As we had already`tabled a `series of proposals to you for Wagers

Newman Jane
From:
Lomas John
Sent:
24 October 2013 10:31
To:
Bent
Subject:
FW:Coverland ltd
From Coverland’s agent iri
David; Newman Jane; Palmer Clare
-.
Backdale Quarry and
Wagers Flat
response to my reminder.
John
..
_..
_._.
.
.~.
From: Simon Heaton
sent: 24 October 2013 10:2
To: Lomas John
_
_
_...
’1.
.
_.__,
_~___
_~
"__."’.’.___
_
_
__
-. _...
.
....--"_..-
_’_’._
".
.......____....__.......
[maj!to;
.
’
CC: pet:er;hun
SUbject: RE: OWerIand Ltd
’Andrew OBit; ’John Church’
-
Backdale QUarry and
Wagers Rat
Dear John
My apologies for the delay in responding. although, in truth, I don’t think we have much to say at the moment.
Your letter of 3rd
September made clear that you were still wrestling with your combined considerations as to
winning and working of minerals had permanently ased and whether you have a duty to make a
prohibition order. Obviously we have already expressed ’j,:, writing our views on those matters (aswell as outlining
them at our last meeting) and are conscious that, as per your letter, we can only properly understand the Council’s
position once you have reported to th~’Committee and they h~ve made their decision.
whether
As we had
already’tabled a ’series of proposals to you for Wagers Flat and Backdale Quarry and iridicated the
reclamat on/restoration aspects of these sche’mes we did not
really see any merit in having a further meeting in
advance of your committee.
though point out that your letter indicates’that ifthe’Council was to make a Prohibition Order it would need
practical terms,this is one of the
main considerations and their proposals have the planning benefit of delivering some reclamation/restoration
without the need to burden the public purse through the making of an order and assembling an associated
restoration ~heme. My clie’nt’s proposals are based on practical/viabllity/deli\ferability considerations, which I am
sure you will agree the NPPF places great emphitsis upon.
I would
to include a restoration scheme. My client wishes me to re-iterate our view that, in
We would be most grateful if you and your
colleagues, in reporting to the Plannins Committee, can make clear that
the prop~sals Qutllned In your letter have been tabled and
submission and determination of these schemes as a
we
wish the members to be aware that we
see
the
practical and beneficial way of contributing to the,
of
some long standing issues as opposed to the costs and time delays of pursuing formal
resolution
prohibition.
more
In the meantime w~ are grateful for your advice concerning t~e potential for greater transparency In the
reporting
and public involvement in the Committee Meeting on this matter. In this.regard, it would be most helpful if
you
could Jet us know when your non-confidentiaf report becomes available and aJso, in due course, cpnfrrmation that
the item is definitely on the agenda for 15th November Committee,
Best rega rds.
Yours sin
rely
Simon
Simon Heaton
1
Heaton
Planning
9The Square’
KeyWorth
Nottingham
,
NG125JT
T
F:
M:
www.fieatonDlanning.co.uk
2
--
~
Fluorsp
"
British
r
~
.~Compan)r
R8gi11Ifed 0IIiae Ca....-lllh _
dIIIDn. Hope Va..,. IleIbyahh
SIGnet
_4TH
-
UnlIId
T.t
Fax:
EMIt
ww.brlDlhluDteplr.oom
17 september 2013
Mr John Lomas
Peak District National Prk AuthorIty
Aldem House
Bulow Road
Bakewell
,
Derbyshire OE4S 1AE
De&’JOM
LONGSTONE EDGE EAST1 REVIEW oF OLD MINERAL PERMI88ION
Further to your emall of 6 September 2013 regan:lng Ih8 above matter. I thought it may be fA lame lil!S8iltance if I
sumrnarfsed the Br’iHsh Fluorspar Ud (BFL)potlllon reg nllng thl$18sue prior to ~r report to commfttee on Friday
11 October.
’
"Long&tone Edge East is the 1952 minilterlal permiHlon covering Backdale, Wager’. Flat and Peak Pllitll~
althaU;h part at Ute original conHnt, the acIIVI open caat. working. on Langstone Edge are subject to a separate.
modem planning permission. The Lo~tne Edge East lrelll held wIIhtI 8 number of different land ownershfpl
with BF.L 8S ILICC88IOf’ In title to GIebe MIMI ltd. retaining the Interest In the minerals north of Bramley Lane and
In the
area
known
a. Peak
PII-’". These,areas hrwe never been worked but’benefit from the 1952 consent as
Interpnd8c;l by the Court of Appeal I.e. the right,1D
extract fluorspar. berytea and limited
amounts of lineatens ~
.
