[Sloper]

Cheers, but the relevant deadline is about 10am tomorrow morning which doesn't give me a lot of time to go through the BMC etc

[Paul B]

slopes tried to get hold of it for you but to no avail, also been told that he is hard to get hold of. I was also directed towards Guy Keating and told that people will be in the bmc office from 9 in the morning, doubt thats any help.

[Paul B]

only one entry in the online phonebook for the whole of Derbyshire, located in Buxton...maybe its worth a shot.

[r-man]

From the BMC website:

Peak Co-ordinator
(+ Limestone & Stanage)

Henry Folkard
   
01298 871849

Other numbers here: http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Pages.aspx?page=107

[Sloper]

Nick Clegg MP (leader of the Lib Dems and former secreary / treasurer of the all party National Park group) is now on the record as being adamantly opposed to the resumption of quarrying at Longstone Edge.

More to follow as and when.

[Johnny Brown]

Nice one.

[cofe]

there's a meeting tomorrow night at Calver. think me and kim are going.

[jfw]

i'm going tomorrow too

[Johnny Brown]

Me too.

[Jacqusie]

couldn't make it due to work - but how did it go chaps?

Si

[jfw]

The legal issues are pretty confusing. One critic of the Peak Park Authority seemed to imply that the Authority had failed/decided not to, push for a more modern permission (which would have included more limits of extent of work, reparation etc).

McLoughlin (the local Tory MP) came across quite well in the meeting  - as a good speaker anyway (i am sure altruism is mixed with personal benefit - this is politics after all).

I got the impression that the Save Longstone Edge Group (SLEG) need to broaden their horizons about their campaign - although the core of their supporters will always be local residents who are affected day in day out by lorries, dust, etc - they could do more to attract supporters from amongst park users - I have to admit I don't care if house values go down in a a place i could never afford to live - but I do care about the effect of a (in my mind illegal) quarrying operation in a natural area I consider to be a treasured resource. I also have concerns that this appeal judgement could have ramifications on other mining/quarrying disputes in the Peak and other national parks.

The parallel courses of action available to the Park Authority seem to be:

1) Appeal against the appeal judgement - this requires the right to appeal to be granted - there are issues about how this would be funded - McLoughlin seemed to imply the Government rather than the Park Authority should lodge/fund the appeal because the planning decision that the appeal judgement overruled was a government decision.

2) Apply for revocation of the quarrying permission - this seems to involve (the government/somebody?) compensating the permission holder for loss of the resource.

[r-man]

2) Apply for revocation of the quarrying permission - this seems to involve (the government/somebody?) compensating the permission holder for loss of the resource.

But surely the quarrying company would only have to be compensated for the loss of flourospar, since this is ostensibly their main target? And from what I hear, the flourospar doesn't amount to much, so compensation might not be that difficult. Or is this wishful thinking?

[cofe]

although logical, i think it is wishful thinking man. the whole situation just beggers belief. from a climbers perspective, henry folkard should be able to translate much of the legal mumbo-jumbo into lay language at next week's bmc area meeting.

[dave]

2) Apply for revocation of the quarrying permission - this seems to involve (the government/somebody?) compensating the permission holder for loss of the resource.

But surely the quarrying company would only have to be compensated for the loss of flourospar, since this is ostensibly their main target? And from what I hear, the flourospar doesn't amount to much, so compensation might not be that difficult. Or is this wishful thinking?

am I right in thinking that the flourspar thing is just a techinical excuse, and what they're actually wanting to quarry for is limestone, but can't admit it cos then they' be breaching something or other. question?

[jfw]

R-man that is how any normal person would interpret the 1953 permission granted for fluorspar extraction

- this permission allowed for the sale of minerals gained whilst the fluorspar was won

The planinning inspectorate decision (which got overturned by the appeal judge) - interpreted the 1953 permission to mean that limestone could be sold to the ratio 2 parts limestone to 1 part fluorspar extracted (this means that large scale extraction of limescale isn't possible and gaining fluorspar is pretty uneconomic)

Justice Sullivan's overturning of the planning decision concluded you could get as much limestone as you wanted

(neither interpretation seemed to require the sale of the fluorspar).

In the meeting a couple of people suggested a case could be made on the use of the word mineral (i.e. minerals gained) because limestone is/was classified as a rock not a mineral.

The park authority man said that limestone was  commonly referred to as a mineral nowadays - but that any appeal against the judge's decision was likely to be based on the context in which the 1953 permission was granted -

- this could include the contemporary definition of mineral
- the extraction methods envisaged (and referred to) - i.e. narrow rake extraction rather than massive open cast.

Basically the judges decision was made on a legal interpretation of a legal document - as i think fatty Macloughlin said - there could be as many interpretations as there are lawyers.

[Kim]

Also, apparently, if going down this route, the compensation would have to be for the fluorspar AND the limestone. It was suggested it would be in the order of low tens of millions £££ - too much for the Peak Park to afford, but a piffling amount (imo) for the Government.

To echo jfw's point about broadening horizons, etc, apparently the Government seem to consider this a local issue for the Peak Park to sort out, and it seems efforts need to be made to make it a national issue (fuck knows how it isn't already, given this is a National Park, jeez) in order to encourage the Government to sort it out the "easy" way (by paying up).

Local MPs all seem to be aware of the issue, but it was pointed out that the more people from outside the area who write to their MP to protest, the better. I'm not always convinced how much good writing does in these kind of situations (and in this case SLEG have been writing to lots of people for a long time!), but it seemed to be one of the few practical things possible to do at present. There's sample letters to send to your MP on the website.

[Johnny Brown]

The one positive point is this - it was better to lose big in the high court. Having a planning inspector, whose job it is to interpret this stuff, and a judge come up with totally opposing interpretations of the same permission suggests its not a clear cut thing. From Henry's perspective  we got unlucky with the judge.

I think efforts to make this a national issue were not so much to encourage government to cough up, but to highlight how powerless current legislation is and how little national park status means, hopefully with a view to creating new legislation to cover all such cases.

[Jaspersharpe]

I think efforts to make this a national issue were not so much to encourage government to cough up, but to highlight how powerless current legislation is and how little national park status means, hopefully with a view to creating new legislation to cover all such cases.

Good point. That's what is needed as the "current" legislation is obviously a joke, and one which nobody can even properly clarify.

[Andy B]

It seemed to me that the council could be doing more to make life awkward for Glebe, and at least slow them down, (whilst  Glebe steam ahead with the quarrying as the dispute continues) through their use of local highways, but when this was brought up the council rep seemed pretty cagey and non commital about it.

[cofe]

exactly. it's alright quarrying the stuff but if they can't get it off site then they're stuffed.

[Houdini]

...the core of their supporters will always be local residents who are affected day in day out by lorries, dust, etc..

Not to mention falling property prices - an erosion of their investment.

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

Sounds like a bit of direct action is needed. 

[dave]

you're right, this calls for immediate discussion




looks like bringing this to national attention seems to be a good idea. i'm going to pop a letter through Nick Clegg's letterbox next time i'm off down the rising sun.

[Houdini]

First we must decide on a name:  should we be the Petitioners for Longstone Edge (the PLE) or the Longstone Edge Petitioners (the LEP)?

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

i'm going to pop a letter through Nick Clegg's letterbox next time i'm off down the rising sun.

...which happens to be the location of Dense's 40th birthday tonight! Nothing like killing two birds with one stone.