Concrete batching plant wins permitted development appeal after Inspector revisits 1980 quarry case

A concrete batching plant at Manton Quarry in North Lincolnshire has won a permitted development appeal after an Inspector found that the modern mining rights expressly cover the utilisation of minerals.

Inspector J D Clark allowed Ashcourt Lincolnshire Ltd’s appeal on 2nd October 2026, granting Part 17 Class B prior approval for the installation and operation of a mobile plant. North Lincolnshire Council had refused the proposal because it considered concrete production a separate operation rather than development ancillary to mining.

The decision revisits a 1980 High Court case involving another limestone quarry. The crucial difference was the wording: the older legislation did not include utilisation, whereas the current GPDO does. The company won its appeal, but its separate application for a full award of costs was refused.

Why this concrete batching plant qualified

The Manton Quarry appeal decision, reference 6010548, concerns application PA/2025/1217. The Inspector visited the working limestone quarry on 16th September 2026.

Existing plant sorts and washes excavated materials, with bunded areas separating sand and aggregate stockpiles. The proposed concrete batching plant would sit close to those workings, using materials extracted and processed at the quarry.

According to the appellant, approximately 10 to 15% of the total mix would comprise imported binding powder. Cement deliveries would generate around two to three vehicles per week. The larger part of the end product would come from the quarry’s own sand and aggregates.

Clark regarded the imported proportion as modest. That evidence mattered because the question was the plant’s principal purpose and its relationship with this particular mining operation.

The relevant right is Part 17 Class B: Other mining site works. It permits specified operations involving plant, machinery, buildings, structures and erections on land used as a mine or on ancillary mining land, subject to its limitations and conditions.

Paragraph B.1(b)(ii) allows a principal purpose involving treatment, preparation for sale, consumption or utilisation of minerals won or brought to the surface at that mine. On the evidence, the Inspector found the proposed concrete batching plant fell within that description.

A separate process could still be ancillary

The council’s argument was not simply dismissed. Clark accepted that concrete production was not itself part of extracting minerals, that the quarry would continue without the plant, and that concrete could theoretically be produced elsewhere.

However, moving production elsewhere would require the materials to be transported to that other site. Using them where they had been extracted, sorted and washed meant making use of the quarry’s minerals at their point of extraction.

The plant’s location and its substantial use of materials sourced directly from Manton Quarry worked together. Although concrete production could be an operation in its own right, that combination meant this proposal could reasonably be regarded as ancillary to mining.

For me, that is the practical point. Showing a plant inside a quarry boundary does not answer the question. Evidence about what it uses, where those materials come from and how the operation relates to the mine can be decisive.

What changed since the 1980 Hobbs case?

The appellant referred to South Glamorgan County Council v Hobbs (Quarries) Ltd [1980] 1 EGLR 121; [1980] JPL 35. As Clark explained, that High Court case also concerned a concrete batching plant within a limestone quarry.

The legislation then under consideration was the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977. According to the Inspector’s account of the judgment, the court considered whether batching involved the treatment or disposal of the quarry’s limestone.

The court treated the activity as utilisation instead. Because that concept was absent from the relevant wording, the development did not qualify under the right considered at the time.

The modern GPDO Schedule 2 Part 17 expressly includes utilisation. Clark said the revised wording “would seem to address this matter”. He therefore did not regard the older case as preventing this proposal from qualifying.

This was an appeal decision applying today’s legislation to the evidence, not a new court judgment overturning Hobbs. Clark recorded that no more recent judgments had been drawn to his attention. He also noted comparable permissions identified in Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire.

There is a separate Hobbs (Quarries) Ltd v Somerset County Council (1975) 30 P&CR 286 entry in our Case Law Library. That concerns planning compensation and lost profits. It is a different case and should not be confused with the South Glamorgan decision discussed here.

What prior approval could assess

Once the concrete batching plant passed the permitted development gateway, the assessment was governed by paragraph B.2. It requires prior approval of detailed proposals for siting, design and external appearance.

The authority’s powers to refuse approval or impose conditions are limited. B.2(2)(a) addresses injury to neighbourhood amenity where modifications can reasonably be made, or conditions reasonably imposed, to avoid or reduce that injury. B.2(2)(b) concerns development which ought to be, and could reasonably be, sited elsewhere.

Those are the statutory provisions, rather than an unrestricted assessment of whether concrete production should be permitted. The council had based its refusal on the gateway issue and provided no further substantive objections to the proposal if it qualified.

Nearby residents and the parish council raised concerns including traffic, noise and dust. Many representations concerned existing quarry operations, although they also questioned the additional activity associated with the concrete batching plant.

Clark considered the existing quarry permission, MIN/2016/556, and its conditions relevant to those matters. He found that the controls already in place would address them, with enforcement available where appropriate.

The quarry lies below the surrounding landscape and nearby roads. The plant would be no more intrusive than existing quarry equipment, and the Inspector found no harmful effect on neighbourhood amenity while it remained ancillary to the quarry operation.

He saw no reason for it to be sited elsewhere and imposed no additional conditions beyond the GPDO’s limitations and conditions. Prior approval was granted in accordance with the application and submitted details, including plans 0726-4-6 Rev A and 0726-4-7.

Why the costs application failed

The separate costs decision, also dated 2nd October 2026, refused Ashcourt’s application for a full award. It distinguishes an unreasonable procedural step from a legitimate disagreement over legislation.

On 25th November 2025, the council requested an extension until 22nd December 2025 to allow consideration by its Planning Committee on 17th December. The appellant agreed, but the council issued its refusal on 3rd December 2025.

The council said it needed to decide within a timescale to avoid deemed approval. Clark rejected that explanation because the extension had already been agreed. Given the request for further information and extra time, he regarded that aspect of its conduct as unreasonable.

However, he did not treat the council’s interpretation of Class B as unreasonable. The appellant obtained counsel’s advice after the refusal and shared it with the council, which maintained its position.

Clark said “professional disagreements of this kind do not amount to unreasonable behaviour”. The council was entitled to retain a different professional view, even though the appeal decision ultimately favoured Ashcourt’s interpretation.

Costs require unreasonable behaviour which causes unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. Winning an appeal, or identifying an unreasonable procedural action, does not automatically establish that link.

The Inspector did not find that the appeal had unduly delayed development which clearly should have been permitted. With the central issue depending on statutory interpretation, he concluded that an award was not warranted.

What quarry operators can take from the decision

The concrete batching plant appeal provides a useful example of how the utilisation wording can apply. It does not mean every batching plant at a quarry qualifies, or that 10 to 15% imported binder is a legal threshold.

A proposal with substantially different imported materials, a weaker connection to extraction or a different principal purpose could produce a different result. The right’s remaining limitations, conditions and any applicable general GPDO restrictions also need checking.

If you are considering similar development, we can help assess the planning route and the evidence needed to support it. Our Part 17 mining and mineral exploration guide explains the wider rights, while this decision shows why the operational detail deserves close attention.