Sherburn Sand Company Ltd v First Secretary Of State & Anor

A planning decision-maker may give substantial weight to revised national and regional aggregates guidelines when assessing mineral need, including their effect on future landbank requirements. Avoiding sterilisation of mineral resources is an important planning objective, but it does not necessarily create a practical benefit where there is no established need for additional extraction. A decision-maker may disagree with an inspector’s planning judgment if the reasons are intelligible when the decision letter is read as a whole. A breach of the post-inquiry notification procedure may be treated as technical where it causes no substantial prejudice.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Secretary of State’s refusal of planning permission and a bridleway diversion relating to Crime Rigg Sand Quarry. The inspector had recommended allowing the appeal, finding that the proposal would provide a worthwhile addition to the sand and gravel landbank and avoid sterilisation of mineral resources.

After the inquiry, revised national and regional aggregates guidelines substantially reduced projected demand. The Secretary of State concluded that County Durham’s supply could be met from existing permitted resources and refused the appeals. The claimant alleged inadequate consideration and reasons, and breach of Rule 17(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000.

1. Grounds 1–3. The Secretary of State had considered the claimant’s case that a continuing shortfall in concreting sand remained despite the revised guidelines. Reading the decision letter as a whole, he had rejected that case and gave adequate and intelligible reasons for concluding that there was currently no need to release further minerals.
2. The avoidance of unnecessary sterilisation was a policy objective, but the weight given to it required a planning balance between avoiding sterilisation and ensuring that extraction occurred only to meet an established need. The Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that releasing the sterilised sand would confer no practical benefit where additional mineral production was not required.
3. The Secretary of State was also entitled to disagree with the inspector’s conclusion that the proposal would be a worthwhile addition to the landbank. The revised guidelines and the conclusion that existing permitted resources could meet supply to 2016 provided an intelligible basis for concluding that the limited benefits did not outweigh the development-plan conflicts and other harm.
4. Ground 4. There had been a breach of Rule 17(5). The Secretary of State had taken into account new evidence, including the working party’s conclusion that County Durham’s supply could be met from existing permitted reserves, and had thereby become disposed to disagree with the inspector without giving the required notification.
5. That breach was merely technical and caused no substantial prejudice. The claimant had received an opportunity to make detailed representations on the revised guidelines and had understood the possibility that they might lead to refusal. The application was therefore dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs of £6,500; no order was made as to the council’s costs.

Not an appeal. The judgment records a challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to the Secretary of State’s decision letter dated 17 December 2003.