Bolton Council must cover the cost of an appeal for the second time after the approval of an extension to Montcliffe Quarry.

Armstrong Aggregates applied for an extension to a site on Winter Hill twice over the course of the last four and a half years.

The first application, to allow the extraction of around 2.8 million tonnes of stone, was refused by the council two years ago on the basis of its impact on the Green Belt, on the appearance and character of the area and on the biodiversity and ecology of the area. At a first appeal, the refusal was confirmed by the Planning Inspectorate, but for different reasons in the form of drainage issues.

The council was told to cover the cost of an appeal as its decision was deemed by the inspector, JP Sargent, to be 'unreasonable'.

The second application, to allow the extraction of around two million tonnes of stone, was refused by the council one year ago, before it was aware of the first appeal. At a second appeal, the refusal was reversed by the Planning Inspectorate, because the different reasons in the form of drainage issues were resolved. 

The council was told to cover the cost of an appeal for the second time despite its effort to engage with Armstrongs Aggregates.

READ MORE: Bolton: Hulton Park plan refused for 'political reasons'.

In a ruling last week Mr Sargent said: "I accept the council told [Armstrongs Aggregates] at an early stage it would not be defending the appeal and I recognise too the applicant's submissions in this case will be similar to those made previously. 

"However, despite these facts I consider unnecessary expense was nonetheless incurred by the applicant as he still had to proceed with the appeal due to it being the only remaining avenue open to him in his pursuance of planning permission."

After the ruling a spokesperson for Bolton Council said: "Montcliffe Quarry remains a high-profile issue in Horwich and planning committee members have raised concerns about the impact of the site on the local area.

"We note the findings of the Planning Inspector and we are disappointed the reasons for refusal have been overturned.

"We are disappointed by the decision to award costs against the council in this case as we acted responsibly by engaging with the operator before and during the appeal. However, we will now work to settle the amount. 

"The council will continue to monitor developments at the site to ensure the operators are complying with the conditions set out in the report."

This article was written by Jack Tooth. To contact him, email jack.tooth@newsquest.co.uk or follow @JTRTooth on Twitter.