Wright, 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 contributing funds locally, and that such was not capable of being a relevant matter.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The community benefits promised by Resilient Severndale did not satisfy the Newbury criteria and hence did not qualify as a material consideration within the meaning of that term in section 70(2) of the 1990 Act and section 38(6) of the 2004 Act.


Lady Hale, President, Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Thomas


[2019] UKSC 53, [2020] JPL 646, [2019] WLR(D) 649, [2019] 1 WLR 6562, [2020] 2 All ER 1, [2020] 1 P and CR 14, UKSC 2018/0007


Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Jul 22 am Video, SC 2019 Jul 22 pm Video, SC 2019 Jul 23 pm video


Town and Country Planning Act 1990 70(2), Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 38(6)


England and Wales


At AdmnWright, Regina (on The Application of) v Forest of Dean District Council and Another Admn 9-Jun-2016
The court was asked whether or not an element of the package of socio-economic benefits associated with a wind turbine development, in the form of a local community donation based on turnover generated by the wind turbine, amounts to a material . .
Appeal fromWright, Regina (on The Application of) v Forest of Dean District Council Resilient Energy Serverndale Ltd CA 14-Dec-2017
Permission for the change of use of land to allow erection of a wind turbine had been quashed on the basis that the LA had taken account of an irrelevant matter, namely the proposed financial contributions from the development to the local . .
CitedNewbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1981
The grant of a temporary planning permission did not operate to cancel an existing established use. A planning condition requiring removal of hangars was invalid because it did not fairly or reasonably relate to the permitted development. The grant . .
CitedWestminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
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 . .
CitedTesco 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 . .
CitedPyx Granite Co Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1958
Pyx Granite had the right to quarry in two areas of the Malvern Hills. The company required permission to break fresh surface on one of the sites.
Held: Conditions attached to the planning permission relating to such matters as the times when . .
CitedFawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council HL 1960
A grant of planning permission was subject to an agricultural occupancy condition: ‘The occupation of the houses shall be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture as defined by section 119(1) of . .
CitedEast Barnet Urban District Council v British Transport Commission CA 1962
Lord Parker CJ said that when considering whether there has been a change of use of land ‘what is really to be considered is the character of the use of the land, not the particular purpose of a particular occupier.’ . .
CitedAberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority v Elsick Development Company Limited SC 25-Oct-2017
The court was asked whether, anticipating substantial growth, a local authority had power to attach to permissions for development conditions intended to recover sums for pooled fund for infrastructure development.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
CitedMixnams Properties Ltd v Chertsey Urban District Council HL 1965
The local authority was not entitled under the 1960 Act to lay down conditions relating to the licensee’s powers of letting or licensing caravan spaces to its customers. The freedom to contract is a fundamental right, and that if Parliament intends . .
CitedCopeland, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets Admn 11-Jun-2010
The authority had to consider whether to grant planning permission for a fast-food outlet near a school, which was said to conflict with government policy on healthy eating for children. The authority proceeded on the footing that this was not . .
CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others CA 25-May-1994
Three companies competed for permission to build a retail food superstore in Witney. The inspector recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the SSE set aside the inspector’s decision in favour of the local authority’s preference. Tesco sought a declaration . .
CitedCity of Bradford Metropolitan Councils v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1986
Lloyd LJ said that it was axiomatic that planning permission cannot be bought or sold . .
CitedRegina v Hillingdon London Borough Council, Ex parte Royco Homes Ltd 1974
A planning condition imposed solely for some other purpose or purposes, such as furtherance of the housing policy of the local authority, will not be valid as a planning condition.
As to the availability of judicial review or certiorari, Lord . .
CitedMitchell v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1995
The developer applied for planning permission to convert a building from use for multiple occupation by way of bedsitting rooms to a small number of self-contained flats. There was a draft development plan of the local planning authority which set . .
CitedVerdin (T/A The Darnhall Estate) v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 10-Aug-2017
The case concerned a challenge to a decision of the Secretary of State refusing planning permission for residential development. The claimant was successful on a number of grounds, including that the Secretary of State had wrongly rejected, without . .
CitedWelcome Break Group Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Stroud District Council and Another Admn 3-Feb-2012
The case concerned the grant of planning permission to develop land as a motorway service area upon condition of the acceptance of obligations by the developer and site owner in an agreement made under section 106 of the 1990 Act which included that . .
CitedWorking Title Films Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 22-Jul-2016
Challenge by a neighbouring occupier (WTF) to a grant of planning permission by the Defendant WCC to the Interested Party MSR for ‘the erection of a building including excavation works to provide three basement storeys and six above ground storeys . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.644386