Crisp firm devastated by factory fire wins appeal against ‘waste’ accusation

The firm said there wouldn’t be any material stockpiles if not for the ‘significant’ time taken to approve the rebuild application

A crisp factory which burnt down has won an appeal against a council after being accused of importing and processing waste materials. Corkers Crisp factory between Pymoor and Little Downham burnt down in May 2020.

Plans to rebuild were submitted in 2021 but were not approved until July 2025.

Cambridgeshire County Council accused owners Ross and Gail Taylor of importing, depositing, processing, and exporting inert waste materials. The authority handed them an enforcement notice in 2023, demanding they stop.

This was appealed to the Planning Inspectorate and inspector M Savage visited the site on February 2, 2026. Mr Taylor argued that the materials are to be used in rebuilding the factory and a “significant amount” came from the site itself.

He pointed to the “significant period” between the planning application being submitted and approved. He said that, “if it were not for that project, there would be no stockpiles”.

Inspector Savage said they found the site was “in a mixed use” with logistics company Buffaload also using it for haulage. The council said it didn’t address this use as when the notice was served this wasn’t “considered to be the primary use of the site”.

The council gave the inspector photographs and site visit notes to prove their case. Photos dated November 9, 2021, show “what appear to be various stockpiles of material” which “may or may not be derived from waste”.

The inspector said “it is not clear” where the material has come from or whether it was exported or used on site. A witness said in a statement that they had followed an FDS truck on April 5, 2023, to the site and “saw it (and others) being loaded up from a pile which was partly covered in grass”.

Inspector Savage said this would “do little to assist in understanding how the site has actually been used” as materials would need to be removed from the site to prepare to rebuild. Another note dated March 27, 2023, said an officer had seen a HGV enter the site and “deposit what appeared to be inert construction waste onto a pre-existing pile on the site”.

The driver said they were soils from Ely Hospital and “they had an agreement to bring soils to the site for recycling”. The officer said since they weren’t “incorporated into the land forthwith” they couldn’t be classed as permitted development.

But the inspector said this “does not mean that they comprise a waste activity” and would support the suggestion that the land is used for agriculture. They said there was evidence that material was imported to the site, but that this wasn’t disputed by the Taylors – what they dispute is that the materials are “inert waste”.

Inspector Savage said that it “seems likely that development has occurred within the site” but the allegation “in my view is wrong and does not reflect the works that have been carried out, or the uses which have occurred at the site”.

The inspector said they have “wide powers of correction” but don’t consider it possible to correct the notice “without causing injustice” to the Taylors.

The appeal was allowed and the enforcement notice quashed.