Town centre first: what available and suitable mean

The sequential test asks whether a main town centre use proposed outside a centre could be accommodated inside one, and the two words that decide it are available and suitable. A sequential test available suitable argument fails far more often on evidence than on principle, because applicants describe alternative sites in general terms while officers want dates, prices, floor areas and the reason each site was discounted.

The test applies to main town centre uses that are neither in an existing centre nor in accordance with an up to date development plan. Retail, leisure, offices, arts, culture and tourism uses all fall within the definition.

Where the sequential approach comes from

National policy applies a town centre first approach, requiring the sequential test before a main town centre use is permitted out of centre. The order of preference runs from sites in the centre, to edge of centre sites, to out of centre sites, with preference among out of centre locations for those that are accessible and well connected to the centre.

The policy also requires applicants and authorities to be flexible on issues such as format and scale. That flexibility duty is the hinge of most disputes, because it is the mechanism by which an alternative site that does not obviously fit the proposal is brought into the assessment.

A separate impact test applies above a floorspace threshold, set nationally at 2,500 m² of gross floorspace unless the local plan sets a different figure. The two tests are often confused. Passing the sequential test does not answer impact, and a Retail Impact Assessment deals with a different question entirely.

Defining the area of search

Get this agreed before the search starts. An area of search that the authority rejects wastes the whole exercise.

The area should relate to the catchment the proposal would serve. For a neighbourhood convenience store that may be a single centre and its edge. For a large food store it may be several centres across two authorities. Where the catchment crosses a boundary, the neighbouring authority's centres come into scope, and their officers will expect to be consulted.

Write the justification down: the catchment assumption, the centres within it, their position in the plan's retail hierarchy, and the reason any centre has been excluded. Then send it to the case officer as a pre-application question and keep the reply.

Excluding a centre because it is smaller than the proposal is not a reason at the area of search stage. It is a suitability argument, and it belongs later in the assessment where it can be tested.

What available means

Available means the site could be brought forward for the proposed development within a reasonable period. It does not mean vacant today.

A reasonable period is judged against the proposal. For a scheme that will take three years to build out, a site that becomes available in 18 months is available. For an operator with an immediate requirement, the horizon is shorter, though the operator's own timetable is not decisive on its own.

Evidence that stands up covers ownership, the owner's stated intention, any existing occupation and lease expiry, any competing permission, and marketing activity. A letter from an owner confirming the site is not for sale is useful. A note recording that an agent said informally that the owner was not interested is not.

Sites under option, sites with an existing permission that has not started, and sites in fragmented ownership all need specific treatment. Fragmented ownership is a real constraint and also the argument most often asserted without evidence, so name the titles and say what enquiries were made.

What suitable means

Suitable means suitable for the development proposed, judged with the flexibility the policy requires. The Supreme Court considered the point in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council, holding that suitability is assessed by reference to the development the applicant proposes rather than by asking whether the applicant could be made to propose something different, while still requiring genuine flexibility on format and scale.

In practice the assessment turns on measurable attributes. Site area against the footprint required. Servicing, including vehicle size and turning. Parking where the proposal depends on it. Access and highway constraints. Ground conditions, contamination and level changes where they materially affect deliverability.

State each constraint with a number. A site discounted because it is too small should carry the site area, the developable area after constraints, and the minimum area the proposal needs with the reasoning behind that minimum.

The weakest submissions discount every alternative on the same ground, usually that it cannot accommodate the format. That pattern reads as a search designed to fail.

Flexibility, format and disaggregation

Flexibility means the applicant should consider a different format, a smaller floorplate, a different configuration or more than one storey, where those would still deliver the development.

Disaggregation, meaning splitting the proposal across separate sites, is a different matter. National guidance does not require applicants to demonstrate that a proposal could be broken up and delivered on several sites, though a decision maker can consider whether a sequentially preferable site could take the development in a different form.

That distinction gets argued at appeal regularly. The safe approach is to address format flexibility openly, explain the minimum viable configuration and why, and state expressly that disaggregation has been considered and why it would not deliver the proposal.

Where the scheme is mixed use, the test applies to the main town centre use elements. A residential component does not carry the whole scheme past the test, and authorities are alert to proposals structured to look residential-led.

The evidence an officer will accept

Present the search as a table with one row per site and a short narrative for each.

Each row needs the site address and reference, the area, the position relative to the centre boundary as defined in the plan, the ownership position, the availability conclusion with dates, the suitability conclusion with the constraint quantified, and the source of each piece of information with its date.

Include the sites you rejected quickly as well as the ones you examined closely. A search that lists three sites in a town with a dozen vacant units reads as selective, whatever the merits of the three.

Update the search before submission. Availability changes, and an assessment relying on a position 14 months old will be challenged by an objector who has walked the high street more recently. A Sequential Test (Retail) drafted from current data is the document that carries this, and where the economic case forms part of the wider argument an Economic Impact Assessment sits alongside it rather than inside it.

Why the test usually fails

Four patterns account for most refusals on sequential grounds.

The area of search is drawn too tightly, excluding a centre the authority considers part of the catchment. Availability is asserted rather than evidenced, with no ownership enquiries recorded. Flexibility is refused outright, with the proposal's format treated as fixed for commercial reasons the policy does not recognise. And the search is out of date by the time it is determined.

Each of those is avoidable at modest cost. The fifth pattern, where the proposal simply could go in the centre, is not, and recognising it early saves an application fee and six months.

Where the site is designated for employment or another protected use, a second policy test runs alongside this one, and the evidence for that is different again, as our note on vacant building credit and why councils resist it illustrates in a related context. Section 106 obligations and any review mechanism attaching to an approved scheme are a separate negotiation, covered in our piece on overage clauses and review mechanisms in a section 106.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports a main town centre use proposal is likely to need. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.