Judge rejects challenge to refusal of permission for rail interchange

A Planning Court judge has rejected a developer’s call for the quashing of the Communities Secretary’s refusal to grant permission for the construction of a strategic rail freight interchange (SRFI).

An SFRI enables freight to be transferred from the railway system to transportation by road and vice versa and provides substantial warehousing space.

The claimant, Goodman Logistics Development (UK), was seeking to create an interchange on a 58.7 hectare site north of the A4 Colnbrook bypass.

Slough Borough Council refused to grant planning permission and Goodman’s appeal to the Secretary of State was dismissed.

The developer then applied under s. 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a quashing order of the minister’s decision.

In Goodman Logistics Developments (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2017] EWHC 947 (Admin) the claimant advanced three grounds of challenge:

1. The National Policy Statement for National Networks had established that there was a "compelling need for an expanded network of SRFIs" "to serve regional, sub-regional and cross-regional markets". The Communities Secretary found that the Colnbrook proposal would contribute to meeting this need and that there was no alternative site capable of fulfilling the same purpose, namely contributing to a network of SRFIs in London and the South East and dealing with the gap in provision on the west side of London. The minister stated that, like the planning inspector, he gave "no weight" to Goodman's argument that it was inevitable that a Green Belt location was essential for meeting that need, because this was a matter he had considered in relation to need and alternative sites. It was submitted that the Communities Secretary failed to give adequate reasons for that conclusion and/or misunderstood Goodman's case on this issue so that he failed to take it into account as a material consideration;
2. The minister failed to interpret correctly and apply CP2 of Slough's Core Strategy in relation to development within the Strategic Gap and the Colne Valley Regional Park and/or failed to give adequate reasoning to explain how he had treated the appeal proposals against that policy;
3. The Communities Secretary had failed to interpret correctly and apply policy in the National Planning Policy Framework concerning the openness of the Green Belt and/or failed to take into account a material consideration in that he treated visual matters as having no relevance to that issue.

Mr Justice Holgate rejected the first two grounds of challenge. On the third ground, the judge was persuaded that in this case the visual impact or perception issue was an ‘obviously relevant’ consideration which ought to have been taken into account by the decision-maker, but was wrongly disregarded because of an error of law.

However, Mr Justice Holgate concluded that it was inevitable that if this factor had been taken into account, the decision would still have been to refuse planning permission for the interchange.