A bitter legal row over a stone quarry - now earmarked for disposal of up to 2.5 million tonnes of controlled waste - has started at London's High Court.

Ann Anderson, who lives near Buck Park Quarry, near Denholme, says Bradford Council was wrong in February this year to approve details of the waste disposal plan.

Among other things, she says the Council failed to adequately consider noise levels, the types of trees, shrubs and hedgerows needed to re-landscape the site and the impact of the scheme on populations of bats, badgers and peregrine falcons.

Paul Brown, for Miss Anderson, of Carperley Crescent, Denholme, said she had long objected to the quarry.

She is a member of Denholme Town Council which also objects to the development.

He told the judge, Mr Justice Crane, that planning permission for the quarry was first granted in 1992, subject to a number of conditions, including a requirement that quarrying must cease by 2002.

But, in 1998, the quarry operator applied to extend that deadline until 2006, to increase the depth of the workings - and to dispose of 2.5 million cubic metres of controlled waste in the void over a ten-year period.

Bradford Council refused permission but was overruled by the Government.

Planning permission was granted, but subject to a total of 41 conditions and subject to the requirement that quarrying must cease no later than March 26, 2006.

As that date has now passed, Miss Anderson's High Court challenge is focused on the waste disposal plans for which the Council approved details in February this year.

Mr Brown told the judge the company behind the scheme - P Casey (Enviro) Ltd - had to satisfy five conditions as a "necessary pre-condition to the lawful implementation of the permission".

However, the barrister claimed the details provided to the Council relating to future landscaping of the site were "inadequate" and the Council should, among other things, have demanded "a full inventory of trees, shrubs and hedgerows" that would be used in the project.

He also claimed details provided to the Council concerning a "settlement pond" on the site were inadequate, unenforceable and "inconsistent with one another".

Mr Brown argued that the Council had failed to properly consider arrangements for "temporary mitigation measures" to reduce noise during the waste disposal scheme.

The barrister added that the Council also made its decision on an Environmental Statement dating back to 1998. although "background conditions, such as noise, traffic and the ecology were likely to have changed significantly" since then.

He said there was evidence that, since 1998, badgers had settled in the area, bats have taken to foraging along the quarry access track and peregrine falcons are breeding in one of the quarry faces.

And Mr Brown told the judge: "Bats, badgers and peregrine falcons are all protected species, none of which had been recorded on the site in 1998. Their known presence in 2006 was therefore a material change in circumstances.

"The potential impact of the development on these species has never been assessed."

Bradford Council and P Casey (Enviro) Ltd are both resisting Miss Anderson's challenge, also claiming that she has brought her case to court too late.

Given the complexity and importance of the case, Mr Justice Crane was expected to reserve his decision until a later date.