Image from Google Jackets

Stancliffe Stone Company Limited v Peak District National Park Authority

Language: English Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2005] EWCA Civ 747, 17 June 2005. Appeal by quarry owner (S) against the decision ([2004] EWHC 1475 (QB) refusing declarations that a1952 planning permission remained active and that two quarries could be worked in accordance with that permission. The site was a phase 1 site under the Environment Act 1995 Sched 13 para 2(4) within a National Park and whose planning permission was granted pre-1982. The two quarries were listed as dormant sites but S contended that the two sites were part of a single active mineral site covered by the 1952 permission and should be declared active and workable. "Held": appeal dismissed. The 1952 permission no longer authorised the continuance of minerals development at that site. A judicial review would be needed to set aside the list and to challenge a 1996 decision already acted upon would be formidably difficult. The judge had correctly rejected the submission that the list could be read to include the quarries in a single site. If the scheme under the Act was to work properly then a challenge to the list must be made prior to the application dates specified in the list and conditions determined under Sched 13 para 9.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article L130258 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 130258-1001

[2005] EWCA Civ 747, 17 June 2005. Appeal by quarry owner (S) against the decision ([2004] EWHC 1475 (QB) refusing declarations that a1952 planning permission remained active and that two quarries could be worked in accordance with that permission. The site was a phase 1 site under the Environment Act 1995 Sched 13 para 2(4) within a National Park and whose planning permission was granted pre-1982. The two quarries were listed as dormant sites but S contended that the two sites were part of a single active mineral site covered by the 1952 permission and should be declared active and workable. "Held": appeal dismissed. The 1952 permission no longer authorised the continuance of minerals development at that site. A judicial review would be needed to set aside the list and to challenge a 1996 decision already acted upon would be formidably difficult. The judge had correctly rejected the submission that the list could be read to include the quarries in a single site. If the scheme under the Act was to work properly then a challenge to the list must be made prior to the application dates specified in the list and conditions determined under Sched 13 para 9.