Regina v Plymouth City Council, ex parte Plymouth and South Devon Co-operative Society: CA 1993

A supermarket operator was seeking to overturn planning consents granted to two rivals, and argued that the section 106 agreements were not material considerations unless they passed the necessity test.
Held: It was sufficient, on the basis of Newbury [1981] A.C. 578, that the obligations offered concerned planning matters and fairly and reasonably related to the proposed development.
Hoffmann LJ discussed paragraph B7 of the SS guidance that planning obligations should only be sought where they were necessary to the granting of permission, he observed that this statement of policy embodied a general principle that planning control should restrict the rights of landowners only so far as might be necessary to prevent harm to community interests: ‘The fact that the principle of necessity is applied as policy by the Secretary of State does not make it an independent ground for judicial review of a planning decision . . to say that a condition or the requirement of a section 106 agreement would have been discharged on appeal by the Secretary of State, because its imposition did not accord with the policies I have quoted, is not at all the same thing as saying that the planning authority would have been acting beyond its statutory powers.’


Hoffmann LJ


(1993) 67 P and CR 78


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSainsbury’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 . .
CitedWright, Regina (on The Application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Another SC 20-Nov-2019
W challenged the grant of planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow erection of a wind turbine, saying that the authority had taken into account a promise by the land owner to run the scheme as a community development . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.414945