Coolscar Limestone Quarry, Yorkshire Dales (Hansard, 28 November 1985)

Lord Hunt
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton)
No, my Lords. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently considering appeals by Eskett Quarries Ltd. for planning permission to extend Coolscar Quarry. For him to institute enforcement proceedings could prejudice his decisions.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that following the expiry of its permission to quarry at Coolscar, which ran out last January, and without waiting for a decision by the Minister's right honourable friend on the application to extend the operation at that quarry, Eskett Quarries has continued to quarry limestone at Coolscar at a greatly increased rate—more than double the previous rate—over the last 10 months? Does not that make a mockery of planning regulation procedures sufficient to justify the noble Lord's right honourable friend in using his power to intervene and stop those unauthorised operations, and to refuse the request made to him?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, the powers available to the Secretary of State have never been used and are reserved for major breaches of national importance. If he were to use them, it would clearly prejudice his decision on the appeal itself. If the local authority were to use its enforcement power under Section 87 of the Act, that would be subject to an appeal under Section 88 of the Act. Both the substantive appeal and that appeal would be heard together and there would therefore be no advancement of the proceedings. However, I can tell the noble Lord that the decision should be made very soon.

§ Baroness White
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there is complete illogicality between the position relating to the very serious damage now occurring at this particular quarry in the Yorkshire Dales National Park and the attitude of the Government to the loophole preventing comparable damage to sites of special scientific interest? How can the Minister reconcile those two attitudes? Ought not the Government to address their minds to some way of meeting this situation when, instead of a three-month loophole, there has already been a 10-month loophole allowing very damaging work to be undertaken in a national park?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I accept that it is unfortunate when an organisation acts without permission to do things for which permission is required. I do not accept that there is any lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Government for the enforcement of legislation about SSSIs, to which I think the noble Baroness referred. However, in this case the saga should, as I said, very shortly draw to a conclusion.

§ Lord Bruce-Gardyne
My Lords, I must declare an interest as a director of the London and Northern Group, which is the parent company of Eskett Quarries. Will my noble friend bear in mind that this particular planning application for an extension to the quarry has now been pending for more than four years, and as a result previous reserves of limestone have been exhausted? Is my noble friend aware that the 972 Steetley Company has stated that any interruption in supplies of this sole United Kingdom source of this particular grade of limestone could jeopardise some 600 jobs in Hartlepool? Is he further aware that the North Yorkshire County Council has informed Eskett Quarries that if the current workings are carried out in accordance with the conditions attached to the pending planning applications as they are, it is not minded to pursue enforcement action in this instance?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I must of course take careful note of what my noble friend says; but for reasons of the quasi-judicial position of my right honourable friend I cannot comment on his remarks.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, may I ask the Minister if he will also take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I always take careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says.

§ Lord Walston
My Lords, will the noble Lord assure me that I heard him right, or correct me if I heard him wrong? As I understood him in an earlier answer, he said that the Government have no power to prevent unauthorised work from proceeding in the national park or its neighbourhood. Is that what he said? If so, and that is the position, does he not think something should be done to put that right?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, the noble Lord marginally misheard me. I said that the only power available to the Secretary of State lay in Section 276(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. That was reserved for use in matters of even greater importance than this case. To have used it in this case would have implied that the activities going on at present were so deleterious that the Secretary of State could have determined the appeal in only one sense, and he would thus have forfeited his discretion in the matter.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, the noble Lord said that he could not reply to his noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne. However, can he confirm that it has been four years in the planning process? If so, is it not also true that the Government bear considerable responsibility for any breach undertaken by this company?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, it is not quite as simple as that. A planning application was submitted in 1981 and an appeal against a refusal in 1982. There was then a public inquiry in 1983 for the purpose of determining that appeal. In the course of that appeal, the inspector decided to recommend a limit of 100,000 tonnes extraction per year which, if adopted, would make the workings acceptable. However, the applicants objected to that condition and there was therefore the necessity for a further appeal because they said that this condition had not been considered by the first appeal. That all sounds very involved but, in fact, we are trying to protect the interests of all the parties involved.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, is the Minister aware that his department has not only failed to make a 973 timely decision on Coolscar but also in the case of Topley Pike Limestone Quarry in the Peak District National Park? Is a decision to be made soon in that respect or is there to be further delay until the inquiry into the Eldon Hill Quarry is finished, too? It was originally decided by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, when he was Minister for Housing and Local Government in 1953, that that quarry should close by 1997. Application has now been made for extension into the 21 st century. Is the Minister aware that there is general dissatisfaction by a great many people interested in the national parks, and otherwise, with the delays which are occurring and the damage caused while decisions are awaited?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, the application referred to in the Question on the Order Paper is not the one to which the noble Baroness addressed her question. If she wishes to table a Question I shall be happy to answer it. I cannot accept that there has not been a timely decision by my department. On the contrary, we received the inspector's report only in September and we shall shortly give our decision.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, does not the noble Lord at least agree that Yorkshire Dales National Park—and to a great extent the Peak District National Park mentioned by the noble Baroness—owe their unique scenic attraction, and indeed scientific value largely to the limestone geology in those areas? Is that not a compelling reason for imposing the very strictest limitations on quarrying operations in those national parks which do such irreversible and extensive damage?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, it is certainly true that the national parks owe a great deal of their attraction to the geology of the ground on which they are placed. It is a sad fact that some of that geology offers resources which are not available elsewhere. These are matters which we must balance carefully and which my right honourable friend will balance carefully when he decides this appeal.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, if it is true that the company is working in an unauthorised way, without permission, why could not an injunction be applied for which would establish the status quo? Is that not the way round this tricky and diverse problem?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, there is already a procedure available to the local authority, who have considered and rejected it. I do not think it is for me to advise them how further to proceed.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, finally may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is prepared to apply the strict criteria which were laid down in 1949 by John Silkin—I am sorry, by Lewis Silkin—when he was Minister of Town and Country Planning?

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, I am well aware of the exchanges in which the father of the present noble Lord, Lord Silkin, engaged with my noble friend Lord Molson, which are recorded in the Official Report of 974 31 st March 1949 at col. 1466, but I shall not weary the House with them.