Assessing logistics proposals

An Inspector has dismissed an appeal against non-determination of an application for a logistics/warehousing development comprising 120,000sqm B8 floorspace adjacent to junction 17 of the A12 in Essex, following an inquiry conducted in the autumn of last year.

Planning balance and need for logistics floorspace

Chelmsford City Council had assessed its need for new logistics floorspace as part of preparations for its new local plan, and made a draft allocation in the emerging plan for a logistics development comprising 46,605sqm adjacent to junction 18 of the A12, about a mile further up the road, to help to meet those identified needs (and as part of a planned expansion of Chelmsford to the east). The promoter of the junction 17 site appealed for non-determination, and so did the promoter of the junction 18 site; both inquiries were scheduled in late 2025, but not conjoined. In the event, the proposal at junction 18 was supported by the authority at the inquiry, and permission was granted by the inspector in December 2025.

On the junction 17 proposal, Chelmsford had to wait a while longer but on 2 July 2026 the appeal was dismissed. The Inspector found the proposals to be contrary to the adopted development plan (which was common ground) and that it would cause significant landscape harm, including from the loss of protected trees; less than substantial harm to nearby heritage assets via their setting, as well as a moderate level of harm to three non-designated WW2 pillboxes on the site. In terms of highway safety, the proposals included effectively reversing a recent safety-led improvement to junction 17 itself, which National Highways objected to on safety grounds: on this and other safety and capacity concerns the Inspector found himself unable to conclude that there would be no unacceptable effect on the operation, capacity or safety of the network, harm that weighed very substantially against permission.

Key harms identified by the Inspector

Set against the undoubted benefits of the proposals, these harms significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits. Of particular note was his finding that, although (as agreed between the parties) the proposals would meet a need for regional-scale logistics, the Appellant’s claim that this need was acute and urgent was not supported, and (issues of need having taken up the majority of the inquiry) attracted no more than significant weight.

Read the full decision here

Josef Cannon KC is a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

Acknowledgements

The decision is an endorsement of the thoughtful and balanced way the Council’s team dealt with the situation: credit to Sally Rogers, Jeremy Potter and Michael Hurst of the Council, Peter Dawson of Place Services, Colin Robinson of Lichfields, Emma Featherstone of Essex County Council and Mark Norman of National Highways. It was a pleasure to represent this outstanding Council, and appear alongside David Elvin KC and Richard Turney KC, both of Landmark Chambers (for the respective promoters).