail selling space implicit in the development.
Held Leave to apply for judicial review granted.
1. The propositions put forward by the applicant on the proper construction of the development plan and the local plan were not unarguable.
2. It was arguable that the local authority needed to consider the extent to which the proposed development could be said to sustain and enhance the town centre, as to which it was also arguable that no clear answer was given in the planning officer’s report, or any other document, suggesting that the local authority took that issue into account.
Peter Village (instructed by Pitmans, of Reading) appeared for the applicant; Stephen Sauvain QC (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London agents for the solicitor to Hambleton District Council) appeared for the local authority; Vernon Pugh QC (instructed by Bullivant Jones & Co, of Liverpool) appeared for NUPM Ltd.
