<strong> </strong>Whilst we’re waiting for some DCO decisions to be made, two appeal decisions caught my eye. First, an <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6752d28020bcf083762a6c99/Recovered_appeal_decision_-_Court_Lane_Industrial_Estate_Court_Lane_Iver_SL0_9HL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">appeal</a> where the Inspector and Secretary of State agreed that the proposal for a data centre in Slough would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This meant that there was a conflict with the local plan meaning some other material consideration would have to override that conflict, and for the purposes of the NPPF, ‘very special circumstances’ would need to be found. And, bam, they were indeed found:  importantly the need for data centres to come forward was a substantial part of that finding (see paragraphs 271 and 272).

That is a welcome and stark departure from some of the more recent refusals from last year (see <a href="https://www.bdbpitmans.com/news-and-insights/1019-new-environmental-duty-and-no-new-data-centres/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>) for a proposal in which very special circumstances were not made out by the need for data centres). Interestingly in the more recent decision, there is also an affirmation that legal costs borne by the council in connection with the development (see paragraphs 252-5 of the Inspector’s Report) should not be paid by the developer. This is an interesting contrast to much of the recent discourse on ensuring cost recovery, and is also to be encouraged.

The second appeal decision <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/674f0bed7cbc7f3d295da963/Land_adjacent_to_HMP_Garth_and_Wymott__Layland__Lancashire__refs_3295556___3_December_2024_.pdf">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/674f0bed7cbc7f3d295da963/Land_adjacent_to_HMP_Garth_and_Wymott__Layland__Lancashire__refs_3295556___3_December_2024_.pdf</a> that caught my eye was the Secretary of State overruling an Inspector’s recommendation that a new prison in Lancashire should not be granted planning permission. The key issues in this appeal related to highway traffic and safety impacts. In all the cases, the Secretary of State finds limited harm reinforcing the point that highway impacts have to be really, really bad on an overall scale before they are a basis for refusing planning permission. In this case too, the need for the development (i.e., prisons which are nearing 98% capacity nationally) carried the day.