Planning Committee

28 September 2001

Sedgefield and Teesdale Districts: Proposed extraction of coal and fireclay by opencast methods and restoration to agriculture, community woodland, varied habitats and extended rights of way network at a site to be known as Southfield Revised, Brusselton Lane, near Shildon, for UK Coal Mining Ltd.

Report of John Suckling, Head of Planning

Purpose of Report 1 The purpose of this report is to enable the Planning Committee to

assess proposals accompanied by an Environmental Statement, and determine a planning application to extract coal and fireclay at the proposed Southfield Revised site, for UK Coal Mining Ltd, previously operating as RJB Mining (UK) Ltd.

Background 2 A planning application with an Environmental Statement has been

submitted to this Council for the extraction by opencast methods of approximately 515,000 tonnes of coal and some 180,000 tonnes of fireclay over 28 months, from mainly agricultural land approximately 1km to the south west of Shildon, and east of the A68, the application area being 51.2 ha. The proposal lies partly within County Durham and partly within Darlington Borough, the whole scheme comprising 103.9 ha, extracting 580,000 tonnes of coal and 180,000 tonnes fireclay overall, from a total extraction area of 49.1 ha. A plan and key facts sheet are attached to this report.

3 The site, to be known as Southfield Revised, is part of the former Hill

Top Brusselton proposal submitted by British Coal, refused by Durham County Council in 1986 and subsequently refused by the Secretary of State on appeal in 1987. That scheme was for an area of 178 ha with the extraction of 1,100,000 tonnes of coal and approximately 60,000 tonnes of fireclay, over 7 years.

4 The County Council refused that application on a number of grounds

including: a market for the coal had not been substantiated; the proposal would increase the severity of the impact caused by the closure of the Shildon Wagon Works; and that the scheme would result in piecemeal working of a larger coal deposit extending to the south. Other refusal reasons related to the unacceptability of the proposed

2

scheme of working and restoration, the proposed drainage system, and the transportation of the coal from the site by road rather than by rail.

5 The appeal Inspector’s recommendation, which was accepted by the

Secretary of State, referred particularly to the impact of the proposal on Shildon at a time when much effort had gone into various initiatives following the closure of the Wagon Works. The Inspector considered that, while in his view there was at the time a need for a significant quantity of opencast coal from County Durham to meet the requirements of the national market, the impact of the proposal on Shildon, its setting, residential amenity and the employment prospects of its residents would be likely to be severe and unacceptable. The Inspector concluded that it might be that in the future, when the vitality of the town had been restored, the working of Hill Top Brusselton could again be contemplated with less risk of damage to the local community.

6 A previous Southfield application was refused planning permission at a

special meeting of the County Council’s Planning Committee on 26 September 2000. The certificate giving effect to the decision was issued on 12 October 2000 and is appended to this report. On 6 April 2001 the applicant appealed to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (now the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions) against this Council’s decision to refuse permission and a public inquiry is scheduled to commence on 13 November 2001. The applicant has stated that a favourable determination of this revised application would remove the need to continue with the appeal.

7 The Committee will wish to note that on 4 October 2000 Darlington

Borough Council resolved to grant planning permission for that part of the site within the Borough. The certificate giving effect to the decision and schedule of conditions, with associated legal agreements was issued by the Borough Council on 20 April 2001.

8 In making the current submission, the applicant has attempted to

address the previous reasons for refusal of permission. The following improvements are included:

• The reduction in overall height by 2m of the overburden mound, further lessening its visual impact.

• Adjustments to the restoration proposals resulting in the increase in the total area of community woodland (+3 ha), species rich grassland (+1 ha) and additional footpath and bridleways (+2.3 Km). Furthermore, an area in the northern part of the site recognised for its butterflies, will be translocated and then reinstated upon restoration.

• Creation of a ‘community fund’ which would accrue during the life of the site, accessible to organisations within Shildon Town Council area and Etherley Parish in County Durham and Heighington Parish in Darlington Borough. The applicant

3

suggests that the fund could be administered through the proposed site liaison committee. The offer of a ‘community fund’ cannot be a material planning consideration, and references to it in this report are intended for information only.

9 The current application is accompanied by an Environmental

Statement. This report has had regard to the environmental information contained in the Statement and arising from the statutory consultations on both this application and the previous application, and other material considerations. The Committee needs to consider the proposal in the light of policies in the adopted County Structure Plan, the adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (MLP) and Revised Government Guidance on Coal Mining and Colliery Spoil Disposal (MPG3) issued in 1999.

