Cemex (UK) Operations Ltd v Richmondshire District Council & Anor [2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin)

Cemex v Richmondshire is an important Planning Court decision about allowing a new home close to an established noisy industrial and minerals operation. Richmondshire had granted permission to convert a stone barn into a three-bedroom dwelling only 64 metres from Cemex’s asphalt plant near Leyburn.

The court quashed the permission. Two errors were decisive: the council had not properly dealt with national noise guidance warning against relying on closed windows as the answer to noise, and it had failed to consider the risk that the new dwelling could lead to restrictions on Cemex’s existing operation when the minerals permission was reviewed.

The case does not create a rule against new homes near industry. Its practical message is narrower and more useful: where a noise-sensitive use is proposed beside an established business, the planning authority must grapple with the actual mitigation and with the potential consequences for that business.

Neutral citation

[2018] EWHC 3526 (Admin)

Court

High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, Planning Court

Judgment date

19th December 2018

Judge

Her Honour Judge Belcher

Case number

CO/1639/2018

A new dwelling opposite a 24-hour asphalt plant

Cemex operated a limestone quarry and asphalt plant at Leyburn. The quarry had operating-hour limits, but the asphalt plant could operate through the night. There was no dispute that the plant generated considerable noise.

An earlier permission for the barn conversion had not been lawfully implemented because pre-commencement conditions had not been discharged. A fresh application was therefore made in 2017. This time Cemex objected and the council considered acoustic evidence and proposed mitigation.

The eventual permission relied on upgraded glazing and the removal or blocking of some trickle vents. It did not require the mechanical ventilation system referred to in the acoustic assessment.

Closed windows were not a complete answer to noise

The Planning Practice Guidance in force at the time warned that it was not desirable to rely on closed windows as the way to reduce noise to acceptable levels. That guidance mattered because the council’s conclusion on internal noise depended on windows being closed and ventilation openings being restricted.

The judge held that the authority had failed to take the guidance properly into account. This was not a technical complaint about wording. It went directly to whether the proposed dwelling would provide acceptable living conditions and whether other mitigation, such as mechanical ventilation, needed to be considered.

The court did not decide what the correct mitigation should have been. That remained a matter of planning judgement for the authority. The legal error was failing to confront the relevant national guidance when making that judgement.

The future effect on Cemex also mattered

Cemex’s minerals permission was subject to a future Review of Old Mineral Permissions, commonly called a ROMP review. Cemex argued that once a dwelling existed so close to the asphalt plant, a later review could impose tighter noise or operating restrictions in order to protect the new residents.

The council had considered whether the proposed dwelling conflicted with the existing minerals permission, but that was not the same question. The court held that the possible effect of the dwelling on the future regulation of the established operation was a material consideration which had not been properly addressed.

This point is particularly useful in practice. The impact of a sensitive new use on an existing business is not limited to whether that business currently breaches a planning condition. The authority may also need to consider whether the new development could create pressure for future restrictions on lawful operations.

Not every challenge succeeded

Cemex advanced five grounds. The court rejected the arguments that the environmental health officer had unlawfully constrained the decision-making process and that reference to the occupants being a long-standing local family had made the decision unlawful.

A further complaint about the failure to impose all mitigation recommended by the applicant’s own acoustic consultant was also established, although the court concluded that this point alone would not have justified relief under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

The planning permission was nevertheless quashed because of the successful grounds concerning the noise guidance and the future ROMP consequences.

Why Cemex remains useful

Cemex is worth reading whenever a new home, school or other noise-sensitive use is proposed close to a quarry, factory or other established operation. It shows why apparently workable internal noise figures are not the end of the planning exercise.

The authority should understand how the mitigation will work in everyday occupation, whether it is consistent with national guidance, and whether the new sensitive use could expose the existing operation to later restrictions. Those are planning judgements, but they have to be made rather than assumed away.

Read the Cemex judgment

Gold Members can read the complete Planning Court judgment in the protected Planning Geek case law library.

Cemex Case Law Page Updated: 22nd September 2026