UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => news => Topic started by: Dr T on February 22, 2007, 05:55:46 pm
-
Bubba you'll pardon me for putting this in news but it needs to come to peoples attention.
There's a great debate going on elsewhere on the site about grit vs not grit bouldering and half the argument seems to revolve not around the rock, or necessarily around the overall quality of the problems but the quality of the countryside in which they are situated
With that in mind it's undeniably a good idea to support the campaign to save longstone edge (http://www.longstone-edge.org.uk/) and in particular to get as many signatures as possible on their e-petition (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Quarrying/)
I'm a soft southerner and whilst I don't get up as often as I would like (which would explain my relative hopelessness on grit) I really appreciate the space and quality afforded by the peak district national park and it would be a great shame to see the area ruined further.
I'm sure the government will see fit to ignore the petition but it's better to do something than do nothing
(have a look at the video too, very emotive use of Elgar ;))
-
Looking through the list of signatures it's pretty disappointing that I only recognize six names off UKB. Piss poor!!!!!!! Anyone who can't be arsed should feel ashamed of themselves. But I guess said people are unlikely to have bothered reading this anyway :thumbsdown:
-
it might help if it would accept my postcode as valid.
-
First I've heard of the petition.
If you designate an area as a Natural Park, that means it should be looked after. Have signed.
Reports on the day by day progress of inquiry here:
http://www.thebmc.net/bmcnews/NewsItem.aspx?id=1262
-
i signed it but it said deadline to sign up by 6 Feb :(
-
That can't be right i signed it yesterday!
-
I've signed it- a lot more than 6 names off UKB now!
-
How odd. I'm sure the listed deadline was later yesterday!
-
06 February 2008 ;)
-
Yes I just spotted that :-[
-
a-ha! phew!
::) (and indeed d'oh)
-
Bonjoy - cheers for playing spell checker....
-
Previous aerial photo of one of the areas being worked (Wager's Flat I think) (http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&X=420500&Y=373250&width=700&height=400&gride=420000&gridn=373250&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&pc=&zm=0&scale=5000&multimap.x=244&multimap.y=226)
Recent (2007) aerial photo the same area (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=calver&sll=53.098145,-2.443696&sspn=8.224424,14.853516&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=17&ll=53.255959,-1.698793&spn=0.003999,0.010772&t=k&iwloc=addr)
Also bunged it up on http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=190165 might get a bit more interest.
-
i think this needs stickyfying
-
Bubba you'll pardon me for putting this in news but it needs to come to peoples attention.
good call mate - i wasn't aware of this petition until you did
have signed
-
Another signature added....
Thanks for pointing this out guys.
-
Bonjoy, I signed this petition but under the Number 10 site after your post from earlier on in the week via the link you posted in another thread. What's the score with signing this one? Are they two separate petitions? I'm probably being stupid here.
Please ignore me, I get it.
-
I started a thread about the same petition, but as this one was placed in news it got more views. I didn't bother merging them.
-
Better maps of the area affected here, its a vast area.
http://www.longstone-edge.org.uk/theproblem/index.htm (http://www.longstone-edge.org.uk/theproblem/index.htm)
-
Have signed.
Not only is it part of a national park and somw wonderful countryside but there are some good footpaths, bridelways and tracks around there that are great for mountain biking. It would be a shame to lose them too.
-
I started a thread about the same petition, but as this one was placed in news it got more views. I didn't bother merging them.
sorry bonjoy, didn't see your thread, didn't mean to step on your toes, atleast there's a few more signatures....
-
No worries. My mistake, I should have put it in News in the first place, it gets more traffic.
-
Incidentally, thanks for introducing me to the number 10 petition site. I spent an hour this morning signing some petitions of merit. Some incredibly right wing petitions were present too I noticed, like the petition against the building of a 100 million pound mega-mosque. "We of Christian Britain blah blah blah.."
-
I know we often used to say things like `woulnd't it be great if the Peak was nearer london', say, but we never meant for them literally to dig it up and move it there.
With the right wing things, it'd be great if you could have an anti vote that subtracts one from everyone they get for it. Like Karma. I know you're supposed to submit a counter petition but this, the more childish method is so the more fun one.