Proposal 10 The proposed development in County Durham needs to be considered

in conjunction with the application determined by Darlington Borough Council, as the working method is not related to administrative boundaries. The application site is made up of two areas divided by road UC423 (Dere Street) as shown on the attached plan. Four distinct coaling areas are identified. The proposed main site overburden mound, most soil mounds and site compound, coal stocking area and access to the A68, are all located within Darlington Borough. The eastern and western working areas would be connected by an ‘at grade’ crossing of the UC423.

11 Off-site planting, the majority of which would be within County Durham,

would take place in the first available planting season following commencement of the development. Following small scale extraction in Areas C and D (see plan) working would commence in Area A, moving in an easterly direction, and then into Area B, again in an easterly direction. Overburden from the initial cuts from Area A would be stored in the overburden mound located in the east part of the site, over Areas C and D. The maximum height of the overburden mound would be 16 metres from original ground level, two metres lower than was proposed in the previous Southfield application. Overburden from Area B would be used to backfill the final void in Area A and the material in the overburden mound used to restore Area B. The proposal would take coal from a number of seams as listed on the attached key facts sheet. At its deepest, the working void would be 63m deep. Fireclay is present in the site beneath several of the seams and can be recovered. No coal processing would take place at the site and only temporary stockpiling of coal and fireclay is envisaged.

12 Progressive working and reinstatement would take place with soil

stripping over three seasons in advance of each working void. Area A would be fully reinstated approximately 14 months from the commencement of operations. It is proposed that the western part of

4

Area B will be restored to agriculture and nature conservation 16 months after commencement of the development. Excavations in Area B would be completed 25 months after the start of operations at the site. Areas C and D could not be reinstated until all the stored overburden and coal are removed and used to reinstate the remainder of the site.

13 The site is proposed to be restored to a mix of after-uses. The land to

the west of the road UC423, currently in agricultural use, would be woodland planted to create an extension to Brusselton Wood County Wildlife Site. The area to the east of the UC423 would be returned to agriculture with a new field pattern, new hedgerows, reinstated, extended and upgraded footpaths. The butterfly area to the north of the site would also be translocated then reinstated.

Planning considerations General planning policy issues 14 MPG3 explains that in applying the principles of sustainable

development to coal extraction, the Government believes that there should normally be a presumption against such development unless the proposal would meet a number of tests. The new Guidance suggests that the costs and benefits of an opencast coal proposal can be best addressed by the communities and local authorities that know the area best and are most directly affected. Accordingly the Government takes the view that, subject always to local plan procedures, normal rights of appeal and the provisions of the Guidance, mineral planning authorities’ assessments of the environmental acceptability or otherwise of individual proposals should normally prevail.

15 Paragraph 8 of MPG3, criteria i and ii, sets out the key tests for the

acceptability of opencast proposals. These would allow opencast extraction only where a scheme is environmentally acceptable or provides local benefits sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by the development. MPG3 also provides guidance to mineral planning authorities and the industry on the specific impacts of opencast coal workings, such as noise, dust and blasting.

16 Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that,

where an adopted or approved development plan contains relevant policies, an application for planning permission shall be determined in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The questions of acceptability and benefits must be considered against the relevant adopted Structure Plan policies and the policies in the adopted MLP. The MLP includes an opencast coal policy reflecting MPG3. Policy M7 states that within the exposed coalfield area there will be a presumption against proposals for the opencast mining of coal and/or fireclay unless they are environmentally

5

acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations, or they provide local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the adverse impacts of the proposal. In assessing such benefits, particular regard is to be had to the contribution of the proposal towards the comprehensive reclamation of areas of derelict or contaminated land, and to the avoidance of sterilisation of mineral resources in advance of development which is either subject to a planning permission or allocated in an adopted development plan (in accordance with Policy M15). Regard is also to be given to the contribution (or otherwise) to the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment and the need for supplies of fireclay to serve local brickworks. Policy M7 also indicates that all proposals should avoid the unnecessary sterilisation of other minerals, particularly fireclays and brickclays. The application states that the fireclays will be recovered alongside the coal and marketed to local brickworks and beyond. This would avoid the unnecessary sterilisation of a valuable resource and allow the concurrent working of two minerals, in accordance with Policies M7 and M19.

17 The site contains only small areas of dereliction, 4.3% (2.9 ha) of the

total land to be disturbed, which will be reclaimed as part of the development. The sterilisation of mineral resources in advance of development is not an issue at this site. The site is not allocated in an adopted development plan.

Residential amenity 18 Policy M37 seeks to prevent mineral development within 250m of a

group of 10 or more dwellings unless it is demonstrated that their amenity can be protected from the adverse impacts of mineral working. The site is remote from any community, and does not conflict with this policy.

