Link Park Heathrow LLP v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2023] EWHC 1356 (Admin) (10 May 2023)

Link Park Heathrow LLP v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2023] EWHC 1356 (Admin) (10 May 2023)

The Inspector's decision was unlawful because he misunderstood or failed to properly consider the effect of the proposed planning condition as a solution to the enforceability issue, gave irrational weight to the absence of employment contributions, and misapplied the concept of 'encroachment' under NPPF para.138(c)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1356 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Link Park Heathrow LLP; First Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant/respondent: Buckinghamshire Council; Third Defendant/respondent: Hillingdon Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Planning Statutory Review (s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Appeal From Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Inspector's decision quashed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Planning Permission, Section 106 Agreements, Enforceability of Planning Obligations, Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Employment and Training Contributions, Legal Error in Planning Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Green Belt Policy Planning Permission Section 106 Agreements Enforceability of Planning Obligations Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Link Park Heathrow LLP

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant/respondent

Buckinghamshire Council

Second Defendant/respondent

Hillingdon Borough Council

Third Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Statutory Review (s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Appeal From Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law regarding enforceability of the s.106 undertaking and proposed planning condition
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's reasoning on employment opportunities was irrational or inconsistent
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector misinterpreted 'encroachment' under NPPF para.138(c)

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision was unlawful because he misunderstood or failed to properly consider the effect of the proposed planning condition as a solution to the enforceability issue, gave irrational weight to the absence of employment contributions, and misapplied the concept of 'encroachment' under NPPF para.138(c) by treating visual impact as encroachment where there was no physical incursion into the countryside.

Court Disposition

Inspector's decision quashed

Orders

  • Inspector's decision quashed; matter remitted for reconsideration