Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, R (on the application of) v ARLA Foods UK Property Company Ltd

Failure of the sequential or impact test does not create an irrebuttable presumption against planning permission. The decision-maker must weigh any conflict with the town-centre-first policy against other material considerations. The meaning and application of “available” are matters of fact-sensitive planning judgment. Earlier planning decisions are material where relevant common features exist, but they are not binding. A later decision may depart from an earlier one if the reasons are apparent. Planning committee reports must be read fairly and as a whole.

The claimant challenged Hillingdon London Borough Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a mixed-use redevelopment of a former dairy site at South Ruislip. The proposal included a 3,717 square metre food store, cinema, restaurants and housing.

The challenge concerned the sequential and retail impact tests in the National Planning Policy Framework, the effect on the claimant’s existing and proposed store, and alleged inconsistency with the Council’s earlier refusal of a larger proposal on the same site.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Council concluded that the proposal was not likely to have a significant adverse impact on committed or planned investment in the claimant’s store. On that primary conclusion, the impact test was not failed and the claimant’s site was unavailable for the sequential analysis because it was to be used for the claimant’s own redevelopment.
2. Even on the Council’s fallback reasoning, paragraph 27 of the National Planning Policy Framework did not impose an irrebuttable presumption requiring refusal. A conflict with retail policy could be outweighed by other material considerations, including regeneration, employment and housing benefits.
3. “Available” was an ordinary English word whose application required fact-sensitive planning judgment. The relevant context included the nature of the identified need and the suitability, availability and viability of potential sites.
4. The Council was entitled to rely on the retail evidence before it and was not required to accept the claimant’s assertion that permission for the competing development would prevent its own investment.
5. Earlier planning decisions were not binding. The two ARLA proposals differed in scale, design and evidential basis. The reasons for the different outcome were sufficiently apparent from the decision-making material.
6. Planning committee reports were to be read fairly and as a whole. In the absence of contrary evidence, members could reasonably be taken to have followed the report’s reasoning where they adopted its recommendation.