Two developers with separate plans for massive adjacent industrial schemes have been embroiled in a legal battle over a link road. A High Court judge has turned down developer Glenbrook's application for a judicial review into a planning decision made by Wigan Council to approve an industrial park by industrial property company Caddick.
Both developers have separate approved schemes at the already well-established South Lancashire Industrial Estate in Ashton-in-Makerfield, off Lockett Road. Following the court decision, Caddick said it now 'looks forward to progressing this development'.
Approved Plans and Economic Impact
Wigan Council granted outline approval on Caddick's Ashton Park development, a 360,000 sq ft industrial scheme, which the firm said is set to deliver a £46m boost to the local economy earlier this year. Designed for manufacturing and logistics uses, Caddick said Ashton Park will create approximately 700 jobs.
Glenbrook said its earlier approved scheme for another employment park at the same site has the potential to create up to 1,200 jobs. The proposals are for a 40-acre estate which has been allocated for employment use in Wigan Council's unitary development plan since 2006. The scheme, known as Meridian 6, with access from Bolton Road, will provide an initial investment of £70m into the borough. It will consist of up to 625,000 sq ft of new industrial space to 'meet the significant regional demand from small to medium-sized businesses'.
Dispute Over Road Location
But a dispute led to a case at the High Court, with Glenbrook challenging Wigan Council over whether the planning application for the Caddick scheme was clear. The court case centred on the location of a road within the site. When the town hall approved the Caddick plans in February, one of the conditions fixed the point where the estate road would cross the boundary between the Glenbrook land and the Caddick land. The crossing point was on the north-east boundary of the Caddick land.
Glenbrook applied to the High Court for judicial review on whether it had a fair opportunity to comment on the possibility that the estate road would cross from its land to the Caddick land as 'substitute plans' had only been published after the planning consent.
High Court Judgement
A High Court judgement reads: 'Where the estate road crosses between the two pieces of land is a matter of practical importance to Caddick and Glenbrook. Glenbrook's preferred option was that the estate road should cross its land into Caddick's land further to the south-west at the point shown on an illustrative plan submitted by Glenbrook and decided in 2023. A crossing at that point would better suit the proposed development of the Glenbrook land but would suit the development of the Caddick land less well.'
Glenbrook maintained that substitute plans for the road route which differed from earlier indicative plans were only published after the Caddick application for planning permission had been granted. Glenbrook contended that it had no notice of the substitute route and therefore no opportunity to make representations on it before the council decided the planning permission. It argued that this was a 'material unfairness with the consequence that the decision granting outline planning consent must be quashed'.
In a judgement on the case, Mr Justice Swift said: 'I accept that it was irregular that the substitute plans were not published by the council until after the decision on the application for planning permission. The council has not filed evidence to explain what happened. The fact that the plans were published in February 2025 immediately after the application had been approved, tends to suggest that when the matter came to its attention, the council realised that the substitute plans ought to have been published earlier. Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that this irregularity gave rise to any material lack of fairness or other error affecting the legality of the decision to grant Caddick's application for planning permission.'
Dismissing Glenbrook's case for a judicial review, the judge concluded: 'Glenbrook did have a fair opportunity to make representations on where the estate road would cross from its land to the Caddick land. There was no material unfairness in the decision-making process. For these reasons, Glenbrook's application for judicial review fails and is dismissed.'
Reactions and Next Steps
Following the judgement, Tom Park, associate director at Caddick, said: 'We look forward to progressing this development alongside Wigan Council and the local community, making sure it brings lasting benefits to the area. Once operational, the project is expected to support around 700 jobs and contribute £46.2 million to the local economy each year.'
Glenbrook did not respond to a request for comment.
