header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 July 2012
Issue: 7524 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Town and country planning—Permission for development—Revocation

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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 of student accommodation. The defendant granted planning permission for four

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
Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS
Read All
Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll