| 10/6/66 |
Enforcement notice because working was
taking place below water table and also too close to the boundary, and
progressive restoration was not being undertaken |
| 17/11/72 |
Company
was advised that Area 3 had been commenced before Area 1 had been
restored; it was working too close to field boundaries and the edges
were too steep; worked areas were being left under water. |
| 18/11/75 |
Enforcement
notice due to breach of condition 1 because 21 acres had been worked in
Area 3 before Area 1 had been
restored, and breach of condition 5 because excavation had taken place
closer than 25ft. to the existing field boundary. Seven days later, the
company appealed to DoE. |
| 30/9/80 |
Enforcement
notice of 18/11/75 withdrawn because “work was substantially
complete”. |
| 12/82 |
It
was noted that 800 yards of drainage pipeline had been constructed from
River Ure past East Tanfield without
planning permission. |
| 12/2/85 |
Enforcement
notice served regarding invalid use of dumper trucks on public roads. |
| 1/3/85 |
Permission
granted for partially completed drainage pipeline from quarry to River
Ure. |
| 22/3/85 |
Revised
enforcement notice served giving 7 days for transportation of material
by dumper trucks to cease. On 11 April, the company appealed to DoE. |
| 4/2/86 |
Company
appealed to DoE against county council twice refusing to allow
construction of a quarry haul road. |
| 15/4/86 |
Report
to planning committee on company’s non-compliance with condition 2 of
1/3/85 consent regarding soiling of pipeline route. |
