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.| 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.