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 strongly objected to the application for an open cast adjacent to the Wrekin, Lawley, Telford.

January 2008

From: Vivian Hancock (CPRE Shropshire Vice-President & Minerals Representative)
To: Principal Planning Officer (Waste and Minerals)

Dear Mr Coxill,

Re: Application No. W2007/1648; Applicant - UK Coal Mining Ltd; Location - Land to the West of, Dawley Road, Lawley, Telford, Shropshire; Proposal - Proposed Huntington Lane surface mine site, involving the working of coal and fireclay, restoration and aftercare.

I write on behalf of Shropshire County Branch of CPRE to object to the above application. The grounds of our objection are given below.

Summary

(a) Incursion into an AONB, however small, which would set an undesirable precedent.

(b) Some aspects of the ways in which data is dealt with in the Environmental Statement. We contend that the treatment of the data underestimates the weight that at least some of it should be accorded when the Council makes its development control decision. If the Council has the necessary in-house skills to review the data handling methods themselves, then we ask that they should do so; otherwise we ask that they should consider getting independent professional advice.

(c) Excessive adverse effects on the environment and on nearby residents. There is the matter mentioned in paragraph (b) above, and one or two missing data items, most notably the background noise at non-working times as compared with noise from all-night pumps and generators and noise from essential equipment maintenance outside working hours.

The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

While Shropshire Branch of CPRE has referred the matter of the AONB to the relevant committee, nevertheless, we wish to object to the setting of an undesirable precedent by incursion, however small, into the AONB.

To assist the Council, we list the following references to the AONB

• Planning Statement: p.4, 6 th bullet, p.39 para 4.3.3, pp 54 to 57 para 5.2.3, p.62 para 5.2.8, p.80, Table 5.4, p 90, Table 5.5
• Environmental Impact assessment, volume 1: p. 47 para 5.5
• Environmental Impact assessment, volume 2: p 34 para 11.2.1, p 38 para 11.3.2, page 39 Table 11.1, p 44 para 11.4.1, pp 61-2 and p 65 para 11.5.3, p 71 para 11.5.4, p 72 Table 11.9, p.75 para 11.5.6, p 77 Table 11.10, Figure 11.3, Figure 11.5, p 85 Table 12.1, p 86 Table 12.2, p 102, para 12.5.4, Figure 12.11, p 285 para 19.2, p 286 Table 19.1

To quote from the Planning Statement (p 62):

"However, the ES has also outlined that the Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)) technically extends into the site boundary and across the northeastern area of Area A. However, this land has little or nothing in common with the remainder of the designation and furthermore it only constitutes 0.005% of the total area covered by the AONB. Indeed, the land is listed in the Inventory of Vacant, Derelict and Underused Land (National Land Use Database 2004/05) and consists of poorly draining semi-improved grassland with some shrub vegetation and not the mature woodland that characterises the remainder of the AONB. Therefore, although the ES has concluded that the proposed development would have a significant adverse effect on the AONB, in reality, its loss should not really be considered as significant in landscape terms"

Even if all this were to be accepted, we object on the grounds of undesirable precedent.

Comments on general matters in the ES

Difficulties involving subjectivity

At the highest level, the part of the EIA process that involves an element of subjective judgement is the decision whether an effect is significant or not. The applicant refers to the EC document "Guidance on EIA Scoping" (See ES, Vol 1, p22, footnote 2). What the EC document says in the "Checklist of Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Impacts" is

"Those responsible for scoping often find difficulties in defining what is "significant". A useful simple check is to ask whether the effect is one that ought to be considered and to have an influence on the development consent decision."

This is not a rule; it is a "useful simple check", demanding a subjective judgement. However professionally the judgement is made, it is a human judgement from which other humans may differ. Moreover, the effect need not be such as of itself to invite refusal; it is simply one which would "have an influence" on the development consent decision. We therefore ask the Council to see whether they agree or disagree with these judgements of significance, and where necessary to take their own line.

In many of the sections of the ES, what is being assessed for significance is based on objective measurements, as in the case of noise or blast effects. But in the cases of effects on the landscape itself or its visual perception, we have another level demanding, and necessarily so, subjective judgements. Once again, we look to the Council to make their own judgements on these matters. For instance, what can be "slight" to one judge can be seen as "moderate" by another.

Classification of sensitivity and magnitude and combinatorial rule for them to asses significance

The general discussion of these matters as applied to this ES is at Vol 1, page 21 and following.

In order to assist the Council to come to an independent judgement on these matters, we list below the page references (pagination in the printed document) to the two relevant parts of each chapter, headed "Potential Significant Effects", usually in section x.3.2 (except in Chapter 5 "Site Geology, where it is paragraph 2 of Section 5.3.4), and "Significance Evaluation Methodology", later in the chapter. The relevant sections are located as follows:

• Site Geology – Vol 1, pages 32 and 37
• Hydrogeology – Vol 1, pages 54, 62 and 79
• Hydrology – Vol 1, pages 93, 98 and 103
• Soils resources – Vol 1, pages 119 and 127
• Biodiversity, Vol 1, pages 144, 150, 158, 174, 184, 190 and 197
• Cultural Heritage, Vol 2, pages 6 and 10
• Landscape, Vol 2, pages 38 and 51
• Visual – Vol 2, pages 85, 92 and 107
• Noise – Vol 2, pages 127 and 141
• Blast and Vibration – Vol 2, pages 169 and 177
• Air Quality – Vol 2, pages 198 and 207
• Mineral Transport and Highways – Vol 2, pages 235 and 240
• Community Issues – Vol 2, pages 254 and 260
• Cumulative Effects – pages 276, 277 and 281

In some of the cases, the assignment of levels of effect to magnitude classes is based on accepted texts; in others it is simply a classification for the specific purposes of this application. All are subjective judgements by humans. We ask the Council to examine each individual case to see whether they agree or disagree, and in the latter case to tender their own opinion. Similar considerations apply to the matter of sensitivity.

In particular, I (the writer) have read what seem to me the relevant parts of Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 293 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, and as far as I, as a layman, can see, no particular methodology of landscape or visual effect assessment is prescribed there (see references to this legislation on pages 54 and 94 of Vol 2 of the ES). We ask the Council to check up on this matter.

Combinations of sensitivity and magnitude as used to assess significance

Again, the combinatorial matrix applied to the sensitivity and magnitude classes needs to be justified – is it from an accepted text on that subject, or is it simply taken over from another subject and used for the specific purposes of this application? Again, we ask the Council to examine each individual case to see whether they agree or disagree, and in the latter case to tender their own opinion.

Even if all these matrices are acceptable to the Council, we consider that the bar has been arbitrarily set much too high, and that more combinations should be regarded as significant, (such as high/low, medium/medium, low/high). In particular, we would ask the Council, when considering human receptors, to put themselves in that receptor's shoes and reconsider whether the effect is significant or not.

What is the concept of significance determining?

Let us first examine paragraph 9 of "Environmental impact assessment: A guide to procedures" (January 2000), which states:

"For the much longer list of Schedule 2 projects, the issue turns on the likelihood of 'significant environmental effects'. For the different types of project described in column 1 of Schedule 2, the 1999 Regulations introduced a system of thresholds and criteria, shown in column 2,as a method of discounting development which is not likely to have significant effects on the environment. For development where the applicable threshold or criterion is not exceeded or met, EIA is not normally required. ..."

In this paragraph, the significant effect is that which causes a Schedule 2 project to require EIA; if it was such as to determine whether development should go ahead or not, EIA would be redundant. Hence significance for determining whether or not EIA is required differs from significance for development control purposes. This view is supported by paragraph 65 of Circular 02/99: "Environmental impact assessment" which states:

"Local planning authorities are reminded that in exercising their functions under the Regulations they are to determine the significance or otherwise of the likely environmental effects of the proposed development, rather than to judge its planning merits. ..."

Surely, the object of EIA is to allow the relevant planning authority to examine the whole range of adverse and beneficial effects of the project in the light of planning considerations to determine whether or not the project gains approval. Effects which would not individually invite a refusal, may as a group be sufficient cause of refusal.

Points we wish to raise concerning individual chapters of the ES

Chapter 5, Site Geology etc.

We disagree that "small water mains" (see Vol 1, page 37, second paragraph of section 5.5.2) should be assigned a medium or low sensitivity – they supply water which is a vital resource for any house or farm. Denial of supply for even a few hours is considerably more than merely inconvenient. Even one dairy cow will drink a bucket of water in a moment – and the next three.

We wish to enquire whether there are any coal seams lower than the lowermost one considered; should there be an affirmative answer, we would suggest that this development be postponed to such time that it is profitable to extract all the coal, so that reopening the area is obviated.

Chapter 6, Hydrogeology

We note in Vol 1, p. 63 in section 6.5.3 "Baseline Conditions" that the ES assumes that private domestic water supplies are "typically" registered with the local authority's Environmental Health Dept, but that "there is little compulsion to do so". There is therefore a danger that some may be missed. Loss of water supply is indeed grievous, and should be regarded as significant. We ask the Council to investigate this matter most assiduously, especially as the "hydrogeology" chapter assumes that there are "no local abstractions" (See p.83, line 9).

In Vol 1, lines 1 and 2 of p.83 we wish the Council to check on how possible it is to collect all the poor quality water mentioned and treat it.

Chapter 8, Soils Resources

It is asserted that a significant effect would involve a "high level of degradation" making the soil "unsuitable for ongoing agricultural use". We consider that this sets the level far too high. Any degradation is undesirable; a loss of one grade (2 to 3a; 3a to 3b, etc) should surely be regarded as significant.

Receptor 4 (Vol 1, page 129) typifies what we wish to avoid. Further down the page, the section on Receptor 1 should be most carefully and critically read – we desire that good agricultural land should be restored to as near full value as possible after any project.

Chapter 9, Biodiversity

The section on the Biodiversity Enhancement Area at Vol 1, page 153, bottom paragraph and following, needs to be most carefully considered by the Council.

The section on badger sett removal and badger territories on Vol 1, pages 201 to 206 (section 9.10.4) needs particularly careful consideration by the Council. A second opinion could be desirable.

Chapter 10, Cultural Heritage

We note that both Lower Huntington Farmhouse and Upper Huntington Farmhouse are Grade II listed buildings. Volume 2, pages 26 and 27 considers effects on the settings of these buildings; we ask for particularly careful consideration of this section.

Chapter 11, Landscape

We would wish the Council to investigate whether the usage of footpaths is indeed low (see Vol 2, page 65, line 9; also page 75 concerning Receptor 19).

We question the use of the word "brevity" to describe a period measured in years in Vol 2, page 70, line 16 in connection with the view from the Wrekin.

We question the non-significance in EIA terms accorded to the area of the AONB affected by the proposal (see Vol 2, page 71 concerning Receptor 11)

Chapter 12, Visual

The main thrust of the argument concerning nearby houses is that the view from the front room window (or the upstairs one) is filtered by the garden plantings. The fallacy of this approach is that it takes no account of normal human behaviour. You do not just sit gazing out of the window like the princess in the fairy tale – you go out in the garden or up the road a little to a friend or to the post-box. At such times you do feel the oppression of the nearby mounds which replace the former openness. That dominating and oppressive effect would simply be due to the close proximity of the site and all its works. We therefore ask the Council to reexamine the significances of the visual effects, especially at the nearby residential properties.

Chapter 13, Noise

We note that no baseline measurements or predictions have been made for night noise. Although it is stated (Vol 2, p 126, first paragraph) that there will be no working at night, there will still be pumps and generators which will necessarily have to work at night. Even a small night noise can be very annoying in a quiet rural area; the south of the proposed site is quite remote from the motorway.

We also wish to enquire when equipment maintenance and essential repairs will be done on site; if these are to be done on Saturday afternoons, Sundays, or at any other time when the site is otherwise closed, we would wish for background noise measurements and noise predictions for those times. (This question is asked on the basis of the writer's own past experiences).

We note that MPS2, Annex 2, paragraph 2.2 states

"In 'Guidelines for Community Noise' (1999), the World Health Organisation advises that:

'to protect the majority of people from being seriously annoyed during the daytime, the outdoor sound level from steady continuous noise should not exceed 55dB L AEQ on balconies, terraces, and outdoor living areas. To protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed during daytime, the outdoor sound level should not exceed 50dB L AEQ .' "

It would therefore seem to us that the Council should examine most carefully the question of the levels of sound that are considered to have high and medium magnitudes and adjust the relevant Tables accordingly.

The Council should also bear in mind the question of night-shift workers' sleep.

In Vol 2, p124, last line, there seems to be rather loose wording – Surely the barrier attenuation (y) is not "proportional" (y = bx) to the path difference (x), but rather it is a mathematical function of the path difference. In "Calculation of Road Traffic Noise", Chart 9a, an approximation to the function is of the form y = a + bz + cz 2 + dz 3 + ... where z = log 10(x).

We note that no value is given for assumed sound power level for the 35t excavator in Table 13.5 (vol2, page 139). Has this been omitted from the predictions? Also, on this page, there is a reference to equipment substitution. We consider that the Council should require prior clearance with them at that time, to ensure that noise levels are not exceeded. To inform themselves, and by way of comparison, the Council should enquire the assumed sound power levels of, say, an RH120 excavator, and of a CAT777 dump truck (Cf . Vol 2, page 134, "Mobile Plant Complement").

Why are residential properties considered of medium sensitivity to noise (Vol 2, page 141, paragraph 4)? They are picked out for a full treatment in PPG24, which surely implies high sensitivity. We ask the Council to look into this matter, as in the method of significance assessment used in this ES (which we question – see above) this predestines noise effects to be "not significant" unless the magnitude is high

In Vol 2, page 142, Table 13.6, some of the sensitivity criteria are set at 1db over MPS2 limits. We consider this to be quite unjustified, and that the Council should resist this. This does not imply our acceptance of the classifications within sensitivity and magnitude or the process to combine them to determine significance (see general discussion above). What we do contest here is the arbitrary setting aside of MPS2 at this point and in paragraph 2, page 161. We contend that in the worst case, the noise should not exceed the limit.

Chapter 15, Air Quality

There would seem to be a logical difficulty with Table 15.10. Surely any activity within 200 metres is also an activity within 500 metres. This would cause double-counting if the actual number of days was being directly used to assess significance. This is not what is being done here. Let us look at Table 15.17, property 7a, namely "Rozel". The percentage of dust-risk days for <200m is 1.4%, rated "low" and that for 200-500m is 9.1% rated "medium". Had the activities in the <200m circle been a little further away, the 200-500m circle would have been 10.5% and thus rated "high" according to Table 15.10. As it is, the value of magnitude is given in line D7 of Table 15.19 is given as "low-medium", which seems inappropriate. We therefore consider that even if one uses the methodology adopted in this ES, the ratings should be given for <200m (as is) and <500m (i.e. <200m + 200-500m), and that the higher of the two ratings be taken as the magnitude. This would alter the magnitudes in Table 15.19 as follows:

1a – med; 1b – low; 1c – low; 3a – high; 3b – high; 4 – low; 6 – high (i.e. higher of 6a and 6b); 7a – high; 8a – high; 8b – med; "The Mount" - low; 9 – negligible. "The Mount" is named, as it is labelled 8d in Table 15.18 and 8c in Table 15.19.

Chapter 16, Mineral Transportation and Highways

We ask the Council to look into the effects of increased traffic on Upper Coalmoor Farm (Volume 2, Figure 16.3 on Coalmoor Road).

Chapter 17, Community Issues

In Vol 2, p 259, section 17.5.1, an employment multiplier factor of 1.9 to 2.3 is assumed on the basis of Scottish data. We wish to contest this as English partnerships gives a figure of 1.29, and Morris P and Therivel R "Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment" (1995) Chapter 2, section 2.5.2, states that of the UK regions, Scotland has the highest regional multiplier, citing Steele,DB, "Regional multipliers in Britain" (Oxford Economic Papers 19), Oxford University Press (1969). (There is a later edition of Morris & Therivel – you may wish to check it). [I suggest that the Council contacts the School of Geography at the University of Leeds if more up-to-date information is needed – I have seen a paper published from there which has some relevance, namely "Regional versus Local Multipliers of Economic Change? A microsimulation Approach" by Ballas D and Clarke G, Paper presented at the 39 th European Regional Science Association (ERSA) Congress, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland, 23-27 August 1999.]

In Vol 2, page 263, the last paragraph compares the job opportunities with the local skills base – surely it will be more likely that operators of the largest machinery will be drawn from other similar sites elsewhere in the country. We ask the Council to press this point.

In Vol 2, page 265, the second paragraph alludes to the annual turnover – surely it is not this value but the local spend which is relevant?

Chapter 18, Cumulative Effects

We disagree most profoundly with the sentence at Vol 2, page 92, line 19, which states that only mineral developments are considered by the cumulative assessment, and also the first paragraph of section 18.4.1 (Vol 2, page 277). Circular 02/99, paragraph 46 states:

" However, in judging whether the effects of a development are likely to be significant, local planning authorities should always have regard to the possible cumulative effects with any existing or approved development. ..."

We consider the position adopted by the applicant to be unduly restrictive.

We contend that the applicant has been too dismissive of cumulative effects at Receptors 1 to 9 (see Vol 2 pages 278 to 281). In particular we contend that a combination of "not significant"effects can become a "significant" effect when considered as a combination. We therefore, as an aid to the Council in their reconsideration of this matter, append the following section which only mentions the most outstanding of the adverse effects; the remainder, though unmentioned are nevertheless there. A site not mentioned suffers none of the most outstanding effects; nevertheless it still suffers a combination of adverse effects.

Comments on cumulative effects on individual residential properties bordering the site

Group N1 (Huntington group). Visual - Proximity to the site; noise - we note the exceedances of MPS2 limits at these properties during normal working; blasting and vibration - from Table 14.6, we see that there would be a perceptible level of vibration at both "Lower Huntington Farm" and "Upper Huntington Farm" on at least Cut A15; plus other types of effects.

Group N3, New Works (southwest). Visual - Proximity to the site; noise - we note from Table 13.13 that normal weekday working is at or near the MPS2 limit throughout all phases of the operation; blasting and vibration - from Table 14.6, we see that there would be such a level of vibration as to require special precautions to keep it low enough so as not to adversely affect both "New Works Farm" and "Falcon House" on the cuts specified; air quality - the properties in this area had the largest number of "dust-risk days" of any of the selected sites; plus other types of effects.

Group N4, New Works (central). Noise - we note from Table 13.15 that normal weekday working is not that far below the MPS2 limit throughout all phases of the operation; blasting and vibration.

From Table 14.6, we see that there would be a substantial level of vibration at "Haydock" on cut B4; plus other types of effects.

Group N5, New Works (north). Blasting and vibration - from Table 14.6, we see that there would be a substantial level of vibration at "Bel Vista" on cut B5; plus other types of effects.

Group N6, New Works Lane. Visual (6b and 6c) – Proximity to the site; noise - we note that in phase 2B, "Rose Villa" (6a) has a noise level barely within the MPS2 limit, but exceeds it on Saturdays; blasting and vibration - from Table 14.6, we see that there would be such a level of vibration as to require special precautions to keep it low enough so as not to adversely affect "Rose Villa" on cut B2. Cut A24 would give perceptible vibration at "Rose Villa", as would cut B4 at "Fairhaven" (6b). air quality - the number of "dust-risk days" in this area was quite considerable; plus other types of effects.

Group N7, New Works Lane junction. Noise - table 13.10 states that the predicted sound level for temporary operations at "Rozel" is 73 db(A), which not only exceeds the MPS2 level but also exceeds the L Amax level for "Calderwood", and even more so that of "Bel Vista", given in Table 13B. Please bear in mind the meaning of L Amax; air quality - the number of "dust-risk days" in this area was quite considerable; plus other types of effects.

Group N8, Dawley Road group. Visual – Proximity to the site (8a, 8b and 8c); noise - table 13.10 states that the predicted sound level for temporary operations at "Calderwood" is 71 db(A), which not only exceeds the MPS2 level but also approaches the L Amax level for "Calderwood" given in Table 13B. Please bear in mind the meaning of L Amax; air quality - the number of "dust-risk days" in this area was quite considerable; plus other types of effects.