-
Monolith... you spent an hour signing petitions?
How many times do I have to tell you, stop fuckin' around on this bleeding internet and start sanding down holds, drilling boards and dragging old mattresses across the Dingle (whilst being chased by untold hordes of scals no doubt).
For fuck's sake man, this thing ain't gonna get built with you continuing to be quite the web-socialite that you are at the moment. And don't forget, I want it finished by the time I get back from swanning around the country. If it doesn't get done soon there's a high chance that I'll have to actually help build it. Rather than just pay some money and climb there in between trips to grit.
-
Ben - I have well and truly internalised the post of being your whipping boy. I did however, take a brief break for a Thai Red Curry in Chilli Banana tonight. At first they wouldn't accept my order saying : "But does Ben know you're out tonight? He told us we can't serve you?". But I pleaded and eventually got it. Then even Jess was on my case saying "I'm not too sure Ben would be up for us going out for a meal then having copious amounts of tantric sex?". A mild sedative coupled with some alcohol worked a treat on that one. Then my parents rang from Florida "Hey Tom how's it going? Has Ben got a world-class training facility up yet? You better stay on his good side." Alas, I still had nothing built.
I promise you, something will be up by Tuesday night.
-
See, you're doing it again. Tut tut.
If you don't get to work soon I will write your name down in my little black book.
-
Some big names on that list now! Simon Nadin, Malcolm Smith, John 'Cofe' Cofield....
-
my favourite is "Christothea Constandinou-Williams". :o
-
There are two Simon Nadin's it should be said.
I'm annoyed that I didn't put my nick name down - or does Cofe have just that on his passport?
-
Er, there's only one!
-
Have you just read all the names to check that?
He was refering to the wider world generally. Where there are in fact two Simon Nadins. One who was world champion, and one who wasn't (but is no punter, or so I hear).
-
No, I pressed ctrl+f and typed in "Nadin"
-
He was refering to the wider world generally. Where there are in fact two Simon Nadins.
I reckon there may be even more than two Simon Nadins. Let's start a thread and see if we can guess or work out through complex capture/recapture analysis exactly how many Simon Nadins there are out there. It'll be great fun. Then we could start another thread to see how many of the Simon Nadins that we have identified have climbed font 8a. Then how many have climbed route 8a.
-
Signed. Had to wait 'til I could get enough reception on my blackberry (ie not in cornwall!) to be able to click the email link to confirm signature.
Could someone check that there's a similar thread on ukclimbing/cocktalk? Think it merits starting one if there's not. Putting past differences aside, this is a worthy cause. I can't get UKC on my blackberry- not that I'm complaining!
-
On UKC they are reporting a big step forward in the fight to save Longstone Edge.
(I would post a link but I haven't got the skills, sorry).
-
Are you referring to THIS (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=126445)?
-
No. It's in the news section of the website.
-
http://83.231.159.41/bmcnews/NewsItem.aspx?id=1642
-
:beer2:
Excellent news
-
in your facy quarrying muthafuckers. :wank:
-
Kiss my face.
-
:bounce: :great: :bounce: :great: :bounce: :great: :bounce:
-
(Have resurrected this thread as it contains more info)
Just had a depressing phone call from Henry Folkard. The appeal 'couldn't have gone any worse'. Seems we got unlucky on the judge, who didn't see any reason why a fifty year old permission should be overturned, nor why any limestone won in the process of working the minerals shouldn't be sold. NB - The original permission is intended for minerals foremost (flourspar I think), and 'any associated winnings' or some such wording; however the site has been worked purely for limestone for a long time, and it was on this technicality that a lot of hope had been placed.
Blasting has resumed as of last week. The judges view on the sale of limestone makes the paying of compensation (by the peak park, as detailed in the original permission) all the more impossible.
The affected area of just this site (http://www.longstone-edge.org.uk/theproblem/index.htm) is vast, plus this has dire repercussions for the future; both sides have been viewing this as a test case for other permissions. The best we can hope for at present is a counter-appeal.
