000			02149cab a22002175a 4500
001			L147256
008			090421e20090318xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u147256
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aSecretary of State for Communities & Local Government and Anor v Bleaklow Industries Ltd and Anor _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2009
520			_a[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.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aENGLISH CLAYS LOVERING POCHIN & CO V PLYMOTH CORP
650	2	4	_aFAIRMOUNT INVESTMENTS LTD V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY-MINERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
690			_aENVIRONMENT AND LAND CONSULTANCY-PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/206.html _zView the case free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c81456 _d81456