Competition Law and Competition Concerns in Planning Monopolies

1. Introduction

“Planning monopolies” is not usually a separate legal category in competition statutes. The expression is better understood as describing situations in which planning rules, land-use controls, exclusive development rights, restrictive land agreements, zoning decisions, infrastructure constraints, or control over essential sites leave one undertaking—or a very small group of undertakings—with unusually strong market power.

Competition law becomes relevant where these arrangements do more than simply regulate land development and instead restrict market entry, protect an incumbent from effective competition, facilitate exclusionary conduct, or allow a dominant undertaking to exploit its position.

In the UK context, the principal rules are the Competition Act 1998, particularly Chapter I concerning anti-competitive agreements and Chapter II concerning abuse of dominance. Land agreements themselves are capable of falling within competition law. CMA guidance specifically warns that restrictions concerning the use of land may infringe competition law where they make it harder for competing businesses to enter or operate in a market.

Planning law and competition law therefore perform different but overlapping functions. Planning law determines whether and how land may be developed, while competition law examines whether private or public arrangements surrounding that land improperly distort competition.

2. How a Planning Monopoly Can Arise

A planning-related monopoly can develop in several ways.

First, an undertaking may control virtually all commercially suitable land in a particular geographic market. A competitor may technically be free to enter the market, but without access to suitable sites its entry becomes commercially impossible.

Second, restrictive covenants may prevent land from being used by competing businesses. For example, the owner or tenant of a supermarket site might impose restrictions preventing another supermarket from operating on nearby land.

Third, exclusive development agreements can reserve commercially important areas for one developer or operator.

Fourth, the planning permission process itself can create significant barriers to entry. Where only a small number of sites can obtain permission for a particular activity, ownership or control of those sites can become a major source of market power.

Fifth, infrastructure may create a bottleneck. Access to roads, airports, ports, utilities or other essential facilities can determine whether a new competitor can realistically enter a market.

These circumstances are not automatically unlawful. Competition law normally requires further examination of the agreement, market structure, market power and competitive effects.

3. Restrictive Land Agreements

Land-use restrictions are one of the clearest areas where planning and competition concerns overlap.

A lease, sale agreement or restrictive covenant may state that particular land cannot be used for certain competing businesses. Such restrictions sometimes have legitimate commercial purposes, but they can become problematic where their purpose or effect is to prevent effective competition.

The CMA has specifically warned businesses against land agreements designed to divide territories or customers or make market entry harder for competitors. Restrictions can potentially expose businesses to substantial competition-law consequences, including unenforceability and financial penalties under the applicable competition regime.

The key questions normally include:

• What products or services are affected?
• What is the relevant geographic market?
• How much suitable alternative land exists?
• How long does the restriction last?
• Does the undertaking imposing the restriction possess substantial market power?
• Is there a legitimate and proportionate commercial justification?
• Does the restriction materially prevent new entry?

A restriction covering one insignificant site may have little competitive effect. The same restriction covering the only commercially viable sites in a locality may have much greater significance.

4. Abuse of Dominance

A planning monopoly becomes especially important where the undertaking controlling the relevant land or infrastructure holds a dominant position.

Dominance itself is not prohibited. Competition law generally prohibits the abuse of that dominant position.

Potentially problematic conduct could include refusing access to indispensable infrastructure without objective justification, imposing discriminatory conditions on competitors, tying access to unrelated services, using restrictive covenants to exclude new entrants, or deliberately preventing commercially viable sites from becoming available to rivals.

The analysis is highly dependent on market definition and factual circumstances. A company owning substantial land nationally might not be dominant if competitors have many realistic alternatives. Conversely, ownership of one strategically indispensable site could potentially create considerable market power in a narrowly defined local market.

5. Planning Restrictions as Barriers to Entry

Planning regulation can itself create substantial entry barriers even where no private undertaking has deliberately created them.

Suppose only three sites in a town can legally accommodate large supermarkets. If two are controlled by incumbent supermarket operators and the third is subject to a restrictive covenant, entry by another supermarket may become extremely difficult.

Competition analysis therefore examines realistic entry, rather than merely theoretical entry.

