TRZ2 is structurally more vulnerable than it looks on paper — especially to someone who knows how to exploit its built-in weaknesses.
The TRZ2 table of uses makes many activities contingent on being “carried out by or on behalf of a relevant transport manager” or being “for a transport purpose.”
“…the use and development of land that complements, or is consistent with, the transport system…”
This broad, value-laden language leaves room to argue that private complementary uses qualify — the exact gap exploited here.
TRZ2 lists “Nil” prohibited uses, meaning there’s no outright legal block within the zone — only interpretation limits.
Linking the use to existing use rights under s 6(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 adds a legal backstop — making enforcement harder.
It’s awkward to explain why a private TRZ2 site that is visually, operationally, and legally transport-aligned should be treated differently from DoT’s own TRZ2 sites.
TRZ2 is vulnerable when these four conditions stack:
All four apply here, making the Department of Transport and Councils position legally and strategically shaky.