Spotswood Trailers Logo

TRZ2 Reality Check – Why It’s More Vulnerable Than It Looks

TRZ2 is structurally more vulnerable than it looks on paper — especially to someone who knows how to exploit its built-in weaknesses.

1) Reliance on “Relevant Transport Manager” Control

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.”

Why this cuts both ways:

2) Purpose Statement as a Legal Wedge

“…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.

3) No Prohibited Uses

TRZ2 lists “Nil” prohibited uses, meaning there’s no outright legal block within the zone — only interpretation limits.

The gap exploited:

4) Section 6(3) Leverage

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.

5) Political & Reputational Exposure

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.

Risks for agencies:

Bottom Line

TRZ2 is vulnerable when these four conditions stack:

All four apply here, making the Department of Transport and Councils position legally and strategically shaky.