Wolverhampton: revocation and planning compensation costs
Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council [2012] UKSC 34 asks whether a council may consider the compensation it would have to pay when deciding whether to revoke or modify an existing planning permission.
The Supreme Court unanimously said that it may. This does not mean that councils can decide ordinary planning applications by choosing whichever outcome is cheapest for their budget.
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.
- Neutral citation
- [2012] UKSC 34
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
- Judgment date
- 18th July 2012
- Judge
- Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lord Dyson, Lord Sumption and Lord Carnwath
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
Student accommodation near a gas installation
The council granted permission for four student-accommodation blocks near a liquefied petroleum gas installation despite the HSE advising against permission on safety grounds.
Procedural failures meant the HSE was not properly notified. By the time the dispute developed, three blocks were well advanced. Attention turned to whether permission for the remaining block should be revoked or another solution adopted.
The Court of Appeal required reconsideration of the council’s refusal to act. The narrower issue reaching the Supreme Court was whether the likely compensation cost was legally relevant to that reconsideration.
The statutory context changes what is relevant
Under section 97, the authority has a discretion whether to revoke or modify a permission and, if so, how. Exercising that power can create a compensation liability.
The court found no reason to exclude that consequence when considering expediency. As a custodian of public funds, the authority normally has to consider whether the cost is proportionate to the public objective and whether another effective option is available.
The expression material considerations is applied in the context of the particular statutory power. It does not require the identical range of considerations to govern both granting an initial permission and deciding whether to undo it.
Cost is not a licence to ignore danger
The court stressed that the weight of cost depends on the circumstances. A serious threat to public safety would be difficult to answer merely by pointing to other demands on a council’s budget.
Costs might instead help distinguish between effective responses, such as preventing further construction, limiting the hazardous activity or relocating it.
The decision remained subject to judicial review. The court also referred to the Secretary of State’s separate power to intervene, with the compensation consequences falling on the authority under the statutory scheme.
The court did not decide which option had to be chosen
The HSE’s appeal on the legal question was dismissed. The Supreme Court did not itself revoke the permission or decide that the council’s preferred safety solution was adequate.
Nor did it impose an inflexible rule requiring an exact compensation figure before any decision could be made. The information reasonably needed, and the precision achievable, depend on the case.
For the different question of what may lawfully influence an original planning application, read Wright and Tesco Stores. Wolverhampton should not be used to bypass those planning-purpose requirements.
Read the Wolverhampton judgment
The complete Supreme Court judgment is available to Gold Members.
Wolverhampton Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026