Mytax Farm, Bourbles Lane, Preesall (sand and gravel quarry): appeal 6002168 dismissed

Decision: dismissed, 26 August 2026
Decided by: Planning Inspector: Stephen Normington
Authority: Lancashire County Council (North West)
Appeal reference: 6002168
Application reference: LCC/2023/0030
Procedure: inquiry
Development: Extraction and processing of c.500,000 t of sand and gravel over about 5 years (about 100,000 tpa) on 20.7 ha, with washing plant, new access road and restoration using c.220,000 m3 imported inert fill (EIA development)
Site context: open countryside, rural lane
Green Belt: No
Framework applied: August 2026 NPPF
Determinative policies: TR6(4), M3(1)
Development plan policies: Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2009 CS3, CS4, CS8, Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Part 1 2013 M1, DM2, WM1, Wyre Local Plan 2019 CDMP1, CDMP4, CDMP6
Main issues: need / landbank; highway safety; noise; dust and air quality

Summary

A 20.7 ha sand and gravel quarry near Preesall (Wyre), refused by Lancashire County Council and appealed to an 8-day inquiry. The inspector accepted a "critical" county landbank shortfall and found noise, dust and air quality acceptable with conditions. But the required access visibility splay depended on a hedge owned by an objector, and the narrow B-road could not take two-way HGV traffic safely. That was an unacceptable highway-safety impact, and TR6(4) says such proposals "should be refused". Appeal dismissed.

Issues and findings

Transition. "In having regard to the matters that are most relevant to this appeal, there are no material changes to the Framework of relevance to the substance of this appeal. Therefore, I am satisfied that no party to this appeal would be prejudiced" (DL ¶13).
Need: significant weight. "I am satisfied that there is a critical shortfall in sand and gravel supply in Lancashire, with the County being a net importer of sand and gravel mineral which, in my view, is not a sustainable strategy" (DL ¶38). The fact "that the vast majority of the Council's landbank is bound in a single site is itself contrary to the principle of Policy M1(2)(d) of the Framework" (DL ¶30). "I have attached significant weight to the identified need" (DL ¶51).
Access visibility: FAIL. The council's 2.4 m x 52 m splays were justified (DL ¶72). A 1.2 m x-distance was rejected (DL ¶74). With no agreement from the hedge owner, "there are no prospects at all that the requirements of a Grampian condition could be delivered" (DL ¶77). "The proposed access arrangement would present an unacceptable highway safety risk" (DL ¶79).
Route suitability: FAIL. HGVs meeting on sub-6.2 m sections would reverse or mount verges, with vulnerable users having "limited verge protection". The inspector described this "as resulting in a severe impact from a safety perspective to the local highway network" (DL ¶101). The traffic management UU would "merely highlight" the constraints (DL ¶104).
TR6(4). "Policy TR6(4) of the Framework sets out that development proposals should be refused if they would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. This National Decision-Making Policy is unambiguous" (DL ¶102). Local Plan DM2 and Wyre CDMP6 are consistent with it and carry full weight (DL ¶103).
Noise and dust: acceptable. "Subject to the imposition of the suggested noise conditions … I do not consider that noise emitted from the site would give rise to a significant adverse effect" (DL ¶152). DM2 "remains consistent with the overall objectives of Policy M4(1)(b) and Policy P3 of the Framework and therefore should be afforded full weight" (DL ¶155).
Habitats. Appropriate assessment was not needed because the competent authority was not minded to consent (DL ¶182).

Planning balance

"Policy M3(1) of the Framework sets out that … substantial weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction … I have therefore attached significant weight to these benefits" (DL ¶188). Against that, the TR6(4) failure: "Notwithstanding the weight that I have attached to the benefits … these would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the unacceptable highway safety risk" (DL ¶191).

What made the difference

The access. The landbank case was about as strong as it gets (under one year excluding one dormant site), and amenity passed. But a visibility splay over hedges the appellant did not control, owned by an objector, could not be secured by condition or obligation. And the B-road's width made HGV passing unsafe. With control of the splay land, or a wider haul route, need would very probably have won.

Transferable points

TR6(4) is read as a free-standing refusal instruction ("unambiguous"). It can defeat even a critical mineral-supply need (DL ¶102, ¶190-191).
A Grampian condition is unavailable where a hostile third-party owner makes delivery a "no prospects at all" case (DL ¶77, citing PPG).
A landbank concentrated in one inactive site is itself contrary to M1(2)(d)'s aim of productive capacity. Headline landbank figures can be looked behind (DL ¶30-31).
Wording slips. "Significant weight" is given where M3(1) says "substantial" (DL ¶188). The balance uses the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably outweighed" formula (DL ¶191). The obligations test is cited as "paragraph 58 of the Framework", the old numbering (DL ¶186). The inquiry closed in May 2026 and the parties were not re-consulted on the new Framework.

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Policy	Finding	Weight	Note
M1(2)(d)	benefit		nearly all of the landbank sits in one inactive site (Runshaw), which is itself contrary to the principle of M1(2)(d) (DL ¶30)
M2	neutral		7-year sand and gravel landbank benchmark (cited as "M2(a)"); county landbank only 0.45-0.69 years excluding Runshaw (DL ¶25, ¶31)
M3(1)	benefit	significant	M3(1) says "substantial weight" but the inspector attached "significant weight" to meeting the critical landbank shortfall (DL ¶51, ¶188)
TR6(4)	fail		required 2.4 x 52 m visibility splays cross hedges on third-party land (owner objects); no Grampian prospect; narrow B-road with no footways means HGV passing and reversing conflicts, a "severe impact from a safety perspective" (DL ¶72-79, ¶85-105)
M4(1)(b)	pass		noise within the PPG limit (background plus 10 dB, max 55 dB) with bunds and a Noise Management Plan; dust slight adverse at worst, controlled by a DMP; LP DM2 consistent with M4(1)(b) and P3 and given full weight (DL ¶106-156)
P3	pass		air quality and RCS risk negligible; perception of health harm given limited weight (DL ¶166-172)
N6	not-engaged		SPA/SAC/Ramsar 1.5 km away; Natural England did not engage with the shadow HRA; appropriate assessment unnecessary because the appeal fails anyway (DL ¶173-182)
CS3 / CS4 / M1 (Lancashire M&W plans)	neutral	limited	out-of-date restrictions on new mineral permissions given little weight (DL ¶23, ¶38)

Key facts

Lancashire landbank about 4.3 Mt, but 4.1 Mt of it is at the non-operational Runshaw Quarry (permission expiring July 2026); without Runshaw, 0.45-0.69 years (DL ¶28-31)
Council and appellant agreed a "critical landbank and supply shortage" (DL ¶31)
Average 74, maximum about 120 two-way HGV movements a day on the B5270 Lancaster Road, a 30 mph single carriageway below the 6.2 m width needed for two HGVs to pass, with no pedestrian facilities (DL ¶20, ¶53, ¶82-86)
Visibility splay over a hedge owned by an objector who would not sell (DL ¶75-77)
Rule 6 party (residents' group); 8-day inquiry; the inquiry closed in May 2026, before the new Framework, and the inspector did not re-consult (DL ¶13)

Sources

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.