What was the outcome of the Preesall quarry plans?

The Preesall quarry plans were rejected by Lancashire County Council's development control committee.

Why did residents object to the Preesall quarry plans?

Residents raised concerns about the quarry's impact on highway safety, dust, and noise problems, leading to over 2,000 objections.

How did the Baxter Group respond to the rejection of the Preesall quarry plans?

The Baxter Group, the developer of the proposed quarry, expressed disappointment with the decision, stating that the quarry would have provided "much needed construction materials for the housing sector."

Home / Environment / Residents Celebrate as Controversial Quarry Plans Rejected in Lancashire

Residents Celebrate as Controversial Quarry Plans Rejected in Lancashire

15 Oct

•

Summary

Over 2,000 objections filed against quarry plans
Concerns over highway safety, dust, and noise issues
Quarry developer disappointed, says it would have provided needed materials

Residents Celebrate as Controversial Quarry Plans Rejected in Lancashire

In a recent decision, Lancashire County Council's development control committee has overwhelmingly rejected plans for a controversial sand and gravel quarry in the village of Preesall. The proposed quarry, located off Bourbles Lane, faced significant local opposition, with more than 2,000 objections submitted to the council.

Residents living near the proposed site voiced their concerns about the quarry's potential impact on their lives. Harry Hutchin, a nearby resident, stated that the quarry would be "literally the other side of the garden fence," effectively placing them "onsite." Others, like Ian Dale, raised worries about the health effects of the dust, particularly for his mother who suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Despite the developer, Baxter Group, claiming to have put in "a lot of time and effort into mitigating the concerns of residents," the council ultimately decided to reject the plans. Reform UK councillor Clive Balchin argued that the "narrow, twisting" roads were "totally unsuited" for the up to 75 heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) that would have traveled through the area daily, calling the proposal "reckless."