Important factors include the availability of alternative sites, planning approval periods, development costs, infrastructure requirements, environmental restrictions, consumer travel patterns and the duration of contractual restrictions.

The competitive concern becomes stronger where these factors combine to protect existing firms from competitive pressure.

Important Cases and Enforcement Examples

6. Heathrow Airport / Arora – Airport Car-Parking Agreement

A particularly useful UK example is the CMA's investigation involving Heathrow Airport Limited and the Arora Group.

The arrangements concerned a covenant affecting parking at the Sofitel hotel at Heathrow Terminal 5. Under the agreement, the hotel operator was prevented from charging non-hotel guests parking prices below those charged at Heathrow Airport's own car parks.

The CMA concluded that the arrangement infringed Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998. Heathrow and its parent were fined £1.6 million, while the Arora Group received immunity under the leniency programme subject to continued cooperation.

Competition significance

The case demonstrates an important principle for planning and property monopolies:

A restriction contained in a property or land arrangement does not escape competition law merely because it forms part of a lease or property transaction.

Where property rights are used to control the competitive behaviour of another undertaking, ordinary competition-law principles can apply.

7. Tesco – Controlled Land Restrictions

Tesco provides another significant example involving competition and control of commercially important land.

Following investigation, the CMA identified 23 instances of non-compliance with the Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010.

These included three restrictive covenants capable of preventing competing stores from opening near Tesco stores and twenty agreements involving exclusivity extending beyond the permitted period. Tesco subsequently took remedial measures and agreed to strengthen its compliance procedures.

Competition significance

The example illustrates how control over land can operate as a barrier to entry.

Instead of competing solely through price, quality and service, an incumbent could potentially protect its position by restricting the physical locations available to competitors.

Competition intervention can therefore target the structural source of exclusion rather than waiting for higher prices or reduced consumer choice to appear.

8. Waitrose – Restrictive Land Agreements

The CMA subsequently identified seven land agreements involving Waitrose that did not comply with the Controlled Land Order.

The affected arrangements concerned locations including Bromsgrove, Rustington, Swindon, Daventry, Chester, Notting Hill Gate and Market Harborough. Waitrose took steps to correct the identified breaches.

Competition significance

The matter demonstrates that competition concerns may arise from a portfolio of local restrictions.

Competition in retail markets is frequently geographic. Consumers generally shop within realistic travelling distances, meaning that restricting entry at strategically important local sites may materially affect competition even where many competitors operate nationally.

9. Sainsbury's – Land Restrictions

In 2023 the CMA reported 18 breaches of the Controlled Land Order relating to Sainsbury's stores at a range of locations.

The restrictions concerned agreements associated with individual local markets, and Sainsbury's took or continued taking corrective measures.

Competition significance

The example shows why geographic market definition matters greatly in planning-monopoly cases.

A supermarket chain's national market position does not by itself answer whether a particular land restriction harms competition. Authorities may need to examine conditions surrounding the particular store, site or local catchment area.

10. Asda – Restrictions Affecting Local Entry

Also in 2023, the CMA identified 14 instances of non-compliance involving Asda land agreements. The affected locations included sites in Aberdeen, Stenhousemuir, Inverness, Falkirk, Newcastle upon Tyne and Gloucester.

Competition significance

The Asda matter reinforces the distinction between ordinary ownership rights and restrictions capable of protecting an incumbent against competition.

Competition law does not generally prevent a business from acquiring or developing property. The concern arises when control over property is accompanied by arrangements that improperly restrict the ability of competitors to establish themselves.

11. Morrisons – Extensive Controlled-Land Restrictions

In December 2023 the CMA reported that Morrisons had breached the Controlled Land Order 55 times between 2011 and 2020.

The CMA explained that the unlawful arrangements included restrictions preventing land from being used by competing supermarkets or exclusivity arrangements preventing landlords from allowing competing stores to establish themselves for prohibited periods.

Competition significance

This example demonstrates the cumulative danger of restrictive land arrangements.

One covenant may have limited significance. Numerous restrictions spread across commercially valuable locations can produce a wider foreclosure problem by systematically reducing the sites available to competitors.

12. Marks & Spencer – Controlled Land Restrictions

At the same time, the CMA identified 10 breaches involving Marks & Spencer. The affected agreements related to stores at locations including Imperial Wharf, Kingston upon Thames, Harrogate, Glasgow and Leith.

