Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc [1985] AC 661
The point in plain English: Planning is concerned with the character of the use of land, not simply with protecting a particular business or occupier. Personal circumstances can still be relevant exceptionally, but they are not a substitute for a genuine planning purpose.
What the House of Lords decided
Westminster’s district plan sought to protect industrial activities with important links to central London. The challenge was that this was really protection of particular occupiers rather than land-use planning.
The House rejected that challenge. The policy had a genuine planning purpose because it was directed to maintaining industrial uses important to the character, vitality and functioning of Westminster. The fact that existing occupiers would benefit was a consequence, not the purpose.
The House also held that policy proposals which statute required to be in the development plan could not simply be hidden in non-statutory guidance, thereby avoiding the plan-making process.
Why it still matters
The statutory development-plan system has changed since 1984, but the distinction between a planning purpose and an ulterior purpose remains fundamental. See Planning Geek’s guide to material considerations.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.