Introduction

The case of Wright, R (on the application of Wright) v. Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd & Anor ([2019] UKSC 53) presents a pivotal examination of what constitutes a material consideration in the context of granting planning permission under UK planning law. The dispute arose when Mr. Wright, a local resident, challenged the decision of the local planning authority (the Council) to grant permission for the erection of a 500kW wind turbine at Severndale Farm, Gloucestershire. The crux of the challenge was whether the proposed community fund donations, as part of the development's benefits, were appropriately considered material under sections 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of both the initial judge and the Court of Appeal, ruling in favor of Mr. Wright. The Court determined that the community fund donations proposed by Resilient Severndale Ltd did not meet the criteria to be considered a material consideration under the relevant planning statutes. Consequently, the permission to develop Severndale Farm was quashed. The judgment reinforced the significance of adhering to established legal criteria – particularly the Newbury criteria – in determining what factors can influence planning decisions, regardless of evolving government policies or local authority preferences.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that have shaped the interpretation of material considerations in planning law:

• Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578
• Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates Plc [1985] AC 661
• Plymouth City Council, Ex p Plymouth and South Devon Co-operative Society Ltd (1993) 67 P & CR 78
• Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759
• R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council [2010] UKSC 20
• Elsick Development Co Ltd v Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority [2017] UKSC 66

These cases collectively affirm that material considerations must be directly related to the development's impact on land use and cannot be influenced by unrelated community benefits or financial incentives.

Legal Reasoning

The Court anchored its reasoning in the established Newbury criteria, which stipulate that for any condition or consideration to be material, it must:

• Serve a genuine planning purpose.
• Fairly and reasonably relate to the development permitted.
• Not be so unreasonable that no reasonable planning authority could have imposed them.

Applying these criteria, the Court found that the community fund donations proposed by Resilient Severndale lacked a sufficient nexus with the land development itself. The funds were seen as general community benefits rather than being directly tied to the planning aspects of the wind turbine project. This separation meant that the donations were attempts to indirectly influence the planning decision, effectively commodifying the permission, which contravenes the fundamental principles established in earlier rulings.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellants' argument to revise the definition of material considerations in light of updated government policies, emphasizing the importance of legal stability and the judiciary's role in interpreting statutes rather than adapting them to policy shifts.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future planning applications involving community benefits. It upholds the rigidity of the Newbury criteria, ensuring that only considerations directly impactful to land use and development can influence planning decisions. This prevents developers from leveraging unrelated community contributions to secure permissions, thereby maintaining the integrity and objectivity of the planning system.

Moreover, the decision underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding against the potential erosion of planning law principles due to changing policy landscapes. It serves as a precedent that reinforces the separation between voluntary community benefits and statutory material considerations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Material Considerations

Material considerations refer to factors that planning authorities must consider when deciding whether to grant or refuse planning permission. These factors must directly relate to the impact of the proposed development on the land use, environment, and community.

Newbury Criteria

The Newbury criteria originated from the case Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment. They serve as a benchmark for determining whether a condition or consideration is material. The criteria ensure that only relevant, planning-related factors influence decisions, preventing the use of unrelated benefits to sway outcomes.

Planning Obligations

Planning obligations are agreements made between developers and local planning authorities to mitigate the impact of a development. These can include financial contributions, provision of public amenities, or other measures that support the sustainable development of the area.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Wright v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd & Anor reaffirms the steadfast application of the Newbury criteria in evaluating material considerations for planning permissions. By dismissing the argument that community fund donations could be treated as material considerations solely based on evolving policy preferences, the Court has strengthened the legal framework that guards against the commodification of planning permissions. This judgment ensures that planning decisions remain grounded in objective, development-related factors, thereby preserving the integrity and fairness of the planning system.

Stakeholders in future planning applications must recognize that while community benefits can play a role in garnering support for developments, they cannot substitute for the necessity of aligning with legally defined material considerations. This distinction is crucial for maintaining a balance between fostering community engagement and upholding the rule of law in urban and rural development.