R v East Sussex County Council, ex p Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd [2002] UKHL 8
Reprotech is a leading House of Lords authority on the formal nature of planning permissions and lawful-use determinations, and on the limited role of estoppel in public planning law.
The case arose after informal advice and a committee resolution were relied upon as establishing that electricity generation at a waste-treatment plant did not require further planning permission.
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
- [2002] UKHL 8
- Court
- House of Lords
- Judgment date
- 28th February 2002
- Judge
- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Scott of Foscote
A statutory planning determination is a formal legal act
Lord Hoffmann emphasised that a determination under the planning legislation was a juridical act carrying statutory consequences. Whether such an act had occurred therefore depended on the requirements of the statutory scheme, not simply on whether the authority appeared informally to have reached a view.
The House identified important procedural features: an application, public registration, the opportunity for other authorities and the Secretary of State to become involved, and formal communication of the determination.
Officer advice was not a binding planning determination
The county planning officer’s opinion that electricity generation would not amount to a material change of use was not itself a statutory determination. Anyone requiring a binding answer had the formal statutory route available.
Likewise, the committee’s conditional resolution to vary a planning condition was not transformed into a binding lawful-use determination merely because its reasoning assumed that electricity generation was permissible.
Private-law estoppel should not be imported into planning control
The House rejected the attempt to use private-law estoppel to create planning rights outside the statutory system. Lord Hoffmann said that public law had absorbed what was useful from the underlying values of estoppel and should stand on its own feet.
A representation by a public authority may in an appropriate case found a public-law legitimate expectation, but it cannot simply be used to bypass statutory procedures designed to protect the wider public interest.
Section 73 does not turn an informal assumption into a lawful-use decision
The case also arose from an application to vary a condition. The fact that the authority was prepared in principle to alter that condition did not amount to a separate statutory ruling on whether another use was lawful.
Why Reprotech matters
Reprotech remains particularly important for anyone tempted to rely on an email, pre-application opinion, committee discussion or informal officer assurance as though it were the legal equivalent of planning permission or a lawful development certificate.
Planning rights created by statute normally need the statutory procedure to be followed. Informal advice can be useful, but it is not a substitute for the formal legal decision where certainty matters.
Read the full Reprotech judgment
Planning Geek holds the full House of Lords judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open the PDF below.
Reprotech Case Law Page Updated: 11th September 2026