88 a
raauft..
The Envlrnment Act 1995 provides for periodic reviews of n:tfnerll planning permissions (ROMPs)and the EtA
Regulations 2008 provide for 118 makfng of a prohibition order where a minerai pe......ron hu been suspanded for
more than two years. Under Ihe8e regulltione the MPA may ..quest an Environmental Statement with I deadline
ilsl If this Information Is nolsuppfted by the p....crtbed date than the 811881’118... autom.suspenBlon.
for ll
In the caae of longstone Edge East this date W8I 31 October 201Q. Ills mderBtDDd that Glebe Mines Ud 1R.pplad
sarna information but this WIllI not COMIderad comprehensive: by the Authorltyl nor was It agreed If GIebe Mines Ltd
were the applicant for the ROMP.
.
long.tone Eclge East enterad automatic suspension on 1 November 2010. In Older fur the Authority to serve
.must be co~nt that the resumption of wlnr*,g ind WOrkrng lIunlllely. Prior,to
prohtitlon order the ~
Langston. Edge East entertng automatic 8U1I*I810n the Aulhortly granted p8ImIuIon far the extraction of
fluorspar at Tea,rsaD. Bonsai Moor, by open pJt method.. lhll planning perm.lsslon was granled subject 10 the
COlflpJetion of a 8106 Agreement. .One of the provIlIons oftha leanall S106 Agreement":
Not 10 ceny owInnII’lQ or worldng offIuorapar or usodeted win minerals on the L.ong8Ione Edge land.
For a mIn/mcmJ 014~..beglnnin on the date of"",pIpermlnlon:and
At any lima’."’"th petIod of 4",.,.. I’fIIritred to in (a)abD\’ whist the winning or working of mlnl1a1fi ,.
landpur.UflIJl to the ’pIannfng permt..ton.
taldng p1r:e on ,he T
(a)
(b)
The TearsaU decialon noUce _5 issued on 21 June 2010 and the S106 Agreement algn~ on 24 June 2010. On
this basis the Authority recognlsed GIBbe Mines Ltd’s ~ht to work ttlelr portion at Longstone Edge East IVId sought
a temporary cessetion of these rights In exchange far working TursaR.
BrlU.h Fluor.p.’ Lid
Reglllrdon No.8050701
VAT No. 137729977
1811
Longste Edge east went"into aulomBtlc ISUlpenslon on 1 NOY8mber 2010. that is nearly five months after Gleba
Mlnes Ud agn,.,d not toWOfk.lhelr fnteraat lor .
period of at I..t four years. It WIll therafora delr 10 the Aulhorlty
that GI_ Mkles lid _liD Intandad to work Peak PasbJre and temporarily traded these rights prior CO the alte
.
entering automallc’SuspensIon.
.
of the Team" 8108
At to the fact that GI8 Mines Ud did not supply.a full anYIlUllmenllll I1.Il:8merrti the t
hava rendered this wort abortive and unnecea:..ry. An envfr’onmen statement i. .
camplax
process with a limited partod far which the .......-nent of ImpaCll and mltigalon are applicable. Undertaking the
praClulon of an envIrorwn8ntalltatement when there was no prorpect of wortdng Peak Pasture fc:Ir 8 ariod of not
Agreement would
.
IHIthan four yea,.. would not raprNerll8c:onamlc or Induetry bHt pracUce.
.
on the balls of the above If 15 considered that it would bl InBpprapriata for Iha Authty to leek a prohIbition order
on the rand conlrOled by BFL a.n ha. been ctearIy demonstrated that.there has baan an Intantfon.to win .,d work:
mlnerl" In the Lo~Edge ea_......ufr iii control.
