I was pleased to see an article which described initiatives to stimulate the production of indigenous sources of stone roofing (NSS, June issue).

The article centred on the differences between English Heritage and English Nature over the Linshaws application. Unfortunately it failed to bring out the main points of conflict.

English Heritage supported the applicant because of the total absence of new stone for repairing historic roofs in the Peak District.

The result of no new supply meant that existing roofs were being stripped, sometimes stolen, to re-roof others, and unsuitable imported or man-made alternatives were being used instead.

These problems were highlighted in Terry Hughes\' study of the South Pennines which gave rise to the English Heritage campaign to try to revive the stone slate industry.

Linshaws would have been a small quarry (one hectare) on the edge of a national park which was designated as part of a 65,000 hectare Special Area of Conservation.

In the 19th century it was an outstanding source of good quality slates. So good that the quarries were called Magnum Bonum (biggest and best), Non Plus Ultra (none better) and Sans Pareil (without parallel).

It was felt that this largely hand-operated business would cause limited and short-term harm to the environment. Indeed, ecological consultants advised that the plant assemblages should start re-establishing within the 10-year period of quarrying and that careful restoration would improve the mix of plants.

English Nature felt that approval would: harm the integrity of the designated area, set a precedent for others wanting to quarry in the National Park (even though it is the policy of the Council for National Parks to support small scale quarrying for local needs and socio-economic development), irrevocably destroy the plant assemblages, and there must be other sites which could provide a supply of the stone slates needed.

Several years of searching in and around the Peak Park, though, had failed to find a potential quarry.

It is always easy to say that a more benign site must exist elsewhere. The only way that this assertion can be refuted is to have completed full geological assessments of the whole of a particular geological horizon. In the case of the Rough Rock Flags, this would mean searching in eight counties.

This, of course, is not practical for the small farmer or entrepreneur whose production and profits will be small.

It also presumes that a willing land-owner will be found along with the gamut of other factors needed to turn a potential source into reality.

Even then, we all know of the sort of vehement opposition which often follows an application and can result in refusal of permission, even in areas of little importance. The small producer cannot compete in such circumstances.

This points up the nub of the issue. It is one of practicalities. A solution needs to be found to the issues of conserving actual buildings and species, not philosophical concepts such as the integrity of a 65,000-hectare site.

The practical outcome of the Peak District National Park\'s decision to refuse permission is that they continue to be unable to properly conserve their built heritage.