Judge sides with Trafford over Peel on Carrington industrial dispute
A High Court justice has overturned the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to grant planning permission for Peel NRE’s 167,000 sq ft logistics project, saying that the council was justified in rejecting the application due to a lack of financial contribution to the Carrington Relief Road.
Trafford Council had sought £5.4m from Peel NRE for the £130m Carrington Relief Road and other infrastructure as part of the requirements for granting planning permission for the scheme. Peel had said that £5.4m was too much. Trafford had subsequently refused the application.
The Planning Inspectorate had agreed with Peel NRE, saying that the amount requested was “not justified” in a verdict handed down last summer.
The £5.4m figure had come from a formula Trafford Council is using to calculate how much developers should contribute to the relief road, which will unlock the New Carrington area for development. This formula seeks £32.21/sq ft of gross floorspace for employment projects.
In his decision, the inspector Tim Burnham had said that the formula “was not subject to detailed costing and viability sensitivity testing [or] public consultation”.
However, Justice Kimblin ruled on Friday that there was a flaw in the inspector’s ruling. The inspector, Kimblin said, had not addressed in his report whether any financial contribution should be made.
The justice also found that the inspector failed to look at the broader context for the project’s surroundings – namely its location within New Carrington. While a masterplan for the area is in development, New Carrington is allocated for up to 5,000 homes and 3.8m sq ft of industrial in Places for Everyone, the joint spatial framework for Greater Manchester.
In delivering his decision on Friday, the justice refused leave to appeal – meaning that his verdict is final.
Trafford Council’s executive member for economy and regeneration, Cllr Liz Patel, welcomed the news.
“As an authority, we are keen to see growth and development in Trafford but it should be accompanied by suitable community facilities and infrastructure,” she said.
“Our concern has always been to ensure that developers pay proportionately for new infrastructure, rather than seeking to ‘cherry pick’ for individual developments,” Patel continued.
“We will only secure the growth and well-planned new communities that we all need if they are accompanied by the right transport and other supporting facilities.”
Patel leaned into how Places for Everyone justifies the council’s request for funding for the relief road.
“The Places for Everyone Plan envisaged that different sites would contribute collectively to future development needs – to the benefit of all,” she said.
“I hope this decision will provide a fresh means of working together with landowners, developers and communities to make sure the right homes, business space, and infrastructure are built.”
Peel NRE head Kieran Tames said the group was “disappointed” in the decision, which puts the delivery of the logistics scheme in question.
“We will wait for confirmation of the redetermination process from the Planning Inspectorate and continue to work with Trafford Council and other stakeholders as the process moves forward,” he said.
You can review Peel NRE’s application by searching 107456/OUT/22 on Trafford Council’s planning portal.
The high court decision may have impact on more than just the Peel NRE case. BlackRock UK Property Fund had faced a similar issue with Trafford regarding its application to build the 450,000 sq ft second phase of Voltage Park.
The council had sought £14.6m in infrastructure contributions from the developer and then rejected the application when BlackRock refused to pay. The Planning Inspectorate overturned that decision at the start of this year.
Related Articles
Analysis - Commentary
Making room for placemaking in industrial schemes
Industrial doesn’t have to mean big grey sheds that sit on the edge of town. With proper placemaking we can deliver commercially viable schemes that are celebrated hubs of employment, writes Alan Lamb of AEW Architects.
> “As an authority, we are keen to see growth and development in Trafford but it should be accompanied by suitable community facilities and infrastructure,” she said.”
Considering Trafford aren’t bringing any new bus services, aren’t looking to restore the train line to Partington, aren’t interested in protecting the older roads as busways, and are looking to build more car-centric housing, this is a pretty disingenuous statement.
The council just want more economic development in this area. More money. That’s it.
By Flixton resident
Very important that big developers like Peel contribute to the roads and infrastructure that their developments will use for decades. Maintaining and upgrading the roads is huge. As are the profits that landowners recurring achieve. Pay……or find somewhere else to develop!!!!
By Rhys Harris
£5.4m should be pocket change for Peel.
By Anonymous
There isn’t any reason for the Carrington Relief Road.The industry levels in Carrington no longer demands this
By Peter Frys
If I’m reading this correctly, the High Court threw out the Inspector’s decision for reasons other than the dispute over whether the requested contribution amount was justified? This doesn’t really help matters.
By Anonymous
I guess New Carrington isn’t going to progress with excessive infrastructure demands
By TJL
Who brought the action in the high court which got the Planning Inspectorates decision reversed? Was it the council? If so why not do the same re the Blackrock decision which has deprived the council of even more funds for infrastructure?
By Anonymous