.
.
It should also be noted that l’Ie Peak Pasture land b Bill ~
potentially valuable mlneralraHIYI
and at this period lit time It Is regarded as an ana that wll be WDrked at BCI8 polnlln the fulunt.
by BFL
.
.
I trUlt that the.1bove clartl’lel BrIIih Fluorspar Lid’s posllon wIh regard to thll matter. H
r, It.is fuly
understood that thl. remains 8 complicated Issue Inlellocked ...rUt other extemallnterells. Ta this .nd BFL would
welcome the apportunly to work with the Aulhorly to explore .ny mutually benaflClaI opprtunllln. If)’OU think
would be 801118 beneftt In meellng 10 dilcuu the matter further do .n~hechete to gat In conIac:t:
th
.
111/PDNPA-A..po-:JT.1001.dDCIC
-
J L
a.l
PIa n
l
n
\1
11
I
r’" l
in g
.1
Con
fl
s. u
II
I
---
II
l.!
1 tan t~’
My Ref:SCH/HPl/Coveriand/2013
Your Ref:
Date: 11th June 2013
John ’Lomas
.
.
Director of Land Use
Policy
Peak District National Park Authority
Aldem House
Baslow Road
Bakewell
Derbyshire
DE45lAE
SENT BY EMAIL AND POST
Dear Mr Lomas,
LONGSTONE EDGE
POTENTIAL PROHIBITION ORDER
I refer to our
meeting on 10th May 2013 with my client, Coverland ltd, their
Planning Consultant, John Chu~h and your colleagues, David Bent and John Scott.
.
You suggested that it
might be appropriate t~atwe write to you offering our views
between your Authority and the Treasury Solicitor in regard
to the above and in the light of your forthcoming report,to the Planning Committee.
Our commentS are therefore as follows:
on
the cor~sponden
Having considered the correspondence with the Treasury Solicitor it Is apparent
there Is agreement that It must
minerals
or
the
depositing
appear
to
MPA that
winning
and
working of
of waste have permanently ceased before it is under a
a
duty to make a. Prohibition Order.
However, an Important point that appears to emerge from the correspondence is
the Treasury Solicitor’s view that after 2 years of suspension an MPA would not be
acting’ rationally in not finding or assuming that working h d permanently ’ceased.
this aspect would seem to be further emphaslsed by 2 interrelated poInts you made
at the meeting~
1. The focus of your considerations Is ’principally
on Backdale and Wagers Flat
Longstone Edge (LE)permission
2. That other areas, of the LE permission have either bee" ,restored or
regenerated to the satisfaction of the MPA
’
areas of the
-
9 The
TeI
Heuan. PllI....oing i. tbc:: trad n.g
,
R_silte.ed
Squ.re. Krth,Notti
F.x
"ff;c.
-
1~
emaiJ
’:U.:II"I.
f’Ot’
H,..tOIl
Plan
Ilticllr,,<cllloid, ....BrldgfD.d, Non;nsh.m, NG2
in.:3 Ltd.
’AD.Regiot.red No, 4UnU
It therefore appears to
us
that the MPA is simply at the same point it was in back in
when Coverland wrote to you
considering whether it Is now
and in the public interest to make a Prohibition Order. In this re ard the
~eptember 2012
-
-
expedient
sugg~tlons we put to you in our letter remain broadly relevant see attached letter.
A key point being a request to.r the Authority no~ to make a Prohibition Order whilst
Coverland bring forward prop9sals that would help secure the reclamationl
restoration and end-uses for those elements of the LE permission that are your main
-
focus.
only surmise, based on the c~rrent circumstances and the correspondence
exchange with the .Treasury ~olicitor that the likely view of the MPA Is that wining
.and working h~s permanently ceased in the LE permission ancl that the MPA is now
focussed on reclamation, restoration and end-uses particularly for the Backdale and
Wagers Flat areas.
We can
.
.
