Lidl Great Britain Limited, R (on the application of) v East Lindsey District Council
[2023] EWHC 3210 (Admin)
Lidl Great Britain Limited v East Lindsey District Council
2 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1641 (Admin)
High Court
Two supermarkets wanted to build stores outside a town. Only one could be built without harming the town. The council approved one without comparing it to the other. The court said the council had to compare them and quashed the decision.
Key Facts
- •Lidl challenged East Lindsey District Council's grant of planning permission to Aldi for a new foodstore in Horncastle.
- •Both Lidl and Aldi submitted competing applications for out-of-town supermarkets.
- •The key issue was whether the Council lawfully considered the cumulative retail impact on Horncastle town centre.
- •Lidl argued the Council unlawfully granted Aldi permission without comparing it to Lidl's proposal, given limited capacity for out-of-town stores.
- •The Council's retail consultant, Nexus, found that while Aldi alone wouldn't significantly harm the town centre, both Aldi and Lidl would.
- •The Council determined Aldi's application first, giving little weight to the cumulative impact due to Lidl's application being delayed.
- •Lidl's application was later amended to reduce the store's size.
Legal Principles
Planning permission determination must consider the development plan and other material considerations (s.70(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990). Decisions should follow the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise (s.38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
Town and Country Planning Act 1990; Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Officer reports to planning committees are reviewed to determine if they are materially misleading; they shouldn't be subjected to hypercritical scrutiny. Reports should be read fairly and as a whole.
Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWHC Civ 1314; St Modwen Developments Limited v SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 1643
The relevance of alternative sites in planning decisions is usually a matter of planning judgment. Exceptions exist, particularly when rival proposals compete for a single planning permission or limited capacity.
R (Stonehenge World Heritage Site Limited) v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWHC 2161 (Admin); Trusthouse Forte v Secretary of State for the Environment (1987) 53 P&CR 293; R (Mount Cook Land Limited) v Westminster City Council [2017] PTSR 116; Langley Park School for Girls v Bromley [2009] EWCA Civ 734
In cases with rival proposals for a limited resource (e.g., one planning permission), a comparative assessment of the proposals is a material consideration. Administrative convenience does not justify omitting this assessment.
GLC v Secretary of State for the Environment (1986) 52 P&CR 158; Secretary of State v Edwards (1994) 69 P&CR 607 (CA); R (Chelmsford Car and Commercial Ltd) v Chelmsford [2006] 2 P&CR 12; Derbyshire Dales DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] I P&CR 19
A consideration is mandatory if it's expressly or impliedly required by law or policy, or if it's so obviously material that failing to consider it is irrational.
R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3; R (Friends of the Earth Limited) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] UKSC 52; R (Peak District Council and South Yorkshire Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England v Secretary of State for Transport [2023] EWHC 2917 (Admin)
Outcomes
The grant of planning permission to Aldi was quashed.
The Council unlawfully failed to compare Aldi's and Lidl's competing proposals for the limited capacity for out-of-town supermarkets in Horncastle. This omission was irrational, as the cumulative impact analysis showed both stores together would significantly harm the town centre, making a comparison 'obviously material'.
Similar Cases
Tesco Stores Limited, R (on the application of) v Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 2327 (Admin)
R (on the application of Tesco Stores Limited) v Allerdale Borough Council
[2022] EWHC 2827 (Admin)
Paul Evans v Bridgend County Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 2607 (Admin)
Christine Pratt & Anor, R (on the application of) v Exeter City Council
[2024] EWHC 185 (Admin)