Link Park Heathrow LLP v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors.

Link Park Heathrow LLP v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors.

The Inspector's decision was unlawful because he either misunderstood or failed to take into account the effect of the proposed planning condition as a solution to the enforceability issue, irrationally ascribed harm to the absence of an employment contribution that was not necessary or reasonable, and misinterpreted 'encroachment' under NPPF para.138(c) to include visual impact from outside the countryside.

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
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Statutory Planning Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Inspector's decision quashed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Planning Permission, Section 106 Agreements, Interpretation of NPPF, Statutory Review, Enforceability of Planning Obligations
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy Planning Permission Section 106 Agreements Interpretation of NPPF Statutory Review Enforceability of Planning Obligations

Case Brief

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 4 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

Statutory Planning Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law regarding the enforceability of the s.106 unilateral undertaking and the proposed planning condition
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's conclusions on employment opportunities were 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 either misunderstood or failed to take into account the effect of the proposed planning condition as a solution to the enforceability issue, irrationally ascribed harm to the absence of an employment contribution that was not necessary or reasonable, and misinterpreted 'encroachment' under NPPF para.138(c) to include visual impact from outside the countryside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Inspector's decision quashed

Orders

  • The Inspector's decision is quashed.