Assuming.this is the case we still remain firmly of the view that, In the light of the
proposals tabled by Coverland at our meeting involving their own proposals for
reclamation, restoration and end-uses of Backdale and.Wagers Fiat It Is sensible
and in the public interest not to make, Prohibition Order at this point in time whilst
Coverland submit these proposals to you.
-
-
the point of expending
public money on preparing an Order
(with the cost of professional and technical input) when Coverland continue to
pursue a practical and deliverable approach to reclamation of these a~as. Rather
than spending public funds and pursuing fegal/formal channels, which will ther1;
potentially result in time and costs for Coverland, there Is in our view real merit in
allowing Coverland the opportunity to present you and your memb rs with some:
practical. and beneficial proposals which will include the recovei’y and use of certain
valuable materials on site, as well as taking into account established uses (i.e.
ongoing business use)that help facilitate delivery.
In
short, we.cannot
In this re ard
we
see
would highlight proposals to restore Wager Flat, which include.:
RecoverJng valuable wailing
.
stone from old overburden for use on the estate
underthe auspices and spirit of agricultural
(which generally
permItted development rights GPDO,Part 6,Class C)
.Removal of old haul road berms that detract from the local landscape
.Use of overburden and material frOm the berms to infill the old void at
appears to fall
.
-
Wagers Flat
Seeding, planting and fencing of the site
.
Recovery and use/export of currently stockpiled processed stone (aggregate)
to help offset the costs of the engineering and restoration works and to
ensure that readily available valuable construction materials are not wasted
(further to our meeting Coverland has assessed the stockpiles and estimates
they contain approximately 15-20,000 tonnes of usable processed stone)
.
-
9 Tbe
Tel
Square. Krtb.NottblJham., NG12 SJT
ax
.
It.li.....d om..
-
email
Heuo... Ptall"’;"’1 h rILe ’rttdinl nUIU: f’a, He.toD ’bnninl Ltd.
12 IhhlSCo.d It".". Woot Dridafo.d. Noui"lh.m. NG2 ’AD.llog’OIa..d ND. 47B~2S’
The indicative timescale for these works is around 2-3 months.
Proposals
Ineru"ding:
rationalise
to
uses
and
restore/reclaim. areas
at
Backdale
Quarry,
Clarification of established uSe within existing buildings
.
Bring forward replacement buildings and
.
improve the visual
appearance of
the site
O.
Use of on-site material to buttress and batter
.
to Improve safety and
against tne old ~uarry faces.;...
integrIty of the faces
~edingJplanting
.
We did mention the. impending submission of
application for a certificate of
development/use,
buildIng at Backdale
Quarry. In general terms you seemed to acc~pt .the basis and history behind this
submission,~hich Is reflected in the ~ullet points above.
lawful
based
on
an
the continuing use of the
We must stress our view that Joint working" co-operation and local engagement are
a far better means of securing practical solutions In relatively short timescales"rather
than the Instigation of formal
proceedings, which are time consuming, costly and
divert all parties away from securing the best land-use outcomes.
.
We would be
grateful
attention of yOl!r
ensuring
some
if you could bring these comments and proposals to the
Planning Committee .and would
weight
welcome any help you can give in
is attached to these’ considerations when considering the
question of making a P,rohibition Order.
Yours sincerely~
Simon Heaton
Heaton
Planning
The
,
Tcl
Squrth.NottinablUn. NG12 5T
Fax
cD)aU
PlIani_1 11 ’the tnd:ins .,.lIme: (O!H&[lton ’lanniDI Ltd~
BddSfo<" aa.d. W..t B<idsford. Notti",...",. NG2 6JoB. R.esi.toreG
H..con
lle:!iuOEed
office
12
No. 4U6~~"
COVERL~ND
My Ref:’
Da~e:
JCILBIH110
5 September 2012
,Mr J Dixon
Chief executive
Peak District National Park Authority
Aldern House
Bulow Road
Bakewell
Derbyshire
DE4S1AE
Dear Mr Dixon
Long~one Edge East
Coverland UK
-
Ltd
meeting that took place earlier ,this year concerning the above land, we are
behalf of our cU~t. Coverland UK Ltd, to ouUlne the lataat position and
thinking and
to’seek agreem
of the National Park Authority to an In16a1 way forward.
Further to the
Writing
We
on
weJl aware that the
Longstone Edge East minerai planning permission and past
mfraeral workings present a comp~Q. planning background, which now requires a proactive
approach by all parties to ~nd deUverable planning solutions In order to secure the most
are
sustainable future uses ’of the land.
.
In this regard, we deal below wfth the followfng matters:
land and Minerai Interests.
The Minerals Permission and the Minerals Review (ROMP).
Potential Development Proposa’s.
Rights of Way Matters,
.
It
Community Engagement.
Progress Reports.
Reque~ for an Agreement on the Way Forward.
Joint Working and
Land and
Mlnerallnteresfs
Our client. Coverland UK
Ltd. has gained control of the int~ of Bleaklow Indusb1es Ltd
and.
conseqUElnce. now owns slgnlflc nt areas of J nd. as shown on the enclosed
drawing. The Company’also has mineral rights covering various areas of land. These are
d~ribed on the accompanying extract from the land Registry entry.
as a
Tel
tlND UK LImited .Mansekl Road.Bram
Vale, Chester1Ield. S44 5GA
Fax:
Emall:
W :www.co’ol’el1anduk.<Xlm
Regl8lad In Englllnd No: _9172. Regl8.fer<<l Ofb ..above
~.
Having now acquired these land and mineral Interests, Coverland UK Ltd is
consideration to all their options oon~rnJng:
giving
The ~ntlal for future recovery of fluorspar and related fluorspar supply considerations:
The need for reclamation/restoration of land;
The potential for
disturbed areas;
delivering development
that can rernedlate and
appropriately iandscape
Delivering solutions and ~efIts.in respect of rights ,of way Issues and
access to the
countryside;
Establishing new uses that.can brIng overall beneffts (eConomic,social.and environmental)to
tf:1e Peak Dlsbict National Park.
In tenns of mineral w rking, Covertand UK.Ltd Is aware Of the planning hts~ .and .the
outcome of ~e legal actions and the Implications that this has for any future minerai recovery.
The Company is alsO now ndialogue with the new owners of Gleba Mines in order to
establish their intentions in tanns of potential minerai recovery from the ~to whIch th,
Longstone Edge East p1a-:tning pennlssion relates. As you wtll be.aware, Coverland UK Ltd
has s. variety of minerai. Interests, including. quarrying and mining operations. and it is
considered Important that we consider, as part of the w.;>>rk on the site options. any potential
beneftts of recovering minerals from the site.
In summary, potential OptIons ~re currentiy being considered and Covertand UK Ltd needs to
work with the other owners and, particularly, the Peak District National Part< Authority to
establish the ~and most sustainable options for this land.
DlI Minerals Pennisalon and the Minerals Review (ROMP)
We are. aware that the Minerals Review (ROMP)of the Long&ton$ Edge.East minerai site Is
stallad and that to progress it would require the submission of a substanttve body of
Information and evidence. Although the stalnng of the ROMP has led to the mineral site going
into automatic suspension, It 1$ apparent that there Is. stili a valid planning permission for
minerai extraction and that the Court aCtlqns have established the nature of any .future
working.
We.acknoWledge that the Minerai Planning Authority Is required to consider the potential for
prohIbiting further mJnei"al working lilfter two years of the site remaining in automatic
suspensloll. Ie after 31 October 2012. This is not straightforward though. as regard must be
ha to the following:
1
..
Where the mineral operations have permanently ceased and whether there are
InientlOns for furter wor1dngs of the site?
That various parties have land and mineral I~and the Longstone Edge East
planning permission covers a large area. geographicafly and geologically.
The potential to achieve effective and deliverable restoration through the making of an
.
order.
Having regard to the comments above, we do not see any immediate benefit In Coverland UK
attempting to de-stall the ROMP. At the same Ume. we cannot discount 1he potental for
8Om$ mineral recovery and do not see that formal proceedings to prohJbIt future minerai
working Is an appropriate.way forward In such circumstances where Other options may secure
better, sustainable outcomes In a cost.effeciive manner and’als have’the potential to bring
some closure-on the question offuture minerai opemtlons.
Ltd
’
We will expand
Potential
on
these points a (lttIelater In the letter.
Development Proposals
Whilst mineral recovery tlas to ,be consider8d1 you are aware from,the previous.meeting and
a series of IinkfK1 dfM!lopmMt proposals
Subsequent correspondence ttl.at we’lire working
that could deliver sustainable future development., Such development proposals could
present better aHemativ,es to minerai working and could remediate areas of past mln
working and del~ restoration and landscape enhancement
’
In order to deliver future land uses. as well as remediation/restoration, It may be ,necessary to
and cfvll engi~rlng operations. This would
,include internal haulage/movement and’ placement of excavated materials. the recovery and
use of any usable materials, and the r~rading and ,engineering
previously dIsturbed sites.,
’carTy ’out operational phas~ of development
’
,
A very brief summary of these proposals Is as follows:
Backc!lle Quany
We confirm that the intention here Is to permanently close the Quarry, create leve) platforms
within a secured quany area and ,to develop the site,for employment use. This possibility was
raised at the meeting earlier this year an~ you have provided comments.
’
Wagers Rat
,
,
We understand that the Authority requires restoration of the excavation and the removal of
ose to It Recognlslng also that the Authority is not
the stockpile of excavated material
minded to accept the removal of the stockpiled mate al off-site, we will, nevertheless. be
pleased
to talk about ,the
principle of
a
proposal 1I1at would utilise this material in the
3
.’
restoration ’of Backdale whilst disposing of material removed from’ Backdale Into the
excavation. Clearty this Is a s mpllllcatJon of a detailed propoSal that we would put to you but
the principle remains to be considered from our point of vie’t!V.
’
Carver Park (RSd Rake Mine)
previously put to you a proposal ’that would see this site developed. highly
sympathetically, by means of 8 series of holiday lodges and we left a copy of a drawing,
prepared by OasIs Urban Design &.Archltecture. for your attention. Whilst brief comments
have b8en received with regard to the development of this sHe no detailed further discussions
have taken place~
We
.
Necessarily, development 01 the above proposals will take a period of time but consultations
have already bean commenced with the Derbyshire County Council from a hlghwa
point of
view. We feel that H will be helpful to have ongoing discussions with the Authority’s
representatives n site to discuss each of these developments. At this stage,’our objectfve is
to have proposals prepared to submission stage within approximately six month~. before
which we will, of course. liaise with yotJ in respect of the detailed content of any necessary
assessments and also the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assesanenl
Rights of Way Matters
a consequence of recent dialogue with the’Authority,’we are aware of a number of rights
of way considerations and E-Mailshaverecen~Ybeenexcha~gedwithRlchardPetlon.thls
matter. We are pleased to conflnn .that we ~a mutually advantageous way forward here in
the .suggestlons made by Mr Pelt and by the Derbyshire County Council. On the further
matter of other rights 01 way In the area. there are Intentions to carry out Improvements and to.
provide a batter standard and Condition for them. ThesEt are Important Issues for Covnd
UK Ltdt ’as new landowner, and we therefore wish to stress that It is our Intention to deal with
the resolution of existing problems as well as MuTe Im rovem$l1ts to .the rights of way
network as soon as possible. Current thinking Is that potentially the best vehicle for bringing
forWard these solutionslimprovem.ents would be through the linked development proposaJs
referred to very briefly above. A resolution and rights 01 way obstructions and diversions, as
well as potential future Improvements, could then be dealt with through 1he.provislons of the
Town & Country Planning Act 1990t subsequen~ to the determlnatJon of planning applications,
rather than through legislation.contained with.in the Highways Act
As
Community Engagement
of both the past Interest and concern .of the local community concerning
East
as well as the general requirement to engage and work with the
Edge
Longstone
future dev opment proposals. In this regard, we can conflnn
In
forward
community bringing
with.and met representatives of both the Save Longstone
contact
have
established
lhat we
We
are conscious
..
