D B Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd & Anor v Leeds City Council

An inspector examining a development plan document must interpret national planning policy correctly and give intelligible reasons for treating the plan as sound. A policy safeguarding land for rail or canal freight is unlawful where it can retain protection even after it has been established that there is no reasonable prospect of the protected use. Environmental assessment may be carried out across a coherent suite of development plan documents. A thematic plan need not duplicate consideration of alternative uses, provided those alternatives are properly assessed in an identified accompanying document and the documents are considered cumulatively.

The claim under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 challenged Leeds City Council’s adoption of the Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan. The claim concerned policies MINERALS 13 and 14, which allocated or safeguarded two sites for rail sidings or canal wharfage, and the sustainability appraisal supporting the plan.

The claimants alleged conflict with national planning policy, inadequate evidence and reasons concerning deliverability, and failure to assess reasonable alternative uses. The central issues were whether the inspector lawfully found the modified policies sound and whether the environmental assessment complied with the 2004 Regulations.

1. Ground 1 allowed. MINERALS 14 was irrational and inadequately reasoned because its cumulative criteria could preserve safeguarding even where there was no reasonable prospect of the protected rail or canal use. The inspector failed to address that material issue.
2. The five-year review could not cure the absence of robust evidence supporting protection of canal wharf sites. The inspector’s report showed that paragraph 3.36 and MINERALS 14 were considered together as the modifications said to make MINERALS 13 sound. The approach was inconsistent with NPPF 22 and NPPF 41.
3. MINERALS 13 and paragraph 3.36 were unlawfully adopted insofar as they related to safeguarded wharves and possible wharf use on the Bridgwater Road Site. Because both modifications informed the inspector’s conclusion on soundness, MINERALS 13 and 14 fell together in respect of both claimants’ land.
4. Ground 2 allowed in part. The challenge succeeded insofar as it concerned canal wharves and canal usage. Robust evidence existed for rail freight.
5. Ground 3 dismissed. Regulation 12(2) did not require the NRWLP’s sustainability appraisal to duplicate assessment of housing and other commercial uses where those alternatives were addressed in the concurrently prepared Aire Valley Area Action Plan. A thematic plan may form part of a suite of documents considered cumulatively. The self-evident consequence of not safeguarding the sites did not require separate treatment as a reasonable alternative.
6. The claim was dismissed on Ground 3, allowed on Ground 2 to the stated extent, and allowed on Ground 1 in full. The parties were invited to agree the appropriate relief, failing which relief would be considered at a further hearing.