DCSIMG

Peak District quarry plans refused

NEWS: News.

NEWS: News.

Campaigners against the expansion of a Peak District quarry have said a decision by planners to refuse an application for stone cutting facilities is a victory for common sense.

The application, by Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd, for a shed to house two stone saws at Dale View Quarry, in Stanton–in–the–Peak, was refused by the planning committee at the Peak District National Park Authority last week.

The decision was made on the grounds of the ‘impact of noise on the quiet enjoyment of Stanton Moor and the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument and on the increased industrialisation of the site’.

Howard Griffith, who lives in Stanton Lees, is a member of Stanton Against the Destruction of the Environment (SADE) as well as the newly formed Stanton Moor Minerals Liaison Group.

He said: “It was crucial for members of the planning committee to reject the proposals for the construction of a very large saw shed for two stone cutting wire saws, a crane, water towers and waste processing systems at the expense of national park principles which are to conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage.

“Stanton Moor is described by many as one of the crown jewels of the Peak District.”

Marshalls Stancliffe Stones, which owns Dale View Quarry, released the following statement: “Marshalls Stancliffe Stones is surprised that the Peak District National Park Authority planning committee has not approved its application to install wire saws within a building at Dale View Quarry.

“The comprehensive report to the committee from the authority’s planning officials recommended approval, with proportionate conditions, and stated that ‘the proposal would not have a negative effect on the tranquillity of the area and would not compromise people’s spiritual enjoyment of the moor.’

“We were aware of the perception that stone sawing could be intrusive, and we supported the recommended conditions for planning approval which would have addressed any genuine concern.”

 

Comments

 
 

Back to the top of the page