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
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll