CPRE Shropshire
Protecting Shropshire

Home

News

Campaigns & Issues

Events & Debates

Support CPRE

About CPRE Shropshire

Search CPRE

CPRE Oswestry

CPRE West Midlands

CPRE National Website

Sign up for our National Campaigns Update

Join CPRE or donate

CPRE Shropshire has called for strict control of noise levels from proposed drilling to explore for coal-bed methane near St Martins and Whittington near Oswestry. We are concerned that 24-hour drilling could lead to loss of tranquillity and disturbance of sleep at night for nearby residents.

Drilling at site near St Martin's

11 August 2009

Planning Application: Drilling of a temporary appraisal borehole (up to 60 days) to retrieve a core of coal to surface for analysing of coal structure, permeability and gas content, and appropriateness for coal bed methane (CBM) production, followed by restoration of the site back to agriculture.

Location: Land NW of Old Marton Farm, New Marton, Near St Martins Shropshire. Application No: 09/01853/MAW

We wish to make the following representation concerning the above application:

We note that the noise levels have merely been assumed to be sufficiently similar to those involved in previous applications that neither background noise measurements were made nor sound levels estimated at nearby potential receptors. If you look to the similar application no. 09/01502/MAW, the background there was at a very low level. We ask that the noise level at the nearest receptor does not exceed "background + 10 dB(A)" as well as being below the quoted WHO criterion. The matter under discussion is noise at night which has the potential to disturb sleep. Even one month of disturbed sleep is a very great burden. We therefore ask that the strictest possible criteria be applied. We therefore ask the Council to require actual measurement and prediction before considering the application.

Furthermore, although the following quotation refers to wind farm noise, nevertheless the DTI report "The Measurement of Low Frequency Noise at Three UK Wind Farms" (2006, page 64) makes the general point of the difference between sleep disturbance and interference with falling asleep in the first place. It says "The recordings of wind farm noise indicate that this noise does not result in the awakening of neighbours to the developments; other noise sources are the cause of this. However, once awake, it is found that returning to sleep is more problematic. As the sound contains an acoustic character which attracts attention of the listener, then this compounds the problems associated with returning to sleep for the individual. The increased period of returning to sleep of a room occupant is not a direct effect of the noise levels which are in themselves very low, but a response to the noise by the occupant. This response to the noise is what prevents a person falling to sleep".

We also point out that when the borehole is shut down, there will be a steel casing left deep underground which can interfere with future underground mining operations.

We recommend that both the Council and the applicant study the leaflet concerning coal bed methane extraction in Montana.

We wish also to make the following comments on the planning documents relevant to coal bed methane:

We note that paragraph 6.165 of Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin Minerals Local Plan 1996-2006 refers to Policies M24 and M9, neither of which have been "saved". We ask that the Council look to guidance from, for instance the corresponding documents from Nottinghamshire and from Cheshire West & Chester.

Vivian Hancock, CPRE Shropshire

Drilling at site near Whittington

17 July 2009

Planning Application: Drilling of a temporary appraisal borehole (up to 60 days) to retrieve a core of coal to surface for analysing of coal structure, permeabulity and gas content, and appropriateness for coal bed methane (CBM) production, followed by restoration of the site back to agriculture.

Location: Brookfield Farm, Babbinswood, Whittington, Shropshire

Application No: 09/01502/MAW

We wish to make the following representation concerning the above application:

We note that paragraph 3.2 states "The survey was conducted at Brookfield Farm to the south and Birchwood Drive to the north." But we also note that, apart from Brookfield Farm (exposed), Leefields had the highest predicted noise level (42 dB(A)), followed by Birchwood Drive and Cranford (at 40 dB(A) each). It would seem that Leefields should also be surveyed. These noise levels exceed "background + 10 dB(A)".

Paragraph 2.13 of "Environmental Noise from Appraisal Borehole Whittington, Shropshire" states "Noise from the drilling activity should not be assessed in terms of BS 4142: 1997 due to the short-term nature of the planned operations." We contest the adjective "short-term", given that the matter under discussion is noise at night which has the potential to disturb sleep. Putting the period at its shortest, even one month of disturbed sleep is a very great burden. We therefore ask that the strictest possible criteria be applied.

Furthermore, although the following quotation refers to wind farm noise, nevertheless the DTI report "The Measurement of Low Frequency Noise at Three UK Wind Farms" (2006, page 64) makes the general point of the difference between sleep disturbance and interference with falling asleep in the first place. It says "The recordings of wind farm noise indicate that this noise does not result in the awakening of neighbours to the developments; other noise sources are the cause of this. However, once awake, it is found that returning to sleep is more problematic. As the sound contains an acoustic character which attracts attention of the listener, then this compounds the problems associated with returning to sleep for the individual. The increased period of returning to sleep of a room occupant is not a direct effect of the noise levels which are in themselves very low, but a response to the noise by the occupant. This response to the noise is what prevents a person falling to sleep".

Even as a matter of goodwill, we ask that steps be taken to further lower the noise levels at night as the householder usually gets none of the benefit of a nearby development, but has only the ill-effects of it.

We also point out that when the borehole is shut down, there will be a steel casing left deep underground which can interfere with future underground mining operations.

We recommend that both the Council and the applicant study the following leaflet concerning coal bed methane extraction in Montana:

We wish also to make the following comments on the planning documents relevant to coal bed methane:

We note that paragraph 6.165 of Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin Minerals Local Plan 1996-2006 refers to Policies M24 and M9, neither of which have been "saved". We ask that the Council look to guidance from, for instance the corresponding documents from Nottinghamshire and from Cheshire West & Chester.

Vivian Hancock, CPRE Shropshire