| 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Enforcement notice of 18/11/75 withdrawn because “work was substantially complete”.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. |