19 Several isolated residential properties in County Durham lie within 300

metres of the site boundary and are taken account of in the design of operations on the site. Redmires Farm lies immediately to the north of the western site boundary, but is owned by the applicant and will be unoccupied during the working of the site. High West Thickley Farm, approximately 278m to the north of Area B but approximately 360m from the nearest excavation; and High Side Farm approximately 217m south of Area A but approximately 430m from the nearest excavation; are relatively close to operations. Though no activity will be carried out within 250m of any occupied property, conditions can be imposed setting limits and requirements, to mitigate any effects on these, the nearest properties.

Noise 20 The applicant has carried out a noise assessment, the results of which

are contained in the Environmental Statement, which suggests that the

6

working would not increase noise levels to detrimental levels at the nearest residential properties. The assessment also confirms that noise levels would not exceed the levels in MPG 11 concerning the control of noise at surface mineral workings when short term soil stripping and mound forming and removing operations are underway. MLP Policy M36 requires that proposals for mineral working should incorporate suitable mitigation measures to ensure that any potentially harmful impacts from sources such as pollution from noise are reduced to an acceptable level. Sedgefield Borough and Teesdale District Councils’ Environmental Health Officers consider the proposed limits and monitoring regime proposed in the application and Environmental Statement provide acceptable safeguards.

Dust 21 The applicant intends to adopt a full Environmental Management

System, as recommended in MPG3, and a suitable Dust Action Plan has been submitted. This sets trigger levels relating to wind speeds. When certain conditions are reached provision would be made for additional dust suppression measures to be implemented. Appropriate conditions would be attached to any planning permission.

22 The results of a Department of Health and Department of the

Environment, Transport and the Regions research study: The Impact of Particulate Matter from Opencast Coal Sites on Public Health, were published with recommendations for good practice in December 1999. The recent consultation draft of a revised MPG 11, concerning a wide range of environmental issues, provides guidance reflecting the recommendations made in the report. The key assessment criteria are proximity of residential communities to a site, and the background levels of small particles (PM10) in relation to the National Air Quality Standard, with a proximity distance to settlements for assessment purposes of 1km. In terms of the National Air Quality Standard, the mean level of PM10 for south Durham is relatively low when compared

to national levels. Typically opencast site operations can produce 2µ

g/m3 of PM10s. When added to the area level locally of 17.1 to 18.1µg/m3 the predicted level is still better than the National Air Quality

Standard of 40µg/m3 annually and 50µg/m3 (24 hour mean). The nearest settlement, Shildon, is over 1km from the site and the necessity for additional measures above normal best practice are not appropriate, and the measures proposed in the Dust Action Plan are adequate.

Blasting

23 Sandstone overlies many of the coal seams and blasting may be necessary to fracture the overburden. In accordance with Policy M36, suitable mitigation measures should be incorporated to ensure that any potentially harmful impacts from vibration are minimised. It is likely that blasting would take place within 500m of one dwelling, but the design

7

and calculation of blasts would ensure that the vibration levels at all nearby properties are controlled and kept within the limits permitted. Conditions providing for control in the eventuality of blasting would be included in the schedule of conditions should planning permission be granted.

Landscape and conservation

24 Policy 64(c) of the Structure Plan, requires that the quality of the County’s landscape should be maintained and enhanced by ensuring that its attractive characteristics are maintained and distinctiveness enhanced. MLP Policy M36(b) requires suitable mitigation measures to ensure that any potentially harmful visual impacts from a mineral development are reduced to an acceptable level. Moreover, Policy M24 states that minerals development will be required to ensure that the scale of any adverse effects on local landscape character is kept to an acceptable minimum and conserves, as far as possible, important features of the local landscape.

25 Despite the elevated location, the site would be relatively unobtrusive in

views from the north. As the workings lie south of the ridgeline, no excavations or surface development would be visible from that direction, although the large central overburden mound is likely to be visible at a distance from a number of viewpoints. These include high points on the roads A688 (to the north), the A6072 (to the east) and the A68 (when travelling north) together with several minor roads and footpaths in the vicinity. In order to further reduce any possible visual impact of the mound in views from the Shildon area, this revised application proposes a lower overburden mound than that previously proposed. The mound would be constructed generally in a north to south direction in a series of lifts, with the outer northern and north-eastern gentler sloping faces being constructed first to screen later operations. The construction of these slopes would be completed within seven months of the start of the site. The mound will be retained in its graded and grassed form until required to backfill the final void rather than being reduced intermittently on its northern side. Immediate views of the site from nearby footpaths and from Dere Street are unavoidable, but would be controlled by perimeter screening by soil mounds.

26 The site is mainly in agricultural use and fields are bounded by

hedgerows and fencing. Lines of mature trees are located along the banks of minor watercourses which cross the site. While the scheme has been designed to minimise impacts on existing features, working will involve the loss of some hedgerows and trees of varying physical condition. The short term impact of their removal would be compensated for in the longer term by the restoration proposals which provide for the provision of substantial lengths of new hedgerow; woodland planting; tree lines along watercourses; hedgerow trees; a new field pattern; and maintenance and improvement works to

8

boundary and off-site hedgerows. Part of the site within Darlington Borough is within a designated Area of High Landscape Value in the Borough of Darlington Local Plan. The existing landscape in County Durham, although pleasant, is not designated as of high quality. Parts of the site have been previously disturbed by shallow workings and it contains small pockets of degraded land.

27 The Southfield Revised scheme seeks to address the reasons for

refusal of the previous application and amendments have resulted in proposals which should not have an unacceptably adverse impact during working and which should provide a high quality restoration outcome in mitigation. Much thought has been given in the Environmental Statement to reducing the visual impact of the site and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design. The proposal inevitably will have some visual consequences, but I do not consider that these would be detrimental long term, or grounds for refusal, given the scale of engineering works involved.

Recreational amenity

28 Policy M35 of the MLP states that mineral development that would have an unacceptable impact on the recreational value of the countryside, in particular facilities such as paths, other public rights of way and the local path network, will not be permitted unless there is a need for the mineral which cannot be met from suitable alternative sites or sources.

29 Brusselton Hill provides significant opportunities for countryside access

close to one of the County’s main towns, offering extensive views and informal recreation. The perception and use of the countryside for relaxation and enjoyment will be directly affected during opencast working. Several footpaths and two bridleways lie within the proposed site and are linked to the wider network of rights of way in the area. The Environmental Statement identifies the impacts of the proposed scheme in relation to public rights of way and proposes mitigation measures. Although the footpaths within the site would be stopped up during working, temporary alternative routes would be provided and the footpaths reinstated in the site restitution stage. It is proposed that several of the existing rights of way would be upgraded to bridleways. Upon restoration the number and length of rights of way in the vicinity of the site would be increased to a greater extent than proposed in the previous application, thus further improving access to the area from nearby communities.

Agricultural quality 30 Out of the total proposal area of 103.9 ha, 67.6 ha is to be disturbed.

Of this 25.3 ha is Grade 3a agricultural land quality, regarded as best and most versatile in County Durham, 39.4 ha is Grade 3b quality, and 2.9 ha is not in agriculture. Policy 23 of the Structure Plan seeks to

9

protect the use of best and most versatile agricultural land from development not associated with agriculture and forestry unless opportunities have been assessed for accommodating development needs on other sites including those previously developed and on poorer quality farmland. It should also be demonstrated that the need for the development on the particular site overrides the need to protect such land. Whenever practicable, development involving the severance of sustainable farm holdings should be avoided.

31 MLP Policy M34 states that mineral development which affects or is

likely to lead to the loss of 20 or more hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land will not be permitted unless there would be no overall loss of agricultural land quality following restoration, or there is need for the mineral which cannot be met from suitable alternative sources on lower quality land. Upon reinstatement 28.6 ha is intended to be restored to Grade 3a quality at the end of the aftercare period in accordance with Policy M34.

32 The Rural Development Service (formerly FRCA), commenting on

behalf of DEFRA (formerly MAFF), is satisfied with the application and the specific methods of safeguarding and restoring good quality soils. DEFRA does not wish to object to the application, subject to appropriate normal conditions being attached to safeguard the national agricultural interest. A strategy for soil stripping, handling, storage and replacement has been submitted with the application, and the applicant proposes to produce a soils handling and management manual, employ experienced staff and an annual soils management audit is to be produced and submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority. By virtue of the details submitted and through conditions which can be imposed, the handling and storage of soils, including those supporting Grade 3 land, can be adequately controlled if development takes place.

Ecology 33 Structure Plan Policy 67D requires that the County’s nature

conservation interest is maintained and enhanced. Protected species and local nature conservation features should be protected from development, which may significantly damage their habitat or value. The creation of new wildlife habitats and local nature reserves is also encouraged. MLP Policy M29 indicates that all proposals for minerals development should incorporate measures to ensure that any adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of the area is minimised. In considering proposals for mineral working regard will be had to opportunities for the creation of new areas of nature conservation interest and the need to conserve local features of nature conservation value.

34 A detailed ecological survey has been undertaken over the site and

surrounding area and is included in the Environmental Statement. No statutorily protected flora were recorded. Protected fauna are covered

10

in a report which has been kept confidential to protect the species. It is recognised that in the short term there will be localised effects, such as the short term loss of foraging ground for local wildlife, but the mitigation measures included in the overall proposals, including advanced planting and a comprehensive restoration scheme, should ensure that any effects are temporary, and a more varied habitat for all wildlife would be the outcome. In particular, special provision is to be made for the protection of the dingy skipper butterfly. The mitigation measures and restoration proposed meet the requirements of Policy 67D of the Structure Plan and M29 of the MLP.

Hydrology 35 Structure Plan Policy 89 precludes development which would lead to

an unacceptable deterioration in the quality of ground water or surface water, or would interfere with the flow of groundwater. MLP Policy M38 states that if a proposal for mineral development would affect the supply of, or cause contamination to, underground, or surface waters, it should not be permitted unless measures are carried out as part of the development to mitigate those impacts throughout the working life of the site and following final restoration.

36 The site is crossed from east to west by tributaries of the Redhouse

Beck, namely Bolam Beck and Hill Top Beck with several other small watercourses lying in close proximity to the site. During working in Area B, Hill Top Beck would be lost but would be reinstated with its catchment following completion of the development. It is expected that normal flows in Red House Beck would be maintained during working by diverting surface water from various other parts of the site. Discharge from the site would be strictly controlled with settlement lagoons provided, so that no contaminated water would enter watercourses.

37 In terms of underground water, the proposed development has been

designed to avoid the area of underground mine water to the north and east of the site known as the Durham Pond. Excavations within the Southfield Revised site would take place below the water table and dewatering would be required. The Environment Agency considers it unlikely that the operations would affect the ground water regime generally, or abstraction at the Jubilee Trout Farm, which lies to the east of the site boundary within Darlington Borough. As a precautionary measure a contingency plan would be required to be agreed.

38 The proposed development does not conflict with Structure Plan Policy

89 or MLP Policy M38 as no adverse impacts on surface or ground water have been identified which cannot be controlled through mitigation measures, condition and other pollution controls regulated by the Environment Agency.

11

Archaeology

39 In line with the MLP Policy M31 and PPG16, an archaeological assessment and a field evaluation to ascertain the archaeological resource and constraints of the site were carried out on behalf of the applicant. The UC423 is along the line of a Roman road but there are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments or listed buildings directly affected by the proposal. All known features of archaeological interest are excluded from areas to be disturbed by the development. There are some further potential areas of archaeological interest which, should the application be approved, would require conditions imposed to ensure a programme of archaeological survey and protection to be submitted, agreed and implemented.

Cumulative impact 40 MPG3 recognises that particular areas on exposed coalfields have

been subject to successive opencast developments over many years, and recommends that development plans should include, where appropriate, policies allowing for the cumulative impact of opencast development on the community and the environment to be fully taken into account in determining new proposals.

41 Structure Plan Policy 72 requires that all proposals for mineral working,

including coal, will be considered in terms of their impacts, whether individual or cumulative, on the environment, the amenity of local communities, the transport network and the local economy. MLP Policy M45 notes that, when considering proposals for mineral development, the impact of past, present and future cumulative impact must be considered. Planning permission for new development will not be granted where the cumulative impact exceeds that which would be acceptable if produced from a single site under the relevant policies of the Plan.

42 In the vicinity of the Southfield Revised proposal, opencast coal

working has taken place around Shildon since the late 1940’s (see attached plan). Activity in the area since the Shildon Wagon Works and Extension site, which operated between 1988 and 1991, includes the former West Lodge site and the current Eldon Deep site, scheduled to cease coaling shortly. Even though the land affected is now reinstated (with the exception of Eldon Deep), disturbance on the scale experienced raises cumulative impact issues. However, the Southfield Revised site lies over the Brusselton ridge, where its effects would be less immediate, and not close to the recent and current sites, such that direct cumulative grounds for refusal would be difficult to sustain.

43 Any large-scale excavation brings some cumulative impact in terms of

the combined impacts on landscape, appearance, vegetation, wildlife and hydrology. These impacts are separately considered in this report. Sufficient information has been provided in this instance, however, to

12

show that the effects can be effectively mitigated and so do not raise material conflicts in terms of planning policies concerning cumulative effects.

Piecemeal working 44 MPG3 provides for development plan policies to control the

comprehensive working of the coal deposits in a locality, subject to consideration of planning and environmental constraints