The company took or agreed to take measures addressing the outstanding restrictions.

Competition significance

This provides another illustration of competition authorities examining land arrangements as mechanisms capable of restricting entry.

The important issue is therefore not simply who owns land, but whether contractual restrictions surrounding that land prevent effective competition.

13. Co-op – Large-Scale Land Agreement Compliance

A more recent example concerns Co-operative Group Limited.

In March 2025, the CMA stated that its review had identified 107 occasions of non-compliance with the Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010. Co-op had taken and continued taking steps to correct the identified breaches.

Competition significance

This example shows that competition oversight of restrictive land arrangements remains an active enforcement issue rather than merely a historical concern.

It also demonstrates how remedies imposed following a market investigation can continue controlling future land arrangements where structural barriers to local competition have previously been identified.

14. Main Competition Concerns in Planning Monopolies

Several recurring competition concerns emerge from these authorities and enforcement examples.

Foreclosure of competitors

An incumbent may control sites that competitors require for effective entry. Restrictive covenants or exclusivity provisions can reinforce that position.

Artificial scarcity of commercial sites

Planning restrictions naturally limit where certain businesses may operate. Private restrictions layered on top of those regulatory limitations can reduce available sites even further.

Higher barriers to entry

Potential competitors may face the combined costs of acquiring land, obtaining permission, constructing facilities and overcoming contractual restrictions.

Reduced consumer choice

If fewer competitors can enter a locality, consumers may have fewer alternatives.

Reduced price competition

Protection from entry can reduce competitive pressure on incumbent businesses.

Strategic land accumulation

Competition concerns may arise where land acquisition is used strategically to prevent competitors obtaining commercially essential sites. However, land ownership or “land banking” is not automatically an infringement; evidence of market power, conduct and competitive effects remains important.

Discriminatory access

Where one undertaking controls essential infrastructure connected with development, discriminatory access conditions may place downstream competitors at a disadvantage.

15. Relationship Between Planning Authorities and Competition Law

Planning authorities commonly pursue objectives such as environmental protection, housing supply, infrastructure management, traffic control and sustainable development. Competition authorities pursue a different objective: protecting the competitive process.

Consequently, refusal of planning permission does not automatically constitute a competition-law violation.

The important distinction is between:

legitimate regulatory restriction, imposed pursuant to planning legislation for public-policy objectives,

and

anti-competitive restriction, particularly where commercial undertakings use contractual arrangements, dominance or control over land to exclude competitors.

Competition analysis must therefore respect legitimate planning regulation while identifying situations in which planning scarcity is being commercially exploited to suppress competition.

16. Market Definition in Planning Monopoly Cases

Market definition can be especially important.

Product market

The authority determines which goods or services consumers regard as realistic substitutes.

For example, large supermarkets may face different competitive conditions from convenience stores.

Geographic market

Planning-related markets can be highly local because consumers may only travel limited distances.

Temporal considerations

Planning permission and construction may take years. A site that theoretically becomes available ten years later may provide little competitive constraint today.

This means that competition analysis must consider whether alternatives are realistic, economically viable and available within an appropriate period.

17. Objective Justification and Legitimate Restrictions

Not every planning or land restriction is anti-competitive.

Restrictions can sometimes protect legitimate investments or enable developments that otherwise would not occur. For example, a developer making a substantial investment in a new commercial development may require limited protections to make that investment economically viable.

The competition question is generally whether the restriction goes further than reasonably necessary.

Relevant considerations include its duration, geographic coverage, number of affected sites, market power of the parties, availability of alternative sites and whether less restrictive mechanisms could achieve the same legitimate objective.

The CMA itself acknowledges that there can be valid reasons for restrictions affecting how land is used; the competition assessment depends upon their actual purpose and effect.

18. Remedies

Where planning-related arrangements create competition problems, several forms of intervention may be available depending upon the applicable legal framework.

Authorities may require restrictive covenants to be released, exclusivity clauses to be amended, anti-competitive agreements to cease, access to be provided on non-discriminatory conditions, or compliance procedures to be strengthened.

