English Clays Lovering Pochin & Co Ltd v City of Plymouth [1974] 1 WLR 742
The point in plain English: Words such as ‘adjacent’ in permitted-development provisions are interpreted in their planning context. A physical or operational connection does not necessarily make two sites adjacent.
What the Court of Appeal decided
The company processed china clay at Marsh Mills, several miles from the mining area at Lee Moor, with the sites linked by a pipeline. It argued that buildings and plant at Marsh Mills were permitted development for mineral undertakers under the General Development Order then in force.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. Marsh Mills was not part of the mine and was not ‘adjacent to’ it merely because the sites were operationally connected. In the planning context, the required proximity was geographical as well as functional.
Why it still matters
The specific 1963 General Development Order provision has long since been replaced, so the case should not be treated as stating today’s mineral permitted-development rights. It remains useful authority on contextual interpretation of planning terms such as ‘adjacent’. See Planning Geek’s guide to mineral and mining permitted development.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.