R (Mansfield District Council) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2018] EWHC 1794 (Admin)
The point in plain English: When deciding whether an old section 106 obligation still serves a useful purpose, the decision-maker must identify what the obligation actually does and the purpose it continues to serve. The statutory wording is not limited on its face to a narrowly defined “planning purpose”.
What happened
The obligation required a developer to pay towards highway works which the council had already constructed to facilitate development of the site. Years later, an application was made under section 106A to discharge the remaining financial obligation.
An Inspector allowed the appeal, reasoning that the contribution was not necessary for the later residential development and no longer served a useful purpose.
What the High Court decided
Garnham J held that the Inspector had failed to identify the real purpose of the obligation: recovering public money spent by the authority on the road which had enabled the site to be developed. That remained a useful purpose.
The judge preferred the view that section 106A itself asks whether an obligation serves a useful purpose, without automatically reading in a narrower requirement that the purpose must separately qualify as a “planning purpose”. He added that, even if such a qualification were required, the purpose here would satisfy it.
The Inspector’s decision was quashed.
Why Mansfield matters
Section 106A has its own statutory test. A modification or discharge application is not simply a rerun of the original planning merits. The current obligation, its purpose and whether that purpose remains useful all need to be identified carefully.
See our guide to modifying or discharging an old section 106 agreement.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.