UK: Sequential Test - Clarity At Last?

Last Updated: 5 April 2012
Article by Murray Shaw

One area of the economy that appears to have remained relatively buoyant during the downturn is the development of new supermarket facilities in Scotland. This appears to be partly a phenomenon of existing operators seeking to protect (or even increase) market share with a number of new or less established operators (such as Lidl and Waitrose) trying to make inroads into Scotland. The development of new facilities has taken place not just in the larger conurbations within Scotland but in smaller towns which can only support a limited number (sometimes one) sizeable convenience food outlet.

There have been (and remain) significant concerns about the impact of reasonable sized convenience food retail outlets on the "High Street" (particularly if they contain an element of comparison shopping – hardware etc) even if they are situated in the town centre (and frequently they are not – see below). In England the review carried out by Mary Portas highlighted these concerns.

Concerns also exist in Scotland. Scotland has also seen a number of cases involving challenges between rival retail operators intended to protect either an existing outlet or separately a new outlet that they had planned (See our article on "Supermarket Wars").

In Scotland (like England) the siting of supermarkets and indeed other retail outlets has been subject to what is known as the sequential test. This is embodied in Government policy (currently the SPP) and has been embodied for some considerable time having been included in both NPPG8 entitled "Town Centres and Retailing" (the last version of this having been revised in 1998) and SPP8 (Scottish Planning Policy: Town Centres & Retailing) which in itself was replaced by Scottish Planning Policy. As well as being embodied in Government policy the sequential test is usually reflected in Structure Plans (where they exist) and Local Plans (now Strategic Development Plans and Local Development Plans).

In effect the sequential test sets out a hierarchy of preferred locations for retail development. Town centres are indentified as the first and preferred choice followed by edge of centre sites, then out of centre sites. The sequential test requires the prospective developer to assess whether or not there is a suitable location higher in the hierarchy as part of the necessary process of site selection when seeking to promote a site that is lower in the hierarchy. In other words a developer who wants to promote an out of centre site needs to show that there are no suitable town centre sites or indeed edge of centre sites. The issue which has arisen however is how that is to be approached – whether the test of suitability is an objective or subjective one. In other words the issue may be whether or not the prospective developer requires to configure the proposed development so that it can be accommodated on sites that may be available (and which better meet the sequential test) or whether the developer is entitled to say that in applying the sequential test they only need to take into account sites which can accommodate the development as they propose it (and thereby ignore sites which may be sequentially better located if not suitable).

This issue has been considered in the Scottish Courts before. Lord Glennie dealt with the issue in Lidl UK GmbH v Scottish Ministers [2006] CSOH 165. He came to the view that in effect the issue was whether should there be an alternative site that site was suitable for the proposed development. In other words, it was not a question of whether the proposed development could and should be altered (or even reduced) so it could be made to fit whatever alternatives were available.

This approach appears to have a degree of support in the SPP albeit this requires developers to adopt a "flexible" approach.

The issue has now been considered by the Supreme Court where a judgement was given on 21 March 2012 in the case of Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council. While this was overtly a case between Tesco (who have a substantial outlet on the A90 in Dundee – which in effect is a ring road round the centre of Dundee) and the City Council, in reality what underlay the challenge was a decision of the Council to grant planning permission for a proposed development likely to be occupied by Asda. Both Asda and the developer (McDonald Estates) were represented before the Supreme Court. In effect the case came before the Supreme Court because of a challenge to the grant of planning permission brought by Tesco.

The Director of Planning in Dundee had recognised that the proposal made by Asda/McDonalds offended a number of policies in the Structure Plan and the Local Plan but considered that the grant of planning permission could be justified because the proposed development would bring significant economic benefits to the city. Separately it would allow for improvements to the road network which would facilitate the redevelopment of a redundant industrial site (the proposed supermarket to be erected on part of the site).

The Scottish Courts (probably more so than the English courts) have made very clear in a number of decisions that they are not going to intervene where what is at issue is an exercise of planning judgement. In order therefore to bring this challenge Tesco had to show that there was some legal issue which the courts could properly look at and in this case what they challenged was the interpretation of the sequential test as contained in both the Structure Plan and the relevant Local Plan. In effect the issue was what was meant by the word "suitable" as used in both documents. Did "suitable" mean suitable for the development proposed by the applicant or did "suitable" have some other meaning with the consequence that the test had not been properly applied by the Council. In effect Tesco were suggesting that there might be another site available (and sequentially better located) which though not suitable for the development proposed by Asda was nonetheless suitable for a supermarket development. Their argument was in effect that if the test was a "subjective" one (in other words a site simply suitable to meet the needs of the potential applicant), that made the policy largely meaningless as an applicant could design a proposal so as to be simply not suitable for whatever sites might be available and only suitable for the site that the applicant was proposing.

The Supreme Court considered the issue and the leading judgement was given by Lord Reed recently appointed as a Supreme Court judge who was previously a judge of the Inner House in Scotland. Having analysed the position he came to the view that the approach broadly speaking taken by Lord Glennie was correct though the "subjective" approach could not be applied on an unqualified basis. He referred to the previous Government guidance which (as with the current guidance) makes clear that developers need to be flexible and realistic and that in preparing proposals developers were expected to have regard to the circumstances of the relevant centre in regard to issues such as format, design and scale of the development. Developers therefore in his view needed to show that if there were sites sequentially preferred they should show that they had given consideration to whether or not the development could be accommodated in a different form on those sites. In this case that had been done by the prospective developers.

In giving his decision Lord Reed accepted that planning authorities had to proceed upon a proper understanding of the Development Plan and that if they were error in doing that then their decisions might be challengeable. Having said that he did acknowledge that Development Plans though having legal status often contained broad statements of policy which required in their application the application of judgement by the planning authority. If that judgement was applied based upon a correct interpretation then that judgement in itself would only be challengeable if it was irrational or perverse. However in applying that judgement the planning authority needed to do on a correct basis – as Lord Reed memorably put it:- "Nevertheless, planning authorities do not live in the world of Humpty Dumpty: they cannot make the Development Plan mean whatever they would like it to mean".

Lord Reed also observed however that any error in interpreting the relevant policies would only be of relevance if there was a real possibility as a result of that error the determination would have been different. Given the considerations which resulted in the local authority (Dundee Council) granting planning permission he did not think there was any possibility in this case that would have been the position.

Lord Hope (the Senior Supreme Court judge from Scotland) gave a brief opinion supporting Lord Reed. The other Supreme Court judges all agreed with Lord Reed.

Planning cases from Scotland before the Supreme Court (previously the House of Lords) are not that common and therefore the case is intrinsically of significance. It is equally of significance because the sequential test is extremely relevant to an area which has been of important as noted over the past few years and is likely to remain of importance over the next few years. Having said that, while the case broadly speaking supports an approach which is more subjective rather than objective, it is clear that developers will have to show that they have been flexible and realistic in determining their proposals. If there are alternative sites which are more sequentially preferred then they will need to show that they have considered these sites and rejected them on a proper basis having been willing to be flexible and reasonable as appropriate. If however they have done that and if the local authority accepts that position it is unlikely that such an approach will be successfully challengeable standing the terms of this case. Having said that, a developer who is inflexible or unrealistic will potentially face difficulties if there is another site available which is in a preferred sequential location. While this case therefore has set the parameters for the decision making process issues may still yet arise about whether in a particular case sufficient flexibility and realism has been shown.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions