SAVE LONGSTONE EDGE

Firstly may I thank all of our supporters who turned up at the inquiry - not just on the first day but throughout the long two and a half weeks, whether you came for an hour, morning, afternoon or all days it was much appreciated. It was a difficult case because the public's views on loss of amenity could not be represented due to the grounds of the appeal. However, I am sure the turnout proved how worried the public are about this sorry mess.

The enforcement notice under appeal from Bleaklow Industries and MMC was to stop the 'Winning and working of Limestone' at Backdale. The original 1952 planning permission is for the 'winning and working of fluorspar and any other minerals won in the course of'. And that is what it all hangs on.

Chris Wood of SLEG has put in many hours of research and quite a few sleepless nights in preparing our proof of evidence and forwards the argument that only the limestone that is "mechanically associated" with the vein mineral or in a small envelope surrounding it can be sold off. He accepted that limestone may have to be removed to get at the ore but that it should be returned to the ground after the ore is removed. Likewise the new evidence that the Peak Park offered was very similar to this in content.

I'm not going to write lots about what the geologists said as it was highly technical and without all the maps and technical drawings it would be difficult to get it right, however Bleaklow's own geologist made the room gasp when he worked out that the fluorspar was only 1.33% of the stone extracted. Likewise we had a bit of a laugh when Robin Harpley, whose only asset is owning the hillside, didn't know how much rent he received from MMC but he seemed to be quite happy to announce that he had never received royalties for fluorspar!

The case put forward by Bleaklow Industries and MMC was based on the fact that they would not breach the planning permission as long as they followed the ROMP (Revocation of Old Planning Permissions) that had been drawn up by RMC in the 90's and had never been passed. They had stuck to that scheme of work - i.e. working towards Peak Pasture. Strangely MMC had signed a lease to allow them to work Peak Pasture even though they knew that Glebe own the mineral rights (Bleaklow owns the land) and had not been over the hill to check with Glebe if it was o.k. Likewise in their rush to get to the north of the road they hadn't thought about how long it would take to get the highways people to agree to have the road moved!

Then it became clear that not only had the Peak Park put in supplementary evidence at a very late date but that they had got the map on the stop notice WRONG, not only that but having found this out in June of last year they still had not drawn the new map up. We know they like time to get things right - they have been telling that to SLEG for nine and a half years. It was at this point that Bleaklow Q.C. took joy in trying to annihilate David Bent, the authority's mineral planning officer, quoting from the recent Judicial Review that he "had not been frank with the court and proffered through leading counsel a specious explanation", to knock the credibility of the Peak Park witnesses.

The closing submissions were long and once again were difficult for the general public to understand when other documents were mentioned - however , the closing statements from Harpley's and MMC's legal teams once again pointed to many failures from the Peak Park. However the onus is on these companies to prove that they have not breached the enforcement notice and if anything they proved they had - 1.33% of fluorspar to 98.67% of limestone sounds like a limestone quarry. Working all the limestone in their rush to get to Peak Pasture, when they don't own the mineral rights on the land - sounds like a limestone quarry. Admitting that no fluorspar from Backdale had been sold (until they managed to blend some in with some from Wagers Flat) sounds like a limestone quarry. As Steve Furness has said so many times "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it is a duck". Let us hope that the Inspector, who will now contemplate all the evidence before deciding whether to uphold the enforcement notice, modify it or say it is unlawful knows what a duck looks like. His decision will be given out by May 18th 2007.