[2009] EWCA Civ 206, 18 March 2009. 'Winning' and 'working' are distinct mining operations and a minerals planning permission should be worded accordingly. The appellants, the Secretary of State and the National Park Authority, appealed against a decision not to uphold their enforcement notice on land owned by the respondent company within a National Park. Planning permission had been granted in 1952 for the extraction of fluorspar 'and any other minerals which are won in the course of working those minerals'. It was accepted that limestone qualified as a mineral, but a dispute arose whether or not the 1952 permission allowed the right to win and work limestone when extracting the fluorspar. Held: appeal allowed. (1) The court determined that 'winning' meant the process of accessing the desired mineral, and 'working' meant the process of removing it from the land. English Clays Lovering Pochin Ltd v Plymouth Corporation applied. The limestone was not a 'target' mineral in the context of the 1952 permission and was therefore not capable of being 'won'. The original judge had misunderstood English Clays. (2) The Planning Inspector's imposition of a ratio of 2:1 limestone to mineral was also upheld. Fairmount Investments Ltd v Sectretary of State for the Environment applied.