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

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

The Secretary of State did not err in law in his reasoning on the inevitability of Green Belt harm, the interpretation of CP2, or the assessment of openness. Even if visual impact should have been considered in assessing openness, the outcome would inevitably have been the same given the scale of harm found and the policy context. The claim is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Goodman Logistics Developments (UK) Limited; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 2nd Defendant: Slough Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Statutory Planning Appeal (section 288 TCPA 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, National Policy Statement for National Networks (nps), Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (srfi), Development Plan Interpretation, Section 288 Challenge, Openness of Green Belt, Very Special Circumstances, Statutory Review
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy National Policy Statement for National Networks (nps) Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (srfi) Development Plan Interpretation Section 288 Challenge Openness of Green Belt +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goodman Logistics Developments (UK) Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

1st Defendant

Slough Borough Council

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Planning Appeal (section 288 TCPA 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State failed to give adequate reasons or misunderstood the claimant's case regarding the inevitability of Green Belt harm for SRFI need (Ground 1)
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State misinterpreted and misapplied Core Policy 2 (CP2) of the Slough Core Strategy (Ground 2)
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State misapplied Green Belt policy on openness by excluding visual impact as a relevant consideration (Ground 3)

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State did not err in law in his reasoning on the inevitability of Green Belt harm, the interpretation of CP2, or the assessment of openness. Even if visual impact should have been considered in assessing openness, the outcome would inevitably have been the same given the scale of harm found and the policy context. The claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The challenge to the Secretary of State's decision is dismissed.