South Glamorgan County Council v Hobbs (Quarries) Ltd [1980] 1 EGLR 121

The point in plain English: South Glamorgan concerned a concrete batching plant inside a limestone quarry. The High Court held that the plant was not permitted development under the mineral working rights then in force, because its purpose was to use limestone to make concrete rather than to treat or dispose of the mineral.

The decision turns on the wording of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977. It does not establish that every concrete batching plant at a quarry requires a full planning application under the different provisions which now apply in England.

This summary is based on the complete eight-page reported judgment uploaded to Planning Geek. The correct reported citation is [1980] 1 EGLR 121, with an additional report at [1980] JPL 35. The uploaded report does not state the judgment date.

South Glamorgan: the case and the quarry

The case was heard in the High Court, Chancery Division, by His Honour Judge John Finlay QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court. South Glamorgan County Council sought a declaration against Hobbs (Quarries) Ltd about its proposed plant at Blaengwynlais Quarry, which lay partly within South Glamorgan and partly within Mid Glamorgan.

The company had applied for planning permission for a ready-mixed concrete batching plant on 21st July 1977. Permission was refused on 21st October 1977. The company appealed, but on 12th October 1978 it told the council that it would withdraw that appeal and erect the plant in reliance on permitted development rights.

The council then brought the proceedings. The issue was whether the general development order itself granted permission for this particular operation. It was not an appeal about the planning merits of noise, traffic or the plant’s appearance.

The permitted development wording before the court

Article 3 and Schedule 1, Class XIX, paragraph 2 of the 1977 order allowed certain plant and machinery on land in or adjacent to a quarry belonging to a mineral undertaker. The relevant purposes included winning or working minerals, and plant required in connection with their treatment or disposal.

Several matters were common ground. Hobbs was a mineral undertaker, the proposed plant was within the quarry, and the limestone was being lawfully won. There was no relevant planning condition removing the claimed right. The plant was not required for winning or working the limestone.

Although the company had also referred to Class VIII, the argument before the judge was directed to Class XIX, paragraph 2. South Glamorgan therefore concerns the meaning and application of that mineral working provision, rather than a separate determination of every possible permitted development route.

What the batching plant would do

Limestone aggregate would pass through the batching equipment and be combined with other ingredients to produce ready-mixed concrete. Sand and cement would be brought in. Mixing took place in the rotating drum of a lorry, rather than by changing the limestone within the batching plant itself.

The judge broadly accepted that around 70% of the total material used would come from the quarry, subject to the stated assumption about limestone fines. Evidence also showed that batching plants were common at South Wales quarries and could improve the commercial use of their output.

Those facts supported a connection with the quarry business, but they did not answer the statutory question. South Glamorgan did not turn on a finding that imported material exceeded a fixed percentage limit. The order contained no such numerical test.

South Glamorgan and the meaning of “required”

The judge rejected both extremes of interpretation. Plant did not have to be indispensable to qualify. Equally, being useful or commercially advantageous was insufficient. His conclusion was that “required” means “reasonably required”.

The practical inquiry was whether the plant was reasonably required for the purpose specified in the order. A prudent business decision to install equipment, or a desire to create a more profitable product, could not by itself establish that connection.

This is an important part of South Glamorgan which can be lost when the case is reduced to a statement that quarry batching plants are not permitted development. The court interpreted a particular statutory purpose and then assessed what the equipment actually did.

Treatment, disposal and utilisation of limestone

The judge treated “treatment” as involving a change in the quality, nature or size of the mineral. Moving limestone through hoppers, belts and silos did not amount to the necessary treatment in this case. The plant’s principal function was to measure and deliver ingredients for concrete production.

“Disposal” concerned physical removal of the mineral from the quarry. The equipment helped limestone leave the site as part of concrete, but that did not make it reasonably required for removing the limestone. The purpose remained manufacture of a different product.

The judge described the operation as being in connection with utilisation of the limestone. That purpose was not included in the wording under consideration. South Glamorgan County Council obtained the declaration that Class XIX, paragraph 2 did not permit erection of the plant without planning permission.

The parties had agreed the question of costs, so the judge made no costs order. That should not be confused with the separate refusal of a costs application in the much later Manton Quarry appeal.

Why the wording now matters in England

The current English provision is Schedule 2, Part 17, Class B of the GPDO 2015. Paragraph B.1(b)(ii) includes treatment, storage, processing, refining or smelting, and also consumption or “utilization” of minerals. Those additional purposes make it unsafe to apply the old result without examining the current wording.

In the Manton Quarry concrete batching plant appeal, decided on 2nd October 2026, Inspector J D Clark considered the South Glamorgan authority and the later inclusion of utilisation. The appeal was allowed on its particular facts. The appeal decision, reference 6010548, is hosted locally.

The later appeal did not overturn the High Court judgment. It applied different legislative wording to a different proposal. Nor does it mean that any plant can qualify merely because it uses some quarry material. The development must fall within the relevant class and satisfy its limitations and conditions, including applicable prior approval requirements.

For present proposals in England, read Planning Geek’s Class B guide to mining and mineral working. South Glamorgan arose at a Welsh quarry under the 1977 order; the current English GPDO should not be assumed to govern a modern Welsh proposal.

A different Hobbs (Quarries) case

This decision is separate from Hobbs (Quarries) Ltd v Somerset County Council (1975) 30 P&CR 286, which concerns planning compensation and anticipated profits. The shared company name does not make the judgments interchangeable.

The reported judgment supporting this summary is attached below through Planning Geek’s established case-law download system.