Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority

Judgment Cited authorities 14 Cited in 4 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeThe Hon. Mr. Justice Moore-Bick,Mr. Justice Moore-Bick
Judgment Date22 June 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] EWHC 1475 (QB)
Docket NumberCase No: HQ04X00930
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Date22 June 2004
Categories

[2004] EWHC 1475 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Before:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Moore-Bick

Case No: HQ04X00930

Between:
Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd
Claimant
and
Peak District National Park Authority
Defendant

Mr. Timothy Straker Q.C. and Mr. Robert White (instructed by Aaron and Partners) for the claimant

Mr. Timothy Corner Q.C. and Mr. Andrew Fraser-Urquhart (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) for the defendant

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version may be treated as authentic.

The Hon. Mr. Justice Moore-Bick Mr. Justice Moore-Bick

Mr. Justice Moore-Bick :

1. Background

1

The Peak District is one of the most beautiful areas of England. It is also the only source in this country of a certain type of sandstone used in the construction of fine buildings which is now much in demand both for new building and for restoration work. The area has been quarried for hundreds of years, but since the middle of the last century the extraction of stone has required approval under the planning legislation in force from time to time. On 6 th February 1952 Stanton Quarries Ltd obtained permission from the Minister of Local Government and Planning under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and the General Development Order 1950, subject to certain conditions, to continue winning and working sandstone at a number of existing quarries in the area of Birchover. These included a pair of adjacent quarries, Endcliffe and Lees Cross.

2

The passage of the Environment Act 1995 introduced new arrangements for regulating the terms on which the extraction of minerals could take place. The Act required each mineral planning authority to draw up a list of mineral sites in its area with a view to ensuring that any future extraction was carried out on terms that provided adequate protection to the environment and the interests of those living and working in the area. Broadly speaking, sites were designated as "active" if mineral development had been carried out at any time between 22 nd February 1982 and 6 th June 1995 and "dormant" if mineral development had not been carried out to any substantial extent during that period. The authority's powers to impose what became known as "modern" conditions in relation to development varied depending on whether a site was active or dormant. It is common ground that there was no mineral working to any substantial extent at Endcliffe or Lees Cross quarries between 22 nd February 1982 and 6 th June 1995 and that viewed in isolation they would therefore fall to be classed as dormant under the new legislation. The claimant in these proceedings, Stancliffe Stone Co. Ltd, is the successor in title to Stanton Quarries Ltd. It now wishes to re-open Endcliffe and Lees Cross quarries and claims to be entitled to do so in accordance with the conditions imposed by the planning permission granted in 195The defendant, the Peak District National Park Authority, is the mineral planning authority for the area in which the quarries are to be found, having taken over the planning responsibilities of the Peak Park Joint Planning Board. I shall refer to it simply as "the Authority". The Authority considers that it is entitled to impose new conditions on any future operations at Endcliffe and Lees Cross quarries by virtue of the fact that they were dormant at the time the Environment Act 1995 came into effect. In order to resolve this issue the claimant has brought the present proceedings seeking a declaration that these two quarries can be worked in accordance with the planning permission granted in 1952 and the conditions attached to it.

2. The Environment Act 1995

3

It is convenient to begin by considering the relevant provisions of the Environment Act 1995 and in particular Schedule 13 which takes effect by virtue of section 95. The schedule sets out the steps to be taken by mineral planning authorities for the purposes of reviewing mineral planning permissions granted prior to 21 st February 1982. Mr. Straker Q.C. submitted that the grant of planning permission is a valuable right attaching to land and that since schedule 13 provides for existing permissions to cease to have effect in certain circumstances, any doubt as to its proper construction should be resolved in favour of protecting, rather than interfering with, existing rights. I fully accept that, but in fact I do not think that there is any real ambiguity in those parts of the schedule that are relevant to the present dispute and I do not think that the principle of doubtful penalisation to which he referred has any part to play in the present case.

4

The first step required of each mineral planning authority was to prepare a list of mineral sites in its area pursuant to paragraph 3(1) of schedule 13 indicating in each case whether the site was an active Phase I site, an active Phase II site or dormant. Any site all or part of which was situated within a National Park was classed as a Phase I site. Since all the quarries covered by the permission granted to Stanton Quarries Ltd in 1952 were within the Peak District National Park, they were on any view Phase I sites. By virtue of the definitions contained in paragraphs 1(1) and 1(2) of the schedule a mineral site was defined for present purposes as land in respect of which a planning permission was granted after 30 th June 1948 for minerals development.

5

By paragraph 3(4) of the schedule the list was to specify in respect of each active Phase I site the date by which an application was to be made to the mineral planning authority under paragraph 9 to determine the conditions to which the relevant planning permissions relating to that site were to be subject. By virtue of paragraph 12(1) failure to make such an application resulted in the existing planning permission ceasing to have effect. Applications for the determination of conditions governing future working could be made in respect of both active and dormant sites and in each case the applicant was required to set out in his application the conditions to which it was proposed the permission should be subject: see paragraph 9(2)(e). Following the receipt of an application the mineral planning authority was required to determine the conditions to which each relevant planning permission relating to the site was to be subject and those conditions thereupon became effective. However, active and dormant sites were treated differently in one important respect. In the case of active sites the authority was obliged under paragraph 10 to state whether in its view the effect of the new conditions was to restrict working rights to an unreasonable degree and both the conditions themselves and the authority's decision as to their effect on working rights were subject to a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. Provision was made in paragraph 15 of the schedule for the payment of compensation in appropriate cases. Those provisions did not apply to dormant sites in relation to which the authority's powers to impose new conditions were subject only to ordinary planning considerations.

6

In order to ensure that existing permissions were not lost through inadvertence mineral planning authorities were obliged by paragraph 8(3) of the schedule to send reminder notices to landowners and any persons appearing to have an interest in any minerals included within active sites if they had not received an application for the determination of conditions eight weeks before the deadline set out in the list. If it failed to do so, an authority could serve a reminder at any later time, but the time for making an application for the determination of conditions was extended until three months from the service of the reminder.

3. The List

7

In January 1996 the Authority published a first list of mineral sites in its area pursuant to paragraph 3(1) of schedule 13. Each quarry or pair of quarries for which planning permission had been granted in 1952 was treated as a separate site and was given its own distinctive reference number, although the reference number and date of the planning permission was the same in each case. Attached to each entry was a plan identifying the site concerned. Different dates were imposed for the submission of applications for conditions. Thus, an application in respect of Dale View quarry (previously known as Palmer's Pilhough) had to be made by 1 st February 1997, for Stanton Park, Birchover by 1 st February 1998 and for Dungeon and Barton Hill quarries by 1 st September 1998. These sites were all classed as active mineral sites. Endcliffe and Lees Cross, on the other hand, was classed as dormant and so no date was set for any application. Notice that the list had been prepared was published by the Authority in the local newspapers as required by paragraph 5 of the schedule and a notice was served on the claimant pursuant to paragraph 8.

8

On 30 th January 1997 the claimants applied to the Authority pursuant to paragraph 9 of schedule 13 for the determination of conditions applicable to Dale View quarry. The conditions proposed by the claimant were extensive and detailed and were of a kind that one would expect to see attached to a modern planning permission. No reference was made in that document to working at any other location. The Authority made its formal determination on 30 th April 1997.

9

On 15 th January 1999 the claimant submitted to the Authority through its planning agents a scheme of operations and proposed planning conditions for the re-opening of Endcliffe and Lees Cross quarries. In their covering letter the agents referred to the fact that both quarries were registered as dormant without in any way suggesting that the description was incorrect.

4. The issues

10

Much of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT