CAMPAIGNERS are "disappointed" after their efforts to stop a controversial quarry plan suffered a setback.
A decision made by an inspector to throw out a proposal for a sand and gravel quarry has been quashed by the High Court following a judicial review.
Applicants NRS Aggregates previously appealed against Worcestershire County Council’s decision to reject its plan for the quarry at Lea Castle Farm off Wolverley Road, near Kidderminster.
The Stop Lea Castle Farm Quarry action group raised concerns about the destruction of the “beautiful unspoilt countryside,” noise pollution, and widespread exposure to harmful mineral dust.
The applicants say materials from the quarry will supply much-needed aggregates to maintain local roads and build new housing.
Following a public inquiry, the appeal was rejected by an inspector appointed by the secretary of state, who concluded that the scheme would "not preserve the openness of the green belt" and therefore would be "inappropriate."
However, the developers then applied for a judicial review of the inspector's decision back in June.
The case was brought before Mr Justice Eyre, who said that the inspector "erred in law" by referring to future legislation on biodiversity net gain and quashed the inspector's decision.
Wyre Forest MP Mark Garnier said he was "disappointed" with the result.
He said: "One of the options available is for me to write to the secretary of state asking for him to appeal the decision made by the lower court.
"Alternatively, we can let the system run its course.
"This is not such a bad idea as the rejection under the judicial review was that the appeal process looked at future legislation, which was not deemed fair.
"However, when the original appeal is re-run, that future legislation may well be current, so it will be relevant.
"The fight goes on. I will, of course, write to the secretary of state to request the appeal. But we have two avenues of hope".
Addressing the Stop Lea Castle Farm Quarry action group on Facebook, committee member Mike Lord said: "The judge ruled that the inspector should not have referred to future legislation and that was a legal error.
"We can take comfort from the fact that 95 per cent of his judgement is left unblemished and this can only help if and when we get to another inquiry".
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel