Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State: Infrastructure Contributions in Strategic Allocations

The case concerned Peel NRE’s application for outline planning permission for industrial, storage and distribution development at Manchester Road, Carrington. The site lay within a strategic allocation in the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2024 (PfE), which seeks to coordinate growth across Greater Manchester. Trafford Council refused permission after Peel declined to make financial contributions towards the infrastructure needed to support the wider allocation, including transport improvements. Peel appealed that refusal.

The Appeal 

Peel argued that no contribution could properly be required because the area‑wide masterplan was still being developed. On that basis, it said any obligation would be speculative and unfair. The planning inspector accepted that argument and allowed the appeal. In doing so, the inspector concluded that the requested contributions were not fairly or reasonably related to Peel’s proposal when assessed in isolation and focused primarily on whether the scheme would give rise to “severe” highway impacts under paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Trafford Council challenged the decision in the High Court. It argued that the inspector had misunderstood the PfE policies, which required proportionate infrastructure contributions from all development within the strategic allocation. The absence of a completed masterplan did not, in Trafford’s view, extinguish that obligation. The Council also contended that the inspector had applied the wrong test by concentrating on severity of impact rather than on policy compliance, and that his reasoning was irrational because he asked what the contribution should be, rather than whether a contribution was required at all.

Mr Justice Kimblin agreed. He quashed the inspector’s decision, finding that it was founded on a fundamental misinterpretation of the development plan. The judge emphasised that the PfE policies anticipated infrastructure being delivered in a coordinated way across the allocation and required developments to make proportionate contributions towards that goal. The inspector’s approach of isolating Peel’s proposal from the wider strategy and treating the absence of a finalised masterplan as determinative, was legally flawed.

Key Takeaways 

• This case confirms that councils can require infrastructure contributions even where a masterplan is still evolving. Decision‑makers must determine what contribution is fair and proportionate based on the adopted development plan, not defer obligations indefinitely.
• It also underlines the need for inspectors to interpret plan policies correctly and in context, rather than elevating individual policy tests at the expense of the wider framework.
• Finally, it reinforces the principle that development within strategic allocations must be assessed strategically. Proposals cannot be treated as standalone projects divorced from the cumulative infrastructure necessary to deliver planned growth as a whole.

For practitioners, the case is a timely reminder to scrutinise appeal decisions closely and to ensure that infrastructure policies within strategic plans are given real weight throughout the decision‑making process, even where delivery details remain under active consideration by all parties.