Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council
[2012] UKSC 13
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
Policy statements in a development plan are to be interpreted objectively, in accordance with the language used read in its proper context; their meaning is a question of law for the court, not a matter which each planning authority may determine for itself subject only to rationality review. By contrast, the application of policies framed in language requiring the exercise of judgment falls within the jurisdiction of planning authorities and can be challenged only as irrational or perverse.
Facts
In 2009 Asda Stores Ltd and MacDonald Estates Group plc applied for planning permission to develop a superstore on the derelict former NCR site on the western edge of Dundee. Dundee City Council concluded that a grant would not accord with the development plan but was justified by other material considerations, and granted permission. Tesco challenged the decision, arguing that the council had misunderstood the sequential retail policies requiring that no 'suitable site' be available within or on the edge of existing centres: on Tesco's construction 'suitable' meant suitable for meeting identified deficiencies in retail provision, whereas the council had treated it as meaning suitable for the development proposed by the applicant.
Judgment Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed Tesco's appeal. Lord Reed (with whom Lord Brown, Lord Kerr and Lord Dyson agreed) held that the development plan, as a carefully drafted statement of policy intended to guide developers and authorities, must be interpreted objectively as a question of law, rejecting the submission that its meaning was a matter for the planning authority subject only to rationality review; whether 'suitable' meant suitable for the proposed development or for meeting identified deficiencies was a question of textual interpretation logically prior to any planning judgment. On that question the council's reading - suitable for the development proposed by the applicant, applied with the flexibility and realism required by the sequential approach - was correct. Lord Hope delivered a concurring judgment reaching the same conclusion on the meaning of 'suitable'.
Key Quotes
"On the contrary, these considerations suggest that in principle, in this area of public administration as in others (as discussed, for example, in R (Raissi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] QB 836), policy statements should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read as always in its proper context."
— Lord Reed, para 18(verbatim, verified against the judgment)
"A provision in the development plan which requires an assessment of whether a site is “suitable” for a particular purpose calls for judgment in its application. But the question whether such a provision is concerned with suitability for one purpose or another is not a question of planning judgment: it is a question of textual interpretation, which can only be answered by construing the language used in its context."
— Lord Reed, para 21(verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Consistently applied as the leading authority that the interpretation of planning policy is a question of law for the court, including by the Supreme Court in Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] UKSC 37.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help