Structural remedies can sometimes be particularly important because the competition problem may originate in control over land or infrastructure rather than simply day-to-day commercial conduct.

The supermarket enforcement examples demonstrate this approach: affected businesses have been required or expected to correct non-compliant land arrangements rather than merely change pricing behaviour.

19. Practical Competition-Law Test

A useful framework for analysing a suspected planning monopoly is:

Step 1 – Identify the market.
Determine the relevant product/service and geographic area.

Step 2 – Identify the planning constraint.
Determine whether zoning, permission requirements, infrastructure or scarcity limits available locations.

Step 3 – Identify control.
Establish who owns or controls commercially viable sites or infrastructure.

Step 4 – Examine contractual restrictions.
Check leases, restrictive covenants, exclusivity agreements and development agreements.

Step 5 – Determine market power.
Consider whether competitors have realistic alternatives.

Step 6 – Examine exclusionary effects.
Determine whether competitors are actually prevented, delayed or materially disadvantaged in entering the market.

Step 7 – Consider justification.
Assess legitimate planning, investment, environmental or efficiency objectives.

Step 8 – Consider proportionality.
Determine whether a less restrictive arrangement could achieve the legitimate objective.

20. Conclusion

Competition concerns in planning monopolies arise principally where scarce land, planning restrictions, property rights or infrastructure control combine with commercial conduct that prevents effective market entry.

The law does not prohibit monopoly or dominance merely because it exists, nor does it treat ordinary planning regulation as inherently anti-competitive. The central concern is whether agreements or dominant-market conduct improperly restrict the competitive process.

The Heathrow enforcement decision and the Tesco, Waitrose, Sainsbury's, Asda, Morrisons, Marks & Spencer and Co-op controlled-land matters provide practical illustrations. They demonstrate that leases, restrictive covenants, exclusivity provisions and other property arrangements can attract competition scrutiny when they restrict competitors' ability to obtain commercially important locations.

Accordingly, planning and property rights cannot be examined completely separately from competition law. Where control over scarce land becomes control over market access, competition authorities may intervene to preserve opportunities for entry, rivalry and consumer choice.

Competition Law and Competition Concerns in Planning Monopolies

Competition Law and Competition Concerns in Planning Monopolies

1. Introduction

“Planning monopolies” is not usually a separate legal category in competition statutes. The expression is better understood as describing situations in which planning rules, land-use controls, exclusive development rights, restrictive land agreements, zoning decisions, infrastructure constraints, or control over essential sites leave one undertaking—or a very small group of undertakings—with unusually strong market power.

Competition law becomes relevant where these arrangements do more than simply regulate land development and instead restrict market entry, protect an incumbent from effective competition, facilitate exclusionary conduct, or allow a dominant undertaking to exploit its position.

In the UK context, the principal rules are the Competition Act 1998, particularly Chapter I concerning anti-competitive agreements and Chapter II concerning abuse of dominance. Land agreements themselves are capable of falling within competition law. CMA guidance specifically warns that restrictions concerning the use of land may infringe competition law where they make it harder for competing businesses to enter or operate in a market.

Planning law and competition law therefore perform different but overlapping functions. Planning law determines whether and how land may be developed, while competition law examines whether private or public arrangements surrounding that land improperly distort competition.

2. How a Planning Monopoly Can Arise

A planning-related monopoly can develop in several ways.

First, an undertaking may control virtually all commercially suitable land in a particular geographic market. A competitor may technically be free to enter the market, but without access to suitable sites its entry becomes commercially impossible.

Second, restrictive covenants may prevent land from being used by competing businesses. For example, the owner or tenant of a supermarket site might impose restrictions preventing another supermarket from operating on nearby land.

Third, exclusive development agreements can reserve commercially important areas for one developer or operator.

Fourth, the planning permission process itself can create significant barriers to entry. Where only a small number of sites can obtain permission for a particular activity, ownership or control of those sites can become a major source of market power.

Fifth, infrastructure may create a bottleneck. Access to roads, airports, ports, utilities or other essential facilities can determine whether a new competitor can realistically enter a market.

These circumstances are not automatically unlawful. Competition law normally requires further examination of the agreement, market structure, market power and competitive effects.

