Goodman Logistics Developments (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Green Belt policy is not modified by a national need for strategic rail freight interchanges. The fact that meeting a need may require development in the Green Belt does not reduce the harm caused by the particular proposal or add weight independently of the assessment of need and alternatives.

A policy requiring development to be essential to be in a strategic gap may require both the development itself to be essential and the location to be essential. In assessing harm to Green Belt openness, visual as well as spatial impact is relevant. Visual perception may reduce the severity of spatial harm, although the court may decline to quash a decision where the result would inevitably have been the same.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the Secretary of State’s dismissal of its appeal against refusal of permission for a strategic rail freight interchange at Colnbrook.

The proposed development was in the Green Belt, the Strategic Gap between Slough and Greater London, and the Colne Valley Park. The claimant challenged the decision on three grounds: the treatment of need and alternative sites; the interpretation and application of Core Policy 2; and the assessment of the proposal’s effect on Green Belt openness.

1. Ground 1 failed. The National Policy Statement for National Networks did not weaken or modify Green Belt policy. The need for an expanded network of strategic rail freight interchanges was relative, not absolute. The proposition that a Green Belt location was inevitable if the regional need were to be met added nothing to the assessment of need, alternatives and the overall Green Belt balance. The Inspector and Secretary of State had adequately addressed the claimant’s case and had taken the material considerations into account.

2. Ground 2 failed. Core Policy 2 had to be interpreted in its policy context, including the additional restraint applicable to the Strategic Gap. The phrase requiring development to be essential to be in that location was capable of encompassing both the essentiality of the development and the necessity of locating it in the Gap. The policy was satisfied only where the development was essential and could not take place elsewhere. The absence of an alternative site did not by itself establish compliance if the development itself was not essential.

3. Ground 3 established an error of law, but no relief followed. Under Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 466, openness has spatial and visual dimensions. Visual impact and perception could therefore be relevant to reducing the severity of spatial harm. The Inspector and Secretary of State had wrongly treated those matters as legally irrelevant. In this case the visual-perception issue was an obviously material consideration because it formed part of the claimant’s case on the critical issue of openness.

4. The court nevertheless applied the stringent Simplex test. The Secretary of State’s other findings were unaffected, including substantial harm to the purposes of the Green Belt, irreparable harm to the Strategic Gap, and the conclusion that the benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm. The court was satisfied that the refusal would inevitably have been the same. The claim was dismissed.

First-instance statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision was dismissed.