The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council: SC 18 Jul 2012

The Council had granted planning permission for four student housing units. The Executive complained that they were too near to a liquified gas storage depot. The Court was now asked whether the impact of any compensation which might be payable on any revocation of the consent was a proper material consideration for the Council in deciding whether or not to revoke or amend the consent.
Held: The appeal failed. Lord Carnwath said: ‘general principles would normally dictate that a public authority should take into account the financial consequences for the public purse of its decisions.’

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Walker, Lord Dyson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath
[2012] UKSC 34, [2012] BLGR 843, [2012] 30 EG 74, [2012] 1 WLR 2264, [2012] 4 All ER 429, [2012] WLR(D) 212, [2012] PTSR 1362, UKSC 2010/0189
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary, SC
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 97, Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/743), European Council Directive 96/82/EC
England and Wales
LeaveHealth and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton County Council CA 30-Jul-2010
Adjournment of costs hearing. Grant of permission to appeal to Supreme Court. . .
At first instanceHealth and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council and Another Admn 5-Nov-2009
The claimant sought to have development stopped on a site which it said was too near a site for the storage of liquid petroleum gas.
Held: Collins J allowed the claim and granted declaratory relief that Wolverhampton had failed to: (i) notify . .
CitedVasiliou v Secretary of State for Transport CA 1991
When considering the revocation or modification of a planning consent, any impact on an interested party is a relevant consideration. A planning permission should not have been granted closing a public road without considering its adverse effect on . .
Appeal fromThe Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council and Victoria Hall Ltd CA 30-Jul-2010
The Council had granted planning pemission for four blocks of student accomodation. The Executive objected that it had not dealt properly with the issue the proximity of a liquified petroleum gas storage depot.
Held: Though there had been some . .
CitedRegina v Westminster City Council, ex parte Monahan CA 1989
The Royal Opera House sought permission and listed building consents to carry out a re-development, extending and modernising the House raising it to international standards, and to develop the surrounding area consistently with that project. Parts . .
CitedAlnwick District Council v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions and others Admn 4-Aug-1999
The Council had given planning consent for a superstore, not appreciating the proposed size, which would contravene national planning policy. In the face of the council’s objections, the Secretary of State revoked the permission. The substantial . .
CitedUsk Valley Conservation Group and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Brecon Beacons National Park and Others Admn 27-Jan-2010
The claimants challenged the validity of a planning permission allowing the transfer of a camping site permission out of a flood zone.
Held: Ouseley J considered whether the cost of compensation on the amendment of a permission was a material . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Local Government

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.462945