3. Restrictive Land Agreements

Land-use restrictions are one of the clearest areas where planning and competition concerns overlap.

A lease, sale agreement or restrictive covenant may state that particular land cannot be used for certain competing businesses. Such restrictions sometimes have legitimate commercial purposes, but they can become problematic where their purpose or effect is to prevent effective competition.

The CMA has specifically warned businesses against land agreements designed to divide territories or customers or make market entry harder for competitors. Restrictions can potentially expose businesses to substantial competition-law consequences, including unenforceability and financial penalties under the applicable competition regime.

The key questions normally include:

• What products or services are affected?
• What is the relevant geographic market?
• How much suitable alternative land exists?
• How long does the restriction last?
• Does the undertaking imposing the restriction possess substantial market power?
• Is there a legitimate and proportionate commercial justification?
• Does the restriction materially prevent new entry?

A restriction covering one insignificant site may have little competitive effect. The same restriction covering the only commercially viable sites in a locality may have much greater significance.

4. Abuse of Dominance

A planning monopoly becomes especially important where the undertaking controlling the relevant land or infrastructure holds a dominant position.

Dominance itself is not prohibited. Competition law generally prohibits the abuse of that dominant position.

Potentially problematic conduct could include refusing access to indispensable infrastructure without objective justification, imposing discriminatory conditions on competitors, tying access to unrelated services, using restrictive covenants to exclude new entrants, or deliberately preventing commercially viable sites from becoming available to rivals.

The analysis is highly dependent on market definition and factual circumstances. A company owning substantial land nationally might not be dominant if competitors have many realistic alternatives. Conversely, ownership of one strategically indispensable site could potentially create considerable market power in a narrowly defined local market.

5. Planning Restrictions as Barriers to Entry

Planning regulation can itself create substantial entry barriers even where no private undertaking has deliberately created them.

Suppose only three sites in a town can legally accommodate large supermarkets. If two are controlled by incumbent supermarket operators and the third is subject to a restrictive covenant, entry by another supermarket may become extremely difficult.

Competition analysis therefore examines realistic entry, rather than merely theoretical entry.

Important factors include the availability of alternative sites, planning approval periods, development costs, infrastructure requirements, environmental restrictions, consumer travel patterns and the duration of contractual restrictions.

The competitive concern becomes stronger where these factors combine to protect existing firms from competitive pressure.

Important Cases and Enforcement Examples

6. Heathrow Airport / Arora – Airport Car-Parking Agreement

A particularly useful UK example is the CMA's investigation involving Heathrow Airport Limited and the Arora Group.

The arrangements concerned a covenant affecting parking at the Sofitel hotel at Heathrow Terminal 5. Under the agreement, the hotel operator was prevented from charging non-hotel guests parking prices below those charged at Heathrow Airport's own car parks.

The CMA concluded that the arrangement infringed Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998. Heathrow and its parent were fined £1.6 million, while the Arora Group received immunity under the leniency programme subject to continued cooperation.

Competition significance

The case demonstrates an important principle for planning and property monopolies:

A restriction contained in a property or land arrangement does not escape competition law merely because it forms part of a lease or property transaction.

Where property rights are used to control the competitive behaviour of another undertaking, ordinary competition-law principles can apply.

7. Tesco – Controlled Land Restrictions

Tesco provides another significant example involving competition and control of commercially important land.

Following investigation, the CMA identified 23 instances of non-compliance with the Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010.

These included three restrictive covenants capable of preventing competing stores from opening near Tesco stores and twenty agreements involving exclusivity extending beyond the permitted period. Tesco subsequently took remedial measures and agreed to strengthen its compliance procedures.

Competition significance

The example illustrates how control over land can operate as a barrier to entry.

Instead of competing solely through price, quality and service, an incumbent could potentially protect its position by restricting the physical locations available to competitors.

Competition intervention can therefore target the structural source of exclusion rather than waiting for higher prices or reduced consumer choice to appear.

8. Waitrose – Restrictive Land Agreements

The CMA subsequently identified seven land agreements involving Waitrose that did not comply with the Controlled Land Order.

The affected arrangements concerned locations including Bromsgrove, Rustington, Swindon, Daventry, Chester, Notting Hill Gate and Market Harborough. Waitrose took steps to correct the identified breaches.

