UKC

In reply to john horscroft:
yeha, he says more cautiously. If this is the case, what other options are available to the quarry owners? Lords?

In reply to john horscroft:

Wow, what great news! ... but I haven't had an email from the PDNPA about it yet (I'm on their mailing list), let's hope there are no further snags.

In reply to john horscroft:

Email has just arrived this moment from the PDNPA. The 3 court of appeal judges have unanimously overturned the previous High Court decision. Although they've rejected an application by the landowner, Bleaklow Industries, for permission to appeal to the House of Lords, 'the possibility of an appeal can still not be ruled out'.

In reply to john horscroft:
Brilliant news - 3-0 eh, always felt that that first judge had to be a lone maverick to hand down such an outrageous judgement.

Unfortunately I doubt if that will be the end of it and the PDNPA will probably still end up paying the lawndowner off, but at least we don't have might avoid what would be an appalling precedent

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Morning all! Lovely day!! Just spoken to the oracle that is the Henry. While we don't know the details yet, it looks as thought he Court of Appeal broadly agrees with the Inspector at the public enquiry. The decision was unanimous and right of appeal to the House of Lords was refused, although that could still happen. There's also the European Court to think about, but Mr Harpley will ahev to have very deep pockets if he takes it that far.

in the fianl analysis, the news is as good as we could have hoped for so -


yeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaa

jh

In reply to john horscroft:

And here's the press release from the PDNPA:

The Court of Appeal has upheld the Peak District National Park Authority’s enforcement action to control limestone quarrying at Backdale on Longstone Edge.



This is a significant milestone in a long drawn out legal process.



The Authority, together with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, had appealed against a ruling last year by the High Court. This had overturned a planning inspector’s decision, following a public inquiry in 2007, to uphold the Authority’s enforcement action.



Since then, significant limestone extraction has continued at Backdale, which in the Authority’s view contravenes the 1952 planning permission and harms the national park landscape and environment.



This week (March 18) three Court of Appeal judges ruled unanimously that the High Court decision should be overturned. They re-instated the planning inspector’s ruling and confirmed that only a very limited amount of limestone is allowed to be removed off site and sold in the course of extracting fluorspar - the primary mineral named in the 1952 planning permission.



Authority chair Narendra Bajaria said: “We very much welcome this decision - for three senior judges to uphold the Authority’s enforcement action gives great support to our case. We are particularly pleased that this judgment is a result of a joint appeal with the Secretary of State.



“We are extremely grateful to the public for their support and to a national coalition of environmental and community groups who are working alongside us to try to achieve a permanent solution to the problems at this site.



“We all now expect the minerals operator, MMC Midlands Limited, to work in accordance with the judges’ ruling and comply with the inspector’s interpretation of the planning permission.”



Although the Court of Appeal rejected an application by the landowner, Bleaklow Industries Ltd, for permission to appeal to the House of Lords, the possibility of an appeal can still not be ruled out.

In reply to john horscroft:
Presumably the PDNPA will now slap Bleaklow with another stop/enforcement order ? Or does the previous one suddenly come back to life ?

In reply to john horscroft:

Gotta love the British justice system.

Good news though.

In reply to seagull: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/206.html

Judgement not handed down formally.

MMC / Bleaklow can seek declaration of the terms of the 1952 Permission.

I am unable to see on scanning the judgement that leave to appeal to the HoL has been rejected.

In reply to Anonymous:

Yes, where was the rejection of permission to appeal to the House of Lords. Is that a separate decision in a separate document perhaps?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Hi Chris,

Yes, the stop order has also been upheld. The PDNPA has demanded they stop quarrying.

cheers
j

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The HL part won't be in the reported judgment, Gordon. There'll be a tape and if it goes further a transcript, but such matters aren't usually dealt with in the reported judgment (any more than eg costs are, unless there's some specific point of general interest about costs taken).

Good news, and just goes to show what I know, since from reading the first judgment fairly casually I thought the appeal would fail.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Ah, thanks for clarifying that, John. I imagine that any attempt to take it to the House of Lords now would be somewhat forlorn. ?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I was just going to have a rant at the mods for pulling the thread then found it has been upgraded to news, phew.

In reply to sutty:

Oh yes. Your roving reporter signing off. Hi Ho Silver, away!!

jh

In reply to sutty:

off topic, but relevant. The BMC and UKC symbols are so alike, I hadn't noticed.

on topic
I really hope these people aren't paid off. I think there is a role for compensation to stop legitimate but damaging mineral extraction (I've seen it done to good effect on 3 or 4 peat milling sites), but the point of this court action was that it wasn't legitimate.