-
that makes for depressing reading.
-
NB - The original permission is intended for minerals foremost (flourspar I think), and 'any associated winnings' or some such wording; however the site has been worked purely for limestone for a long time, and it was on this technicality that a lot of hope had been placed.
The fact that the original permission was for the mining of flourspar is in direct conflict with the ACTUAL quarrying process which is removing tonnes and tones of limestone for aggregate and the flourspar is being stockpiled.
The only company in the Peak that will/can process flourspar is glebe mines and they are not going there with a barge pole - so the flourspar sits doing nothing until the end of time ...
..while the hillside gets ripped apart and the motorways across our green and pleasent land are widened....
...sorry for cheering you up folks...
Si
-
What? You make it sound as if the entire hill is made of fluorspar. You have to remove limestone to get to the fluorspar in the first place, seeing as how it's interebedded (i presume - what's the source of fluorspar? thermal or depositional?)
-
No he's not - he's saying that the original quarrying permit allowed for the mining of fluorspar, with allowance made for selling by-products (i.e. limestone) - what they're actually doing is quarrying solely for the limestone and stockpiling the fluorspar with no intention of processing/selling it - the judge somehow ruled that it was acceptable.
Btw, f'spar is a vein mineral - not interbedded.
-
Anyone involved in this or have contact numbers for Henry F?
Tis urgent as tomorrow the potential opportunity will have passed.
-
slopes
only number i could get off t' bmc website
Guy Keating - Access & Conservation Officer (Regions)
Guy is in charge of regional access & conservation initiatives, as well as having an unequalled knowledge of access issues around the country.
0161 438 3309
Henry F is local BMC access volunteer and member of Peak District Local Access Forum
-
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
-
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.
-
only one entry in the online phonebook for the whole of Derbyshire, located in Buxton...maybe its worth a shot.
-
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
-
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.
-
Nice one.
-
there's a meeting tomorrow night at Calver. (http://www.longstone-edge.org.uk/index.htm) think me and kim are going.
-
i'm going tomorrow too
-
Me too.
-
couldn't make it due to work - but how did it go chaps?
Si
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
exactly. it's alright quarrying the stuff but if they can't get it off site then they're stuffed.
-
...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.
-
Sounds like a bit of direct action is needed. :whistle:
-
you're right, this calls for immediate discussion
(http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/4766/film/lob/immediat.jpg)
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.
-
First we must decide on a name: should we be the Petitioners for Longstone Edge (the PLE) or the Longstone Edge Petitioners (the LEP)?
-
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. :dance1:
-
i wrote to my mp nick clegg and have received a reasuring response. i'd urge anyone who hasn't yet sent a letter to their mp to do so ASAP. you can probably even email them via their website too which takes no time.
-
just noticed on UKC that it looks like the court of appeal has found in favour of the peak park and rejected the landowner's right to appeal the decision to the house of lords. sounds like great news.
-
:thumbsup: Excellent!
-
kiss my face.
(http://www.alan-partridge.co.uk/multimedia/videoclips/imalans01/thumbs/Kissface.jpg)
-
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/206.html (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/206.html)
Just reading the judgement, I'll post a precis asap.
-
OOkkkkkkkkkk folks hold onto your seats, this is exciting shit. :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:
As i read para 49 and 76 - 78, the decisions rests in a further amplification of the inspector's decision re the ratio to be applied to the limestone / flourspar extraction and that while the 2:1 was indicative the actual ratios of between 47 - 75:1 were such that applying proper interpretation to the permission the extraction of limestone was not within the original permission of winning and working as per flourspar and consequently the enforcement notice was proper.
Paras 64 & 82 do however allow the parties (ie MMC and Bleaklow) the chance to make further submissions re a declaration of the meaning of the 1952 permission and one therefore presumes the nature of the ROMP.
I am unable to see where it states that the judgement has been formally handed down and that leave to appeal to the HoL has been refused.
-
http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2013/11/21/peak-district-bosses-order-end-to-quarrying-at-longstone-edge-site (http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2013/11/21/peak-district-bosses-order-end-to-quarrying-at-longstone-edge-site)