0
The Planning Court (Holgate J) has given an important judgment in respect of planning contributions sought by NHS Trusts.
Holgate J rejected the Claimant Trust’s challenge to Harborough District Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a substantial mixed use development without requiring a financial contribution towards its hospitals.
The main focus of the decision (ground 3) was whether the Trust had established that there was a funding gap which meant that the added pressure of the development would not be funded in the first year of occupation by new residents of the scheme.
The Planning Court undertook a detailed review of the statutory scheme for funding NHS Trusts (paras 43-75) and held that the Claimant had not established that there would be a funding gap in its representations to the Defendant planning authority. The Planning Court therefore held that Harborough District Council had acted lawfully in granting planning permission without the contribution.
Holgate J went on to make observations in paras 147-151 of the judgment as to how the issue of whether a contribution should be approached if it had been established that there was a funding gap.
The judgment also contains valuable guidance on the materiality of the funding arrangements and the legal basis on which contributions were sought (see paras 31-42).
This is the first time that the High Court has considered the approach to s.106 contributions in respect of NHS services. The decision adds valuable guidance in respect of an issue which has been live at planning appeals in recent years.
The successful Defendant was represented by David Lock KC and Dan Kolinsky KC. David Elvin KC also advised the Defendant at the decision making stage.
The Interested Party was represented by Zack Simons and Isabella Buono.
The Judment may be accessed here.
