Tesco had challenged the secretary of state's findings, which followed a decision by the local council to give the go-ahead and a recommendation by his own inspector that the scheme should be allowed subject to certain conditions.
However, the secretary of state, in dismissing the application for consent, took the view Tesco should have given greater consideration to the availability of a site which could take a smaller store in or close to an existing centre.
He considered that the proposed development would not result in any reduction in the number of car journeys that shoppers would have to make.
Tesco argued that the secretary of state, among other things, failed adequately or at all to state his conclusions on the need for the development in terms of scale and location or his reasons for rejecting Tesco's submission that the application complied with PPG6 ad PPG13 regarding the issue of car use.
It also claimed that he failed to state his reasons adequately when he found that the application would not cut the number of car journeys by shoppers.
The judge said that some of the secretary of state's reasoning had been 'a little ragged and lacking in precision' but, dismissing Tesco's challenge, he said that overall there had been a sufficiently reasoned and rational basis for his findings.
Strand News Service