First Secretary of State & Anor v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 520

First Secretary of State and another v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 520 is an important Court of Appeal decision about interpreting planning policy and judging whether a minister’s decision gives legally adequate reasons. Its frequently cited statement is that the words of a policy govern its meaning.

The dispute concerned Sainsbury’s proposal to enlarge an out-of-town supermarket at Kidlington, Oxfordshire. The Secretary of State refused planning permission after a call-in inquiry, despite the Inspector supporting the scheme, because the evidence did not establish the quantitative retail need sought by national policy at the time.

The High Court had quashed that refusal. On 6 May 2005, the Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal and upheld the reasoning behind the refusal. The case is about the lawful interpretation and application of policy, not about an automatic right to extend a supermarket.

The planning dispute and procedural history

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets operated an out-of-town store at Kidlington and applied for an extension. The local planning authority supported permission, but the proposal was called in by the Secretary of State. A planning inquiry followed, and the Inspector recommended that the development should proceed.

At issue was the difference between qualitative need for additional shopping space and quantitative need, meaning a demonstrated shortfall in shopping capacity within the relevant catchment area. Evidence suggested the existing store was trading well above Sainsbury’s national average, something commonly described as overtrading.

The Inspector regarded that overtrading as capable of indicating quantitative need. The Secretary of State acknowledged evidence of qualitative need but was not satisfied that the proposed methodology demonstrated a surplus of spending power over existing local retail capacity. His decision letter therefore refused permission.

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets challenged the refusal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Collins J in the High Court quashed the minister’s decision, finding insufficient or flawed reasoning about overtrading and the evidence. The Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Appeal.

What Sainsbury’s Supermarkets says about planning policy

The Court of Appeal distinguished the meaning of a published planning policy from the judgement involved in applying it to particular facts. Sedley LJ, giving the judgment of the court, said: What a policy means is what it says. The minister could not impose a strained or unconventional interpretation that contradicted the legitimate expectations created by the published policy.

That did not turn policy into an inflexible rule. The court explained that policy was a guide to be applied case by case. A decision-maker could weigh competing considerations and decide whether the available evidence satisfied the policy, provided that exercise was rational and adequately explained.

The judgment also warned against confining a relevant consideration to one category when it could properly bear on more than one. Overtrading evidence potentially spoke to qualitative and quantitative need, so it could not be ruled out of either category simply by labelling it.

Equally, a Secretary of State was not entitled to insist upon one exclusive method of proof. The evidence accepted by the Inspector had to be assessed on its merits. These principles have implications beyond retail development, though they do not remove the need to read the particular wording and context of each policy.

Why the minister’s refusal survived judicial scrutiny

The court accepted that parts of the decision letter could have been expressed more clearly. Nevertheless, read fairly and in the context of the inquiry material, its central distinction was understandable. A shop’s above-average sales did not automatically establish an unmet quantum of retail demand in its own catchment.

The Secretary of State had not ignored overtrading or treated the appellant’s form of evidence as legally inadmissible. He accepted it was relevant to qualitative need but was not persuaded that, without an assessment of current local demand and provision, it demonstrated the quantitative need required by his policy.

The Court of Appeal also considered whether the reasons were legally sufficient. The question was not whether the court would have reached the same planning judgement, but whether the decision was intelligible and free from a material error of law. This was a narrower question than a fresh planning assessment.

After reviewing the decision letter and the Inspector’s report, the court concluded that the refusal could lawfully stand. The Secretary of State’s appeal against the High Court judgment succeeded. The court expressly recognised that Sainsbury’s remained free to submit another planning application with evidence addressing the refusal.

What the judgment does not decide

The Sainsbury’s Supermarkets judgment did not decide that a policy must always be applied mechanically or that a decision-maker may refuse to consider relevant evidence that does not take a conventional form. Nor did it decide that qualitative need can never support retail development. The legal issue concerned the meaning of the policy, the evaluation of evidence and the adequacy of the reasons.

It is also important not to confuse this 2005 Court of Appeal case with the separate 2010 Supreme Court dispute involving Sainsbury's and Wolverhampton City Council about compulsory purchase and unrelated off-site planning benefits. They have different facts, issues and holdings.

Although the retail policy considered in 2005 has since been superseded, the judgment’s distinction between interpreting policy and applying it remains frequently cited. Its principles should be used with care alongside later planning decisions and the current National Planning Policy Framework.

Relevance to current planning appeals

The Court of Appeal’s policy interpretation statement was cited by Inspector D Ellis in the Southend flats appeal decided on 30 October 2026. That later Inspector decision concerned whether local housing mix policies remained consistent with national policy when a proposal would replace a family-sized dwelling with four flats.

The Sainsbury’s Supermarkets judgment does not decide the merits of Southend’s housing policies or any particular flat conversion. It instead provides a general legal caution: decision-makers should work from the actual language of the applicable policy, assess evidence that is genuinely relevant and explain why it leads to the planning outcome.

For further context on applications and policy decisions, see Planning Geek’s town centre sequential test guidance and its explanation of section 288 planning challenges.

Court, citation and complete original judgment

The case is First Secretary of State & Anor v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 520, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), judgment delivered on 6 May 2005 by Sedley LJ on behalf of the court, sitting with Mummery LJ and Lady Justice Smith. The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal.

The complete nine-page judgment has been verified against The National Archives Find Case Law record, including the original official PDF. The original text is reproduced under the Open Justice Licence v2.0, with acknowledgement to The National Archives.

Planning Geek provides the complete judgment in its local Gold-protected case-law download system, separately from this public legal summary. The case note is commentary and should not be mistaken for the court’s full reasoning or legal advice on a particular application.