Spirerose: hope value and planning permission
Transport for London v Spirerose Limited [2009] UKHL 44 concerns compensation for land which had a good prospect of obtaining planning permission, but no permission authorising the valuable redevelopment being considered.
The House of Lords held that probability could not simply be promoted to certainty. Without an applicable statutory assumption, the uncertainty had to be reflected in the valuation.
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
- [2009] UKHL 44
- Court
- House of Lords
- Judgment date
- 30th July 2009
- Judge
- Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and Lord Collins of Mapesbury
The printing works and the railway extension
Spirerose owned a printing works in Shoreditch which was acquired for the East London Line extension. Its redevelopment potential had improved as planning policy changed.
The Lands Tribunal found a good prospect of permission for mixed commercial and residential redevelopment. It valued the land at £608,000 if permission was assumed, but £400,000 on a hope-value basis. Existing-use value was lower still.
No valid certificate of appropriate alternative development or other applicable statutory assumption entitled the owner to have that permission treated as granted. Nevertheless, the tribunal and Court of Appeal adopted the higher figure.
A finding of probability is not a granted permission
The House of Lords rejected that approach. The civil standard used to decide a disputed historical fact was not a rule requiring every probable future planning outcome to be valued as certain.
An open-market buyer would distinguish a site with permission from one with a good chance of obtaining it. The latter may have substantial development value, but still involves risk, delay and uncertainty.
The decision did not restrict compensation to existing-use value. It required the development prospect to be valued as the prospect it actually was.
The court could not invent another statutory assumption
The judges also rejected reliance on the Pointe Gourde principle to fill a perceived unfairness by adding a new assumption of permission.
That principle assists interpretation of the compensation legislation and the treatment of value attributable to the acquisition scheme. It is not a freestanding power to rewrite the statutory code.
TfL’s appeal was allowed and the £400,000 hope-value assessment was adopted.
Read the later statutory context as well
Spirerose applied the compensation provisions governing its particular acquisition. It should not be used to ignore a statutory assumption which does apply to a different case.
The later Supreme Court judgment in Curzon Park explains the distinction between ordinary hope value and the stronger assumptions for appropriate alternative development under the regime considered there.
The practical starting point is therefore the correct statutory code and valuation date, followed by evidence of the real planning prospects. A general appeal to fairness does not replace that exercise.
Read the Spirerose judgment
The complete House of Lords judgment is available to Gold Members.
Spirerose Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026