Competition significance

The matter demonstrates that competition concerns may arise from a portfolio of local restrictions.

Competition in retail markets is frequently geographic. Consumers generally shop within realistic travelling distances, meaning that restricting entry at strategically important local sites may materially affect competition even where many competitors operate nationally.

9. Sainsbury's – Land Restrictions

In 2023 the CMA reported 18 breaches of the Controlled Land Order relating to Sainsbury's stores at a range of locations.

The restrictions concerned agreements associated with individual local markets, and Sainsbury's took or continued taking corrective measures.

Competition significance

The example shows why geographic market definition matters greatly in planning-monopoly cases.

A supermarket chain's national market position does not by itself answer whether a particular land restriction harms competition. Authorities may need to examine conditions surrounding the particular store, site or local catchment area.

10. Asda – Restrictions Affecting Local Entry

Also in 2023, the CMA identified 14 instances of non-compliance involving Asda land agreements. The affected locations included sites in Aberdeen, Stenhousemuir, Inverness, Falkirk, Newcastle upon Tyne and Gloucester.

Competition significance

The Asda matter reinforces the distinction between ordinary ownership rights and restrictions capable of protecting an incumbent against competition.

Competition law does not generally prevent a business from acquiring or developing property. The concern arises when control over property is accompanied by arrangements that improperly restrict the ability of competitors to establish themselves.

11. Morrisons – Extensive Controlled-Land Restrictions

In December 2023 the CMA reported that Morrisons had breached the Controlled Land Order 55 times between 2011 and 2020.

The CMA explained that the unlawful arrangements included restrictions preventing land from being used by competing supermarkets or exclusivity arrangements preventing landlords from allowing competing stores to establish themselves for prohibited periods.

Competition significance

This example demonstrates the cumulative danger of restrictive land arrangements.

One covenant may have limited significance. Numerous restrictions spread across commercially valuable locations can produce a wider foreclosure problem by systematically reducing the sites available to competitors.

12. Marks & Spencer – Controlled Land Restrictions

At the same time, the CMA identified 10 breaches involving Marks & Spencer. The affected agreements related to stores at locations including Imperial Wharf, Kingston upon Thames, Harrogate, Glasgow and Leith.

The company took or agreed to take measures addressing the outstanding restrictions.

Competition significance

This provides another illustration of competition authorities examining land arrangements as mechanisms capable of restricting entry.

The important issue is therefore not simply who owns land, but whether contractual restrictions surrounding that land prevent effective competition.

13. Co-op – Large-Scale Land Agreement Compliance

A more recent example concerns Co-operative Group Limited.

In March 2025, the CMA stated that its review had identified 107 occasions of non-compliance with the Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010. Co-op had taken and continued taking steps to correct the identified breaches.

Competition significance

This example shows that competition oversight of restrictive land arrangements remains an active enforcement issue rather than merely a historical concern.

It also demonstrates how remedies imposed following a market investigation can continue controlling future land arrangements where structural barriers to local competition have previously been identified.

14. Main Competition Concerns in Planning Monopolies

Several recurring competition concerns emerge from these authorities and enforcement examples.

Foreclosure of competitors

An incumbent may control sites that competitors require for effective entry. Restrictive covenants or exclusivity provisions can reinforce that position.

Artificial scarcity of commercial sites

Planning restrictions naturally limit where certain businesses may operate. Private restrictions layered on top of those regulatory limitations can reduce available sites even further.

Higher barriers to entry

Potential competitors may face the combined costs of acquiring land, obtaining permission, constructing facilities and overcoming contractual restrictions.

Reduced consumer choice

If fewer competitors can enter a locality, consumers may have fewer alternatives.

Reduced price competition

Protection from entry can reduce competitive pressure on incumbent businesses.

Strategic land accumulation

Competition concerns may arise where land acquisition is used strategically to prevent competitors obtaining commercially essential sites. However, land ownership or “land banking” is not automatically an infringement; evidence of market power, conduct and competitive effects remains important.

Discriminatory access

Where one undertaking controls essential infrastructure connected with development, discriminatory access conditions may place downstream competitors at a disadvantage.

