English Clays Lovering Pochin & Company v Plymouth Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL |
| Judgment Date | 22 February 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Civ J0222-3 |
| Date | 22 February 1974 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1974] EWCA Civ J0222-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Civil Division
On appeal from Order of Mr Justice Goulding.
Lord Justice Russell,
Lord Justice Stamp and
Mr Justice Brightman (Not present)
Mr CHARLES SPARROW, Q.C. and Mr GUY SEWARD (instructed by Messrs Robbins, Olivey & Lake, Agents for Messrs Stephens & Scown, St. Austell, Cornwall) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Plaintiffs).
Mr JEREMIAH HARMAN, Q.C. and Miss ELIZABETH APPLEBY (instructed by Messrs Sharpe, Pritchard & Co., Agents for Mr H. R. Haydon, Plymouth) appeared on behalf of the respondents (Defendants).
The Judgment I am about to deliver is the Judgment of the Court.
This appeal from Mr Justice Goulding (which is reported at 1973 1 Weekly Law Reports, 1346) raises the question whether the proposed erection of certain buildings and plant by the appellant at the site known as Marsh Mills comes within the permission to develop conferred by Article 3 and Schedule 1, Class 18(2), of the General Development Order, 1963. Class 18(2) refers to "The erection … by mineral undertakers on land in or adjacent to the belonging to a quarry or mine comprised in their undertaking of any building, plant or machinery … which is required in connection with the winning or working of minerals … or which is required in connection with the treatment or disposal of such minerals".
The General Development Order contains, either directly or by force of Section 31 of the Interpretation Act, certain definitions. (1) "'Minerals' includes all minerals and substances in or under land of a kind ordinarily worked for removal by underground or surface working…": see Town And Country Planning Act, 1962, Section 221. (2) "'Mining operations' means the winning and working of minerals in, on or under land, whether by surface or underground working". (3) "'Mine' includes any site on which mining operations are carried on". (4) "'Mineral undertakers' means undertakers engaged in mining operations".
The mineral with which we are concerned in this case in china clay. It is a substance which is found in some granite measures taking the place of the decomposed felspar constituent of the granite. It is therefore mechanically constituent of the granite. It is therefore mechanically associated in the ground with much else, and requires, if itis to be put to industrial and merchantable use, to be separated out. This is done by first detaching, by high pressure water jet, the mechanical combination of china clay and its associates, and subsequently by a system of refinement of the resultant slurry (that is to say, water with china clay and impurities in suspension) driving off or abstracting from the slurry substantially all but china clay. The resultant slurry is then passed through fine filters which separate the china clay from the water vehicle, leaving in effect a substance (china clay) from which the final water content may be driven by heating, leaving a marketable cake or powder. This is a very rough, but we thing adequate, description of the process. We state in advance that the process which we have described takes place at the property of the appellant high up at Lee Moor up to the point where the slurry is to be regarded as china clay in suspension in the residue of the water originally used in the first detaching. From there the slurry continues in a pipe some 3 or 4 miles along a narrow strip of land, site of an old tramway, to the site called Marsh Mills in the valley of the Plym, and at Marsh Mills the rest of the process described takes place, Marsh Mills being conveniently sited as a point of distribution of the merchantable china clay. The appellant wishes, by the erection of modern buildings and plant at Marsh Mills, to improve its output of china clay in the market, which without doubt is a praiseworthy object.
If the definitions that have been mentioned are applied to Class 18(2) and to the mineral now in question, the requirements for inclusion in the General DevelopmentOrder permission may be thus stated: (1) The building (for example) proposed to be erected on the particular land at Marsh Mills must be proposed to be erected by an undertaker engaged in the winning and working of a mineral (china clay) in, on or under land whether by surface or underground working, china clay in this case qualifying as a mineral in the context of a definition of a mineral as including substances in or under land of a kind ordinarily worked for removal by underground or surface working. (2) The particular land at Marsh Mills on which it is proposed to erect the building must be shown to be in or adjacent to and belonging to a site on which the winning and working of china clay in, on or under land whether by surface or underground working is carried on. (3) The site last mentioned must be comprised in the undertaker's undertaking. (4) The building on the particular land must be required in connection with the winning or working of china clay, or required in connection with the treatment or disposal of china clay.
The crucial question in this appeal turns on the second of these requirements for inclusion in the General Development Order permission.
It is first argued that Marsh Mills is a mine and therefore land in a mine in the sense that it is a site on which the working of china clay on land by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CAB Housing Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling UP, Housing and Communities
...in the GPDO, as they were in its predecessor, the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1963 (see English Clays Lovering Pochin & Co. Ltd. v Plymouth Corporation [1974] 1 W.L.R. 742). The use of the word “neighbouring” in Classes ZA, A and AA to AD of Part 20 indicates a diff......
-
Commissioner of Mines and Attorney General v Glencore Alumina Jamaica Ltd
...the mining process has been completed. Counsel referred to and relied on the English Court of Appeal case of English Clays Lovering Pochin & Company Ltd v Plymouth Corporation [1974] 2 ALL ER 239 and the dictionary meaning of the word “mine” by the learned author in Stroud's Judicial Dictio......
-
R (Bleaklow Industries Ltd) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
...and in particular in this permission. Like the inspector, Sullivan J referred to the Court of Appeal decision in English Clays Lovering Pochin Ltd v. Plymouth Corporation [1974] 27 P. & C.R. 447. That was a case which concerned the issue of whether a plant processing china clay slurry was p......
- Ottewell (VO) v BP Exploration Operating Company Ltd