Ashton Court:
the legal case against the quarry

---

When North Somerset Council resolved to grant planning permission to Pioneer Aggregates (UK), Mandy Garnett and Chris Pierssene both of Bristol, sought legal advice on what could be done. Seven weeks after the Committee resolution, an application was submitted to Court to seek a judicial review of North Somerset's decision on the basis that it was based on misguided information and assumptions. Specifically, the applicants claimed:

• the council misdirected itself over the 1995 Environment Act, which puts the onus on quarry companies to restore old workings.
• it saw translocation as an answer to the ecological cost of the expansion despite a lack of belief in, and evidence of, its effectiveness.
• it ignored sections of the government's Minerals Planning Guidance notes 7 and 14, and Planning Policy Guidance note 15.

Before the High Court could hear the objection, the applicants had to prove that they had locus standi - sufficient standing. A hearing took place before Mr Justice Popplewell on 10 and 11 March.

N.Somerset and Pioneer claimed that the judicial review should not be allowed because:

• The applicants did not have sufficient interest in Ashton Court and Top Park Field.
• The appeal had not been promptly made - having taken 7 weeks from the time of the decision.

Popplewell announced his decision on 24 March and said:

"I have concluded that the two applicants don't have sufficient interest to bring these proceedings and they have not acted promptly".

He added that while he would have given leave on the merits of the application, he thought that the prospects of success were "fairly slim". When asked, he refused leave to appeal.

This opens the way for N.Somerset and Pioneer to sign the S.106 agreement which effectively seals the planning permission. It is more than probable that Pioneer will be pushing for this to happen as soon as possible and before N.Somerset can even think about changing its mind.

It would appear that one of the factors undermining the application was that they had not, as individuals, written to N.Somerset to object to the application. Months of campaigning was not, in itself, sufficient. The delay in applying was also a factor for while the application was made within the 3 months deadline, it was not considered to be prompt enough.

Report from The Times 25/3/97 (51K gif)

Ashton Court Contents

Updated 27 March 1997