15. Relationship Between Planning Authorities and Competition Law

Planning authorities commonly pursue objectives such as environmental protection, housing supply, infrastructure management, traffic control and sustainable development. Competition authorities pursue a different objective: protecting the competitive process.

Consequently, refusal of planning permission does not automatically constitute a competition-law violation.

The important distinction is between:

legitimate regulatory restriction, imposed pursuant to planning legislation for public-policy objectives,

and

anti-competitive restriction, particularly where commercial undertakings use contractual arrangements, dominance or control over land to exclude competitors.

Competition analysis must therefore respect legitimate planning regulation while identifying situations in which planning scarcity is being commercially exploited to suppress competition.

16. Market Definition in Planning Monopoly Cases

Market definition can be especially important.

Product market

The authority determines which goods or services consumers regard as realistic substitutes.

For example, large supermarkets may face different competitive conditions from convenience stores.

Geographic market

Planning-related markets can be highly local because consumers may only travel limited distances.

Temporal considerations

Planning permission and construction may take years. A site that theoretically becomes available ten years later may provide little competitive constraint today.

This means that competition analysis must consider whether alternatives are realistic, economically viable and available within an appropriate period.

17. Objective Justification and Legitimate Restrictions

Not every planning or land restriction is anti-competitive.

Restrictions can sometimes protect legitimate investments or enable developments that otherwise would not occur. For example, a developer making a substantial investment in a new commercial development may require limited protections to make that investment economically viable.

The competition question is generally whether the restriction goes further than reasonably necessary.

Relevant considerations include its duration, geographic coverage, number of affected sites, market power of the parties, availability of alternative sites and whether less restrictive mechanisms could achieve the same legitimate objective.

The CMA itself acknowledges that there can be valid reasons for restrictions affecting how land is used; the competition assessment depends upon their actual purpose and effect.

18. Remedies

Where planning-related arrangements create competition problems, several forms of intervention may be available depending upon the applicable legal framework.

Authorities may require restrictive covenants to be released, exclusivity clauses to be amended, anti-competitive agreements to cease, access to be provided on non-discriminatory conditions, or compliance procedures to be strengthened.

Structural remedies can sometimes be particularly important because the competition problem may originate in control over land or infrastructure rather than simply day-to-day commercial conduct.

The supermarket enforcement examples demonstrate this approach: affected businesses have been required or expected to correct non-compliant land arrangements rather than merely change pricing behaviour.

19. Practical Competition-Law Test

A useful framework for analysing a suspected planning monopoly is:

Step 1 – Identify the market.
Determine the relevant product/service and geographic area.

Step 2 – Identify the planning constraint.
Determine whether zoning, permission requirements, infrastructure or scarcity limits available locations.

Step 3 – Identify control.
Establish who owns or controls commercially viable sites or infrastructure.

Step 4 – Examine contractual restrictions.
Check leases, restrictive covenants, exclusivity agreements and development agreements.

Step 5 – Determine market power.
Consider whether competitors have realistic alternatives.

Step 6 – Examine exclusionary effects.
Determine whether competitors are actually prevented, delayed or materially disadvantaged in entering the market.

Step 7 – Consider justification.
Assess legitimate planning, investment, environmental or efficiency objectives.

Step 8 – Consider proportionality.
Determine whether a less restrictive arrangement could achieve the legitimate objective.

20. Conclusion

Competition concerns in planning monopolies arise principally where scarce land, planning restrictions, property rights or infrastructure control combine with commercial conduct that prevents effective market entry.

The law does not prohibit monopoly or dominance merely because it exists, nor does it treat ordinary planning regulation as inherently anti-competitive. The central concern is whether agreements or dominant-market conduct improperly restrict the competitive process.

The Heathrow enforcement decision and the Tesco, Waitrose, Sainsbury's, Asda, Morrisons, Marks & Spencer and Co-op controlled-land matters provide practical illustrations. They demonstrate that leases, restrictive covenants, exclusivity provisions and other property arrangements can attract competition scrutiny when they restrict competitors' ability to obtain commercially important locations.

Accordingly, planning and property rights cannot be examined completely separately from competition law. Where control over scarce land becomes control over market access, competition authorities may intervene to preserve opportunities for entry, rivalry and consumer choice.