Why Opencast Coal Mining? David Gosling and Sam Thistlethwaite Banks Mining

Transcription

1 Why Opencast Coal Mining? David Gosling and Sam Thistlethwaite Banks Mining

2 CPRE s VIEW OF OPENCASTING Not only do opencast mines deface some of our finest landscapes and wreck tranquillity, they can have a devastating effect on nearby communities and wildlife, while hindering efforts to reduce CO 2 emissions. The majority of local communities and local councils are overwhelmingly against new opencast mines. Local inquiries find that noise, pollution and disruption harm the health and recreation of residents, damage urban regeneration and discourage investment. Despite this, there is a worrying trend for the Government to overturn the decisions of County Councils and grant consent to damaging applications notably at Cramlington in Northumberland and Smalley in Derbyshire. CPRE website

3 NEED FOR COAL

4 GLOBAL COAL SUPPLY TO UK Russia Poland Columbia Australia

5 ACTUAL & PROJECTED UK OUTPUT

6 ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY In applying the principles of sustainable development to coal extraction, whether opencast or deep-mine, and to colliery spoil disposal, the Government believes there should normally be a presumption against development unless the proposal would meet the following tests: i) Is the proposal environmentally acceptable, or can it be made so by planning conditions or obligations? ii) If not, does it provide local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission? iii) In National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Beauty (AONBs), proposals must also meet the additional tests set out in paragraphs 28 and 29 below. iv) Proposals within or likely to affect Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves (NNRs) must meet the additional tests set out in paragraphs 30 and 31. v) Proposals within the Green Belt must meet the additional test in paragraph 36 below. MPG3, paragraph 8 disturbingly recent decisions suggest that in practice, there is now a presumption in favour of coal. CPRE website

7 BANKS TRACK RECORD AND SUCCESS RATE 140 Cumulative Coal Approvals Refused Sites Approved

8 NOISE SUPPRESSION Impact of noise suppression measures fitted by Banks Before After Reduction CAT RH RH Figures in db(a) Fitting of white noise reversing alarm

9 DUST SUPPRESSION Results of independent review of 22 months of Shotton Air Quality Data by Andy King Original forecast increase in for PM 10 18% Actual increase in PM %

10 ECOLOGY

11 LANDSCAPE

12 LANDSCAPE Visual Impact Monitoring

13 LANDSCAPE Tree Translocations

14 LANDSCAPE Growth of New Planting

15 IMPACT OF LORRIES

16 STAFF SKILLS AND TRAINING Noise Abatement Society John Connell Award 2004 Coal Authority Award for Environmental Excellence 2004

17 CUMULATIVE IMPACT

18 CUMULATIVE IMPACT Year Well Hill Shotton (inc Shotton Additional) Brenkley Lane Delhi Fox Covert Gardeners Houses Milkhope Brenkley North Brenkley Various planning permissions for coal extraction and waste disposal

19 CUMULATIVE IMPACT

20 CUMULATIVE IMPACT

21 CUMULATIVE IMPACT Scoping Response Brenkley Lane scoping report submitted March 2008 Combined response from Newcastle and Northumberland Councils Highlighted Cumulative impact one of three key issues, particularly in relation to: Landscape and Visual impact Ecology Highways Amenity (Dust, Noise, vibration)

22 CUMULATIVE IMPACT Landscape and visual impact Cumulative assessed included: Impacts upon regeneration primarily transport routes between Newcastle Airport and Cramlington Cumulative impacts upon the A1 Cumulative impacts upon Ponteland Road Cumulative effects upon landscape character

23 CUMULATIVE IMPACT Ecology Assessments undertaken of previously restored sites Assessments carried out on sections of currently active sites Cumulatively positive impact through creation of wide network of wildlife corridors

24 CUMULATIVE IMPACT Highways Cumulative assessment related to the then existing operational sites, Delhi and Shotton Concluded that the main transport routes to key customers, such as Alcan in Lynemouth, rail loading facility in Blyth and power stations in the Aire Valley were within capacity. Shotton appeal examined issues no change in numbers to situation then discussed, inspectors findings still applicable. Cumulative limit for traffic leaving Brenkley and Shotton going to Alcan was imposed.

25 CUMULATIVE IMPACT Amenity Established that past operations were in compliance with the limits for noise, dust and vibration. The proposed method of working was least disruptive. Allowing site to be worked now would provide surety to residents. Historically affected premises were significantly removed from most recent proposal

26 CUMULATIVE IMPACT Planning officer s conclusions Acknowledged no significant adverse amenity impacts from previous worked sites Cumulative visual impacts would be restricted to distant views and restored sites have had no significant disruption to the landscape Concurrent views of working sites would be limited and were not considered significant Recognised ecological disruption at working but also noted improved linked areas of nature conservation

27 ECONOMIC BENEFITS

28 LOCAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS

29 COMMUNITY BENEFITS

30 PERCEPTION v REALITY 53 Objectors Spoke

31 PERCEPTION v REALITY What do people dislike about their area? 73.50% Things disliked more than surface mines included: 25% Lack of recreational facilities, roads, public transport, antisocial behaviour, litter, crime, public service and people 1.20% Other Nothing Surface Mine Telephone Survey Cramlington/Dinnington Area December 2010

32 THE WAY FORWARD Ban all opencasting within 500 metres of dwellings (Mr Bridgen s Bill) The Localism Agenda Referenda

33 THE EFFECTS OF MR BRIDGEN S BILL

34 INVOLVING LOCAL PEOPLE

35 PUBLIC OPINION Telephone Survey