R (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council [2010] UKSC 20
Sainsbury’s is an important Supreme Court decision on compulsory purchase, material considerations and the limits of planning gain.
The case arose from competing proposals by Sainsbury’s and Tesco for the redevelopment of the Raglan Street site in Wolverhampton. The Council preferred Tesco because Tesco was prepared to redevelop the separate Royal Hospital site. By a 4–3 majority, the Supreme Court held that this unconnected off-site benefit could not lawfully be used to justify compulsory purchase of Sainsbury’s land.
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
- [2010] UKSC 20
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Judgment date
- 12th May 2010
- Judge
- Lord Phillips, Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance and Lord Collins
- Case number
- UKSC 2009/0077
The compulsory purchase power had to be used for its statutory purpose
The Council proposed to use its compulsory purchase powers under section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to acquire Sainsbury’s interests in the Raglan Street site so that Tesco could carry out its competing redevelopment scheme.
Tesco also owned the separate Royal Hospital site, around 850 metres away. It offered to redevelop that site if it secured the Raglan Street scheme. The Council treated that additional regeneration benefit as decisive.
The majority held that compulsory purchase powers cannot be used to pursue a collateral objective, however desirable that objective may be. Because compulsory acquisition is a serious interference with private property rights, the statutory power must be applied strictly.
There must be a real connection between the benefit and the development
The Royal Hospital benefit was not generated by, or sufficiently connected with, the Raglan Street development. The connection was simply that Tesco promised to undertake one development if it was allowed to carry out the other.
That was not enough. The majority held that there must be a real, rather than fanciful or remote, connection between an off-site benefit and the development for which compulsory purchase is proposed.
The fact that a developer chooses commercially to fund one project from another does not, by itself, create the necessary planning connection.
The case also restates the law on material considerations
Although this was principally a compulsory purchase case, the Supreme Court drew heavily on planning law.
The judgment confirms that whether something is a material consideration is a question of law. The weight to be given to a material consideration is for the decision-maker, subject to ordinary public-law controls.
It also confirms that an offered planning obligation which has nothing to do with the proposed development, apart from being offered by the developer, is not a material consideration. There must be more than a de minimis connection.
Planning permission cannot simply be bought with unrelated benefits
The Court revisited the familiar line of authority including Pyx Granite, Newbury, Monahan and Tesco Stores.
The principle is not that every off-site benefit is irrelevant. Off-site works, payments or obligations can be material where they are genuinely connected with the development. But an entirely unrelated benefit cannot be used simply because it makes one developer’s proposal more attractive to the authority.
That distinction is especially important in compulsory purchase because the authority is not merely deciding whether development should be permitted; it is deciding whether one person’s land should be taken against their will.
Why Sainsbury’s matters
The case is useful well beyond compulsory purchase. It provides a clear Supreme Court statement about the relationship required between a development and an offered planning benefit.
For planning obligations and other benefits, the practical question is whether the benefit has a genuine planning connection with the development. For compulsory purchase, the court applies that principle particularly strictly because proprietary rights are being overridden.
It also provides helpful confirmation of the enduring planning-condition principle from Pyx Granite: conditions must pursue a proper planning purpose and fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development.
Read the full Sainsbury’s judgment
Planning Geek holds the Supreme Court judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open the PDF below.
Sainsbury’s Case Law Page Updated: 11th September 2026