Group’
and the Friends of the Peak Disbict. We have undertaken to continue this liaison
Edge
and to Involve theSe and other
anlsatJns in dlscussJng the practicalities of deliveng
.
potential development solutions. We have not; at this stage. met With ’any of the Parish
Councils but this, we hope, can be something that i.addressed ,wIthin the next feN weeks.
!!Iolot Worklna and Proaress Reports
In a similar fashion, we intend to work closely with Officers and Members of the Peak DIstrict
National Park Authority to secure sustainable fUturauses and a practicably deliverable way
folWard for the Longstone Edge East area. Besides the obvious ongoing’dialogues and
specific pr&-appllcatlon discussions with OffIcers, we believe that there will be merit In having
regular progress reports to the Planning Committee to keep It updated on the work that is
taking place and the potential outcomes that it Is hoped can be achieved. We consider that
this wifl, In oomblnation With our community consultation, help to keep all Interested parties
engaged and involved in the planning for thla 8ite/area. Feedback from the Authority’s
Planning Committee arfslng from. the progress reports will be very helpful to our Team,
particularly’ln view of the sensitive nature.of the site and the considerable planning history..
Agreement on the Way Forward
We hope that you will agree that the thinking and approach that has been outlined presents a
good opportunity to make some positive steps towards resolving many of the main tssues
faced at Longstone Edge East arld to deliver sustainable development In the furuTa. We
believe that the
approach
is reflective of the
Framework (NPPF), as Is involves. a
requirements
proactive approach
of the National Planning Policy
to finding deliverable planning
.
solutions.
.
We consider that every effort should be made, on all sides. to avoid a descent Into. litigation
and court action. This ISI neverthelessl a very compl~ site and aU parties are faced with
chaflenglng Issues. NotwlttJstandlng
these considerations. there Is the potential to achieve a
Park,.notwithstanding that this may involve some
net benefit to the Peak District National
operations and a continuation of locali~ed short-tenn disturbance in order to achieve the best
posslbJe Jong~term outcome. As a first step. we wish to broker an agreement with the
Authority, along the following lines:
-
To allow Coverland UK Ltd.
through Its ’advisors. to cany
out a detailed
professional
developmentldellvery options, as part of an overall intent to bring frward,
as rapidly as possiblet a series of linked proposals. During ~uch a period. the Peak Oistrict
assessment of all
National Park Authority would agree that it will not embark upon any fennal proceedings,
fmmedlatefy after 31 October .2012. concerning .the prohibition of future minerai workings
within the Longstone Edge East planning permission.
.
s
f
In terms oftlmesoaleJ.it would be.beneficial if 1I1e deferral of any potential proceedings could
run to at least .31. October 2013. Our thinking here is that assessment work, regular
engagement and $ubmlsslons will take place generally in accordance with the following
.
.
Indicative timetable:
Community Engagement,assessment of all.development
options. technical/professional assessment work and design work and liaison with
regard to potential EIA Saeenlng and Scoplng.
Winter 2012 Further Community Engagement and refinement of proposals.
Early 2013.- Submission of pR?posala.
Spring 2012 Detennlnatlon of.potentlal planning applcatJons.
Summer 2013 Completion of agreements and issuing of decisions.
Late summer/autumn 2012
.
-
.
.
-
-
.
-
suggest that progress reports be presented to the Authority’s Planning Committee on a
qua~y basis, perhaps starting with this request for an agreement being presented to the
Committee at the first avaTlable opportunity. We.shall. of cou~,.be pleased to discuss any
matters arising from the undertakings that we have set out. in I1ls letter because the
AuthorltYs reactlons are Important to the Company and we will be grateful if you wnl reply
Il1i11at1y to the Clay Cross address below.
We
Yours sincerely
John Church
Simon Heaton
John Church Planning Consultancy Ltd
.
Yfctorta Buildings
Heaton Planning Ltd
117 High .Street
Clay Cross
Chesterfield
Derbyshire 845 9DZ
9 The Square
Keyworth
NotfIngham
NG125JT
6