Pilkington v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others [1973] 1 WLR 1527
Pilkington inconsistent permissions is the classic authority behind the principle that implementing one planning permission can make an earlier permission incapable of further implementation where the two schemes are physically inconsistent.
The case concerned overlapping permissions affecting the same land. Once a later permission for a bungalow had been implemented, the earlier permission could no longer be completed in accordance with its approved scheme.
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
- [1973] 1 WLR 1527
- Court
- High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court
- Judgment date
- 19th October 1973
- Judge
- Lord Widgery CJ, Mr Justice Bridge and Mr Justice May
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.
What Pilkington decided
The land was affected by more than one planning permission. The permissions were not capable of being fully implemented together because the later bungalow development physically conflicted with part of the earlier scheme.
The later permission was implemented. The court held that the earlier permission could not thereafter be relied upon to carry out development which had become physically incompatible with what was already lawfully built.
The planning system can contain overlapping permissions
Granting a new permission does not normally cancel an earlier permission simply because both relate to the same land.
Each permission exists according to its own terms. The difficulty arises when development carried out under one consent makes it physically impossible to complete another consent in accordance with its approved scheme.
Pilkington is therefore concerned with the practical legal consequences of implementation, not an automatic rule that the newest permission formally revokes everything before it.
Physical inconsistency is the key idea
The important question is whether the remaining development authorised by the earlier permission can still be carried out as that permission requires.
If the later development occupies land, changes structures or otherwise creates a physical state of affairs which makes that impossible, the earlier consent may cease to be capable of further implementation.
That is the proposition which became known as the Pilkington principle.
Later case law has refined the principle
Pilkington is historically important, but it should not be treated as the complete modern law on overlapping planning permissions.
Later authorities, most importantly the Supreme Court’s decision in Hillside Parks, have examined how inconsistent permissions operate on multi-phase and overlapping developments in much greater detail.
The enduring point from Pilkington is that lawful implementation of one scheme can have consequences for whether another permission remains capable of being completed.
This is different from a permission expiring through time
An earlier permission might have been commenced within its statutory time limit and therefore remain extant in the ordinary sense, yet later development can still make its completion impossible.
That is a different problem from failing to make a material start before a permission expires.
Planning Geek’s guide to extant planning permission explains commencement and older consents.
Why Pilkington still matters
The case remains useful when landowners have several permissions on the same site and want to mix elements from different schemes.
Before implementing a later consent, it is worth asking whether the physical works will preserve or destroy the practical ability to complete an earlier permission. The answer can affect development value, fallback arguments and future variations.
Read the Pilkington case report
The reported judgment held by Planning Geek is available in the case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Pilkington Inconsistent Permissions Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026