®Planning appeal decision
Lea Castle Farm, Wolverley Road, Broadwaters, Kidderminster, DY10 3QA
a sand and gravel quarry with progressive restoration using site derived and imported inert material to agricultural parkland, public access and nature enhancement
- Authority
- Worcestershire County Council
- Appeal type
- other · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- minerals-waste · Mineral working
- Inspector
- Woolcock J
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effects of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt and upon the purposes of including land within it, and whether the development conflicts with policy to protect the Green Belt.
- The effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
- The effects of the proposed development on the local amenity of the area and the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular reference to noise, dust, air quality, outlook, health and well-being.
- The effects of the proposed development on PRoW and access.
- The effects of the proposed development on heritage assets.
- The effects of the proposed development on highway safety, particularly for vulnerable road users.
- The effects of the proposed development on biodiversity.
- The effects of the proposed development on employment and the economy.
- The need for sand and gravel, having regard to likely future demand for, and supply of, these minerals, along with the availability of inert material for restoration and capacity for inert waste.
- The planning balance and planning policy.
What decided it
The proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt and so constituted inappropriate development, and the substantial harm this caused was not clearly outweighed by the other considerations advanced as very special circumstances.
The substantial weight given to harm to the Green Belt and its openness, together with slight weight for landscape character harm, outweighed the combined weight of the benefits (mineral need, economic benefits, biodiversity net gain, PRoW improvements), so very special circumstances did not exist.
Framework references: 11, 116, 143, 151, 153, 154, 155, 187, 198, 201, 212, 215, 224, 226
Plan policies cited: MLP Policy MLP1, MLP Policy MLP3, MLP Policy MLP11, MLP Policy MLP14, MLP Policy MLP15, MLP Policy MLP27, MLP Policy MLP28, MLP Policy MLP29, MLP Policy MLP30, MLP Policy MLP31, MLP Policy MLP32, MLP Policy MLP32(c), MLP Policy MLP33, MLP Policy MLP35, MLP Policy MLP37, MLP Policy MLP39, MLP Policy MLP40, WCS Policy WCS5(a)ii, WCS Policy WCS9, WCS Policy WCS12, WCS Policy WCS13, WCS Policy WCS14, WFLP Policy SP.LCV1, WFLP Policy SP.16, WFLP Policy SP.21, WFLP Policy DM.22, WFLP Policy DM.23
Judgments cited: Bernard Wheatcroft v Secretary of State for the Environment (1982); Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney (2018); R (Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group) v SoS LUHC [2023] EWHC 2842; Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 466; R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and others) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3; Europa Oil and Gas Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2643 (Admin); DB Symmetry Ltd v Swindon BC [2023] 1 WLR; Avon Estates Ltd and Welsh Ministers [2011] EWCA Civ 553; The Queen on the application of Cherkley Campaign Limited and Mole Valley DC and Longshot Cherkley Court Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 567; Wychavon DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Butler [2008] EWCA Civ 692; Leicestershire County Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and UK Coal Mining Limited [2007] EWHC 1427 (Admin); Timmins and A W Lymm Limited v Gedling BC [2014] EWHC 654 (Admin)
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.