Gloucestershire CC ordered to pay £180k after losing quarry appeal

The costs to Councils – and taxpayers – of defending themselves against mineral companies appealing against local democratic decisions became apparent this week. 

In 2023, Gloucestershire County Council refused an application 23/0001/REFUSE by Moreton C Cullimore to extract 1.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel at Bow Farm near Tewkesbury, contrary to planning officer advice. According to Gloucestershirelive: 

...the proposals which also included a concrete batching plant, the creation of clean water ponds, silt ponds and stock piles at the 160-acre site were met with strong opposition from hundreds of residents. A total of 257 people objected, raising concerns over noise, the health and environmental impact of dust generated at the site and the impact it would have on nearby businesses such as Hilton Puckrup Hall Hotel. Some 72 people wrote in support. 

The company appealed. A one-day hearing took place in December. The main issues were: 

• the effect of the proposal on the local economy with regard to dust and noise; and 

• whether the proposal is contrary to the Council’s declared climate emergency and the national planning policy objectives for transitioning to a low carbon future.

In January this year, the inspector allowed the appeal and also ruled that the Council must pay the company's costs. The inspector explained:

The PPG makes it clear that a local planning authority is at risk of an award of costs if it fails to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal and/or makes vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact which are unsupported by any objective analysis. Other examples of unreasonable behaviour include preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted having regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material considerations, and refusing planning permission on a planning ground capable of being dealt with by conditions, where it is concluded that suitable conditions would enable the proposed development to go ahead.

And concluded: 

In the planning judgement, it appears to me that having regard to the provisions of the development plan, national planning policy and other relevant considerations, the proposed development should not have reasonably been refused. The refusal of permission therefore constitutes unreasonable behaviour contrary to the guidance in the PPG and the applicant has been faced with the unnecessary expense of addressing these matters.

This week, at a Planning Committee meeting, it was announced that the Council is to pay £180,349 to cover Cullimore's appeal costs. Punchline-Gloucester reported:

Council officers revealed yesterday there was no budget for a loss of this kind and the payment would result in an overspend in the budget.

But councillors on the planning committee said they had "no regrets" and would make the same decision again to try and protect residents and the planet...

Cllr Bernard Fisher (LD, St Paul's and Swindon) said: "It was a majority decision of the committee and that is our prerogative. "If you want to do away with democracy you can have a rubber stamp to go along with all officers recommendations. Like us, they are human and they get it wrong. "People who can afford the most expensive lawyers often win. But not pursuing a case because you can't afford to pay the costs is not the way we should operate. "The people of that area will have to live with this decision. I have no regrets." 

Cllr Susan Williams (C, Bisley and Painswick) said: "I totally agree. I voted against it because I felt it was morally right for me to make that decision. "Without us standing up there won't be change in the future. It needs to start at county level. I stand by my decision."

The £180k the Council must pay is obviously in addition to its own costs for defending the appeal.

  

For comparison, the appeal mounted by Aggregate Industries in 2022 against Devon County Council's decision to refuse planning permission for a quarry at Straitgate Farm resulted in an 8-day public inquiry. The Council defended each of the seven reasons given for refusing permission. At the inquiry, the main issues were: 

i) the effect of the development on water supplies and human health; 

ii) its effect on drainage and flood risk; 

iii) its effect on heritage assets; 

iv) its effect on trees and hedgerows; 

v) its effect on highway safety; and 

vi) its effect on biodiversity. 

vii) The sustainability of transporting sand and gravel by road from Straitgate Farm to Hillhead Quarry. 

No application for costs was made by Aggregate Industries. No costs were awarded by the Inspectors. 

The Council's reasons for refusing the company permission to quarry Straitgate Farm were – despite going against planning officer advice – wholly reasonable.

EDIT 12.4.24 "A hard-fought victory for the quarry everyman"