Lloyd LJ said that it has usually been regarded as axiomatic that planning consent cannot be bought or sold. Conditions requiring off-site roadway benefits were unreasonable and it was suggested that it would make no difference if they were included in a section 106 agreement.
The developer’s agreement is a significant factor (albeit not automatically controlling) in determining the reasonableness issue, but the mere agreement of the parties does not make a ‘manifestly unreasonable’ condition permissible: ‘The fact that the applicant has suggested a condition or consented to its terms is, of course, likely to be powerful evidence that the condition is not unreasonable on the facts, since, as in the case of any commercial transaction, the parties are usually the best judges of what is reasonable. So I do not think there is likely to be any great rush of cases in which the developer obtains planning permission by consenting to a condition, and then appeals successfully against the imposition of the condition to the Secretary of State on the grounds that it is manifestly unreasonable. A successful appeal in such circumstances is likely to be rare.’
(1986) 53 P and CR 55,  1 EGLR 199
England and Wales
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 11-May-1995
Three companies had applied for permission to build retail food superstores in Witney. The Inspector had recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the respondent rejected it. Tesco’s had offered to provide by way of a section 106 agreement full funding for . .
Cited – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Another SC 12-May-2010
The appellant’s land was to be taken under compulsory purchase by the Council who wished to use it to assist Tesco in the construction of a new supermarket. Tesco promised to help fund restoration of a local listed building. Sainsbury objected an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.374714