Appeal against electric vehicle station ruling rejected by Dudley Council
An appeal against a Dudley Council decision to refuse permission for an EV charging centre has been dismissed.
Watch more of our videos on ShotsTV.com
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565
The Government’s Planning Inspectorate upheld the council’s conclusion to prevent the development on land adjacent to Farthings Lane in Dudley.
The application, for 12 EV charging bays and a coffee pod at the Thornleigh Industrial Estate, was refused in October 2024.
There are a number of mature trees on the site which are covered by a tree preservation order as part of a wider Green Network as Linear Open Space Area.
Planners concluded the removal of the protected trees would impact on the visual amenity of the area and development would fail to protect green infrastructure.
The planned development also lies within a high risk area due to historical mine workings and planners found insufficient information had been provided on how applicants would assess the stability of the site.
Applicants Zest Eco appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, in a statement supporting the appeal they said: “The site is identified within DMBC’s policies map as being part of an area action plan and a designated regeneration corridor as well as a designated employment area.
“It is unclear how DMBC expect the area to be regenerated or indeed be used for employment, in the refusal of applications like this one.
“We believe that the rejection reasons provided are so ambiguous that in themselves they create a dangerous reference precedence that could be used in the future to block and delay similar valid planning applications for these vital environmental infrastructure deployments.”
After a visit to the site inspectors concluded development would improve its appearance having found evidence of fly-tipping and littering.
The inspector also found the site had limited value as a wildlife corridor and made a limited contribution to the green network.
The appeal was rejected on the basis the applicant did not provide an assessment of the potential risks posed to the development from historical coal mining activity, which was in conflict with policies on appropriate levels of information required for development in high risk areas.
