Quarry Developer Seeks Appeal Cost Reimbursement from Council

A company aiming to establish a quarry is requesting that a county council cover its appeal process expenses. Brett Aggregates had submitted an application to extract approximately eight million tonnes of sand and gravel over 32 years at the former Hatfield Aerodrome in Hertfordshire. Earlier this year, Hertfordshire County Council rejected the company’s proposal. Following an appeal by Brett Aggregates, a planning inquiry took place in November. The council withdrew its objections two months before the inquiry, stating it would “continue to work with Brett to mitigate the extent of their costs where possible.” Melvyn Middleton of the Planning Inspectorate will now review the planning application, alongside the request for the council to pay the costs. The secretary of state for housing, communities and local government will make the final determination on both matters, based on the inspector’s conclusion. The inquiry also heard testimony from local residents who opposed the development. The Colney Heath Group asserted that the quarry would inflict “significant and irreversible harm.” They urged the inspectorate to recommend refusal “to safeguard the environment, the community and the future sustainability of Hertfordshire.” The council indicated it would not oppose “a partial award of costs” limited to evidence related to its own “reason for refusal.” However, it noted that a significant portion of the inquiry was dedicated to other evidence, including issues raised by the Colney Heath Group and details provided concerning flood risk, drainage, and minerals management. Brett Aggregates stated its claim for costs was based on the belief that the refusal of planning permission was “unreasonable.” The company highlighted the council’s inability to secure witnesses to support its decision. It further explained that by the time the council retracted its objections, the quarrying firm had already appointed witnesses, instructed solicitors, and booked three weeks’ accommodation. The company contended that “none of the costs of the appeal would have been incurred but for the council’s decision.” A spokesperson for the council informed the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “Due to the council having been unable to secure expert witnesses to represent them at the appeal, the development control committee reluctantly decided to withdraw the reasons for refusal.” The spokesperson added, “It will be for the planning inspector to determine whether the county council will be liable for Brett’s costs and the county council will continue to work with Brett to mitigate the extent of their costs where possible.”