®Planning appeal decision
Clints Quarry, Moota, Lake District National Park, CA13 0QE
Planning appeal 3350065 at Clints Quarry, Moota, Lake District National Park, CA13 0QE (Lake District) was dismissed on 3 December 2025 by Inspector Savage M, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Appeal A: whether the Authority's decision to refuse the application was well founded, turning on whether the 1974 planning permission was begun prior to 20 November 1979.
the winning and working of limestone
- Authority
- Lake District
- Appeal type
- other · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- minerals-waste · Unknown
- Inspector
- Savage M
- Postcode
- CA13 0QE
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Appeal A: whether the Authority's decision to refuse the application was well founded, turning on whether the 1974 planning permission was begun prior to 20 November 1979
- Appeal B: whether, if the 1974 permission was found not to have been implemented, it is possible to determine the conditions for the 1966 permission alone
What decided it
The appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the 1974 permission had been lawfully begun, and separately failed to demonstrate that working the 1966 permission beyond its conditioned limits would not adversely affect the integrity of the Clints Quarry SAC or that no alternative solutions or imperative reasons of overriding public interest existed.
The public interest benefits of the proposal (economic benefits, job retention, reduced transport mileage) did not outweigh the adverse impacts on the conservation aims of the Habitats Directive, so the benefits did not justify those adverse impacts.
What the Inspector cited
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 190
- Judgments
- David (Thomas)(Porthcawl) Ltd v Penybont Rural District Council [1972] 3 All E.R. 1092, CA; R (Park Pharmacy Trust) v Plymouth City Council [2008] EWHC 445 (Admin); Maximums Networks Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] EWHC 1933 (Admin); Foster, R (on the application of) v Oldham MBC & Pugmanor Properties Ltd [1999] EWHC Admin 774; Test Valley Borough Council v Fiske [2024] EWCA Civ 1541; CG Fry & Son Limited v (1) Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (2) Somerset Council [2024] EWCA Civ 730; R (Wilkinson) v South Hams DC [2016] EWHC 1860
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in Lake District
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Notice varied and upheld6 July 20263356611Land Opposite Orchard View, Saltcoats, Holmrook, CA19 1YY
- Notice varied and upheld6 July 20263356610Land Opposite Orchard View, Saltcoats, Holmrook, CA19 1YY
- Planning permission granted26 June 20263377594Land at South Barn, Ayside, Grange Over Sands, LA11 6HY
- Notice varied and upheld23 June 20263376839Thwaite Howe, Thornthwaite, Keswick, CA12 5SA
- Notice varied and upheld5 June 20263362991Land at Bell Intake, High Dam, Finsthwaite Ulverston, Cumbria, LA12 8BN
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.