Evidence for a retail sequential test that survives scrutiny

A sequential test fails at appeal for one of three reasons: the area of search was drawn too tightly, the applicant refused to show flexibility on format, or the reasons for discounting each site were asserted rather than evidenced. Retail sequential test evidence is a documentary exercise before it is an argument, and the document that survives scrutiny reads like a site by site audit with dates, plans and correspondence attached.

The test applies to main town centre uses proposed outside a centre where the development is not in accordance with an up to date development plan. It is a policy test, not an arithmetic one, and the burden sits with the applicant.

Agreeing the area of search

Start by agreeing the catchment with the officer, in writing, before any site assessment is done. An area of search agreed at the outset removes the most common objection at committee.

The area follows the catchment the proposal would serve, usually defined by the centres it would draw trade from rather than by the administrative boundary. A foodstore serving a town and its surrounding villages has a wider search area than a small convenience unit, and a scheme near an authority boundary has to consider centres in the neighbouring district.

Rank the centres in the hierarchy set out in the adopted plan, and work through them in order. The test looks first at sites in centres, then at edge of centre sites, then at out of centre sites that are well connected to a centre.

Identifying sequentially preferable sites

Build the list from published sources rather than from a property agent's availability schedule alone. Site allocations in the local plan, the authority's brownfield register, commercial property listings, vacant units recorded in a town centre health check, and land in public ownership all belong in the search.

Record what you searched and when. An assessment carried out eighteen months before the application will be challenged on currency, and refreshing it before submission costs less than defending stale data.

Sites under construction, sites with an extant permission for another use, and sites in fragmented ownership all need addressing rather than omitting. An objector will find them.

Applying flexibility on format and scale

This is where most sequential tests come undone. National policy expects applicants to demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale, and an applicant who insists on a single floorplate and a particular car parking ratio has not shown it.

Flexibility means testing in earnest whether the operation could work at a different size, over more than one floor, with a different servicing arrangement, or in a different configuration. It does not require the proposal to be broken into pieces and scattered across several sites, and the courts have been clear that disaggregation is not an automatic requirement.

The honest approach is to state the operational requirements that are fixed and explain why, then show that everything else was flexed. A statement that the operator requires a minimum sales area for a viable offer, evidenced by how comparable stores trade, carries more weight than a bare assertion that nothing smaller works.

Operator requirements change over time as well. A format that needed a large surface car park five years ago may now work with fewer spaces, and an assessment relying on an older store specification invites the question.

Suitability, availability and viability

Three tests are applied to each sequentially preferable site, and they are often confused.

Suitability asks whether the site is suitable for the development proposed, judged against the proposal rather than against some notional scheme. The leading authority is the Supreme Court decision in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council, which addressed the meaning of a suitable site in this context and remains the starting point for any argument about it.

Availability asks whether the site is available now or within a reasonable period, which is usually tied to the development horizon of the scheme. Evidence means ownership details, marketing status and correspondence with the owner, not an assumption.

Viability sits behind both. A site that would require abnormal remediation or land assembly costs beyond what the use can support may be discounted, but the figures have to be shown.

The retail sequential test report should set each of these out separately for each site, because an inspector will look for the distinction.

Recording why each site was discounted

Use a table, one row per site, with columns for the reference, address, area, ownership, planning status, and the conclusion against each of the three tests.

Then attach the evidence. Site plans showing the developable area against the proposal's requirement, the agent's particulars or the owner's letter, the constraint that rules it out, and the date on which the position was confirmed. A single sentence saying a site is too small is not evidence; a plan showing the proposal overlaid on the site boundary is.

Where a site was discounted on a judgment rather than a fact, say so plainly. Inspectors respond better to a reasoned judgment openly labelled as one than to a judgment dressed as a finding.

Keep correspondence with landowners and agents in the appendices, redacted where necessary. An email confirming a site is under offer, dated three weeks before submission, settles an argument that would otherwise run through an entire appeal.

Edge of centre and the distance question

The Framework's glossary defines edge of centre by reference to well connected sites within a short walk of the primary shopping area, and it gives an indicative distance for retail proposals. State the edition you are relying on, because the Framework was restructured in August 2026 and readers may hold older copies.

Distance alone does not decide it. A site 200 m from the primary shopping area across a dual carriageway with no crossing is less well connected than one at 350 m along a signed pedestrian route. Walk the route, photograph it, and describe the crossings, gradients, lighting and the desire lines people actually use.

Linked trips are the point behind the policy. If shoppers will not walk between your unit and the centre, the scheme does not support the centre whatever the measured distance says.

Presenting the evidence for scrutiny

Assume the report will be read by an objector's consultant rather than by the case officer alone. That changes how it is written.

Number the sites and keep the numbering consistent across the text, the table and the plans. Date every piece of evidence. Include the sites you considered and rejected early, with the reason, rather than quietly leaving them out. And separate the sequential test from the impact assessment, because they answer different questions and merging them obscures both.

Where the proposal exceeds the impact threshold, whether the national default figure or a lower locally set one, the retail impact assessment runs alongside this work and draws on the same catchment evidence.

One honest caveat: officers and inspectors differ on how much flexibility is enough, and two similar schemes can be decided differently on this point. The defence is a record showing what was tested, not a conclusion asserting that nothing else worked.

Browse all 66 report types and draft the supporting documents on PlanScope, then have the retail evidence reviewed before submission.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.