R (Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Forest of Dean District Council [2019] UKSC 53
The point in plain English: A developer cannot make an otherwise irrelevant benefit into a material planning consideration simply by offering it as part of the scheme. Planning permission cannot be bought or sold.
What happened
The application was for a community-scale wind turbine. The developer promised an annual payment to a local community fund, calculated by reference to the turbine’s turnover. The council treated that promised payment as a benefit weighing in favour of granting planning permission and imposed a condition intended to secure the community-benefit structure.
What the Supreme Court decided
Lord Sales held that the payment was not a material planning consideration. It did not serve a planning purpose relating to the character or use of the land and did not fairly and reasonably relate to the development. It was a general community benefit offered as an inducement.
The established Newbury principles remain the legal test. Government or local policy cannot expand the statutory meaning of a material consideration so that an otherwise irrelevant payment becomes relevant.
The planning permission was rightly quashed and the appeals by the developer and council were dismissed.
Why Wright matters
The judgment protects both sides of the planning system. Authorities cannot extract unrelated benefits as the price of permission, and applicants cannot improve the planning balance by offering benefits with no sufficient connection to the development.
Our material considerations guide explains what can and cannot lawfully be taken into account.
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.