A company wanted to build a data center in a protected area. The government official said no. The court said the official made mistakes in their reasoning, so the court overturned the decision. The company might get to build their data center now.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against Inspector's decision (13 December 2022) to refuse planning permission for a new data centre in the Green Belt.
- •Applicant: Link Park Heathrow LLP (LP), freeholder of the site (partly in Hillingdon, mainly Buckinghamshire).
- •Defendants: Secretary of State, Buckinghamshire Council, Hillingdon Borough Council.
- •Site partly leasehold; lessees not party to the s.106 Undertaking.
- •Three grounds of challenge: inconsistent/irrational employment conclusions; error in law regarding the effect of a proposed condition; misinterpretation of NPPF para.138(c).
- •Proposed solution: 'Arsenal' planning condition to ensure compliance before development commences.
- •Inspector concluded that other considerations did not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harms.
Legal Principles
Principles applicable to a planning statutory review under s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Secretary of State’s skeleton argument, para.7
Meaning of 'encroachment' in NPPF para.138(c)
Case law analysis of Turner, Samuel Smith, Euro Garages, Summers Poultry
Use of planning conditions
PPG Use of Planning Conditions, para.010
Outcomes
Inspector's decision quashed.
Inspector erred in law by misunderstanding the effect of the proposed 'Arsenal' condition (Ground 2), and irrationally assessed the employment opportunities (Ground 1), and misinterpreted 'encroachment' in NPPF para.138(c) (Ground 3).