CA-2025-000986 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1405

The judge said that the appellant had interpreted the Spatial Strategy too narrowly by focusing on the location of sites without sufficient regard to the other elements of the Strategy [82]. She then identified the wider approach laid down by the Waste Plan at [83] to [89] leading to this summary at [90]:

“Therefore, in summary, the spatial strategy seeks to (i) move waste up the waste hierarchy; (ii) promote self-sufficiency by planning for an appropriate network of facilities to manage the waste arisings in the Plan area; (iii) minimise the impact on environmental assets and amenity; (iv) be sufficiently flexible to respond to changing circumstances without the need for formal policy review; (v) support the proximity principle; (vi) address the need for 232,000 tpa of capacity for managing non-hazardous waste; and (vii) address that need through new capacity primarily in south east Dorset but recognising capacity might be required elsewhere to ensure the capacity gap is adequately addressed.”

The judge referred to the Inspector’s concern that although the allocated sites had “been around for some time” none of them had come forward to meet the need identified in the Waste Plan ([92]-[93]).

The judge noted the Inspector’s finding that the proposed ERF would result in a clear improvement on the existing situation where waste is taken to landfill or ERF outside the plan area with consequential additional waste miles [96].

The judge then summarised the Inspector’s comparative analysis of the relative advantages and disadvantages of PPL’s proposal and the two allocated sites; concluding that the Inspector did apply the locational elements of the Spatial Strategy and the proximity principle, alongside other policy considerations in the Waste Plan. She noted that the PPL proposal would result in a reduction in waste miles and an improvement in self-sufficiency in comparison with the present position where residual waste is being taken to landfill and incinerators in other counties ([97]-[101]). At [102] the judge said:

“On a proper application of the spatial strategy, the locational elements which favoured Canford were not necessarily conclusive. The Inspector and D1 were also required to consider the other elements of the spatial strategy, which they plainly did. They were entitled to prioritise those other elements, such as promoting self-sufficiency to manage the waste within the Plan area and thus reducing waste miles, and addressing the need for 232,000 tpa of capacity for managing non-hazardous waste. In my judgment, the Claimant’s irrationality challenge does not come close to overcoming the high threshold required.”

The judge then rejected the appellant’s criticisms of the Inspector for failing to deal with criteria (a) to (c) of Policy 4 separately and to give adequate reasons on the application of criterion (c). Both the Inspector and the Secretary of State had given adequate reasons for deciding that the proposal complied with the entirety of Policy 4 [103]-[104].