High Court Overturns Planning Inspector's Decision in Trafford's Favor
Trafford Council has emerged victorious from a significant legal battle after the High Court ruled in its favor regarding a contentious £5.4 million planning disagreement. The dispute centered on the council's refusal to grant planning permission for a major industrial development proposed by Peel NRE on a former landfill site in Carrington.
The Core of the Dispute: Infrastructure Contributions
The council had demanded £5.4 million from the developer to contribute toward local infrastructure projects, particularly the controversial Carrington Relief Road. This 2.7-mile road is designed to link Manchester Road to the Carrington Spur, aiming to alleviate traffic congestion on the A6144. While the council promotes the relief road as a solution for Partington and Carrington's traffic issues, many residents remain skeptical. Concerns include fears that the new route could actually increase traffic volumes, damage local habitats, and elevate flooding risks in surrounding areas.
Peel NRE contested this financial obligation, appealing the council's initial refusal. In July of last year, planning inspector Tim Burnham sided with the developer, stating the monetary contribution was 'not justified' as a planning obligation. He argued that details about the design and infrastructure for New Carrington—a key part of Greater Manchester's development plan until 2039—were insufficiently defined, making it 'extremely difficult' to determine an appropriate contribution.
Trafford's Legal Challenge and High Court Victory
Undeterred, Trafford Council escalated the matter to the High Court, arguing that the planning inspector had misapplied policy from the Greater Manchester Places for Everyone plan. The council contended that the inspector incorrectly concluded no financial contribution was necessary.
At a hearing on February 20 at Manchester Civil Justice Centre, Mr Justice Kimblin ruled in favor of the council. He determined that the absence of a finalized masterplan for New Carrington should not preclude the requirement for proportionate financial contributions. The judge found that the planning inspector had failed to properly address whether any contribution should be made—a crucial element of the Places for Everyone Development Plan—and had limited the assessment of highways impacts too narrowly.
Reactions and Broader Implications
Liz Patel, Labour's executive member for economy and regeneration at Trafford, expressed delight at the ruling. '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 stated. Patel emphasized the council's commitment to ensuring developers contribute fairly rather than 'cherry pick' individual projects.
The decision has reignited debate over the Carrington Relief Road. A Conservative councillor for Manor Ward in Sale criticized the project, calling it 'extraordinarily difficult to justify' at £132 million for just 2.7 miles. He advocated for prioritizing sustainable alternatives like improved public transport and a tram link to Partington instead.
In response, Councillor Patel defended the relief road, noting it includes active travel routes, flood mitigation measures, and crossing points, making it more than just a simple road. She highlighted its potential economic benefits for connecting Partington, creating new homes and jobs, and managing existing contamination from petrochemical works.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service indicates that a future appeal hearing will finalize the exact amount Peel NRE must contribute. This ruling underscores ongoing tensions between development ambitions and infrastructure funding in Greater Manchester's growth areas.
