header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Town and country planning—Permission for development—Revocation

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
27 July 2012
Issue: 7524 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council [2012] UKSC 34, [2012] All ER (D) 172 (Jul)

Supreme Court, Lord Hope DP, Lord Walker, Lord Dyson, Lord Sumption and Lord Carnwath SCJJ, 18 Jul 2012

In considering under s 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 whether it appears to a local planning authority to be expedient to revoke or modify a permission to develop land, it is open to that local planning authority to have regard to the compensation that it might have to pay under s 107.

Philip Coppel QC and Carine Patry Hoskins (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) for the HSE. Robert Griffiths QC, Estelle Dehon (instructed by Wolverhampton City Council Legal Services) for the authority. James Maurici (instructed by Reed Smith LLP) for the authority.

The defendant was the local planning authority and the hazardous substances authority for the relevant area. The claimant was the Health & Safety Executive (HSE). The interested party was a private company engaged in the provision

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Big tech for small firms
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
NLJ this week: Presumption of capacity reaffirmed
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
NLJ this week: Justice delayed, justice denied
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
NLJ this week: The road ahead for employment rights
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: SLAPPed shut?
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll