Landlink (Stoke Mandeville) Ltd v The Secretary of State for Transport [2026] UKUT 319 (LC)

Landlink is an Upper Tribunal compensation decision arising from compulsory acquisition for the Stoke Mandeville Bypass associated with HS2.

The planning interest lies in the valuation of retained land where future development had a real prospect of planning permission, but no permission actually existed at the valuation date. The Tribunal had to consider what a prudent purchaser would pay for those uncertain planning prospects rather than value the land as though permission were guaranteed.

This is specialist compulsory purchase material, but it is a useful example of how planning prospects can affect land value without being treated as certainty.

Neutral citation

[2026] UKUT 319 (LC)

Court

Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)

Judgment date

26th August 2026

Tribunal

Martin Rodger KC, Deputy Chamber President and Peter D McCrea OBE FRICS FCIArb

Case number

LC-2025-113

The compulsory purchase prevented a 162-unit retirement scheme

Landlink owned about 27 acres of undeveloped land south of Stoke Mandeville. Part of the site was allocated for housing for older people and the parties agreed that, without the compulsory acquisition, planning permission would have been available in May 2022 for an integrated retirement community containing 162 units.

On 18th May 2022 the Secretary of State permanently acquired 2.7 acres for the new Stoke Mandeville Bypass. The acquisition meant the original 162-unit proposal could no longer be developed.

The parties also agreed that a certificate of appropriate alternative development should be granted for that scheme. The main dispute concerned the amount of compensation payable for the land taken and the reduction in value of the retained land.

The before and after valuations treated planning permission differently

The parties used a before-and-after valuation approach.

For the before value, the statutory assumptions included planning permission for the 162-unit scheme. For the after value, the retained land had to be valued in the real circumstances at 18th May 2022. There was no planning permission for a replacement scheme on that retained land.

That difference is important. The Tribunal was not deciding whether a smaller development definitely would or would not receive permission. It was deciding how the market would value land carrying a prospect of future development in the face of substantial uncertainty.

A smaller scheme had a meaningful prospect of permission

The planning evidence suggested that a smaller scheme of between 77 and 121 units would have been thought to have a 60% to 80% prospect of obtaining planning permission.

But the planning prospects were only part of the valuation problem. A purchaser also had to confront uncertainty about permanent access to the retained land, the location of that access, how long the bypass works would take and when the land could realistically be developed.

The Tribunal therefore looked at the position through the eyes of a prospective purchaser at the valuation date, rather than converting a percentage planning prospect into an assumed planning permission.

Planning prospects did not justify valuing a specific replacement scheme

The Tribunal concluded that the uncertainties would have limited the market largely to speculative purchasers. Such a buyer would pay more than agricultural value because of the longer-term development prospects, but would not bid as though a particular retirement scheme or other defined housing proposal was already available.

Evidence before the Tribunal put agricultural land at about £6,000 to £12,000 per acre and strategic development land at up to £70,000 per acre. The Tribunal adopted a pragmatic figure of £40,000 per acre for the 4.29 acres of Southern Retained Land, producing a value of about £170,000.

This is a useful illustration of the difference between a planning prospect and a planning permission. A credible prospect can add value, but its effect depends on the risks a real purchaser would price into the land.

The final compensation exceeded £10.6 million

The Tribunal assessed the before value at £10.15 million. The after values included £170,000 for the Southern Retained Land and £20,000 for a severed triangle, giving a loss of £9.96 million on the before-and-after calculation.

After adding pre-reference professional fees, basic loss and occupier’s loss, the total compensation was £10,624,971, plus statutory interest.

The figures are specific to this compulsory purchase claim and should not be used as a general valuation formula.

What Landlink says about planning uplift

Landlink does not create a general percentage rule for hope value. Its value for wider planning work is the way the Tribunal approached uncertainty.

A purchaser may pay more for land because there is a realistic prospect of permission, but that uplift is still affected by access, timing, infrastructure, viability, market appetite and the degree of planning risk. A planning prospect is valuable evidence, not the same thing as an implemented permission.

Our guide to planning uplift explains more generally how planning prospects can affect land value.

Key point from Landlink

Where retained land had no planning permission at the valuation date, the Tribunal valued what a prudent purchaser would actually pay for its uncertain development prospects. Even a substantial prospect of permission did not justify treating a particular replacement development as though consent already existed.

Read the Landlink decision

The approved Upper Tribunal decision is held in the Planning Geek case-law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.

Landlink Case Law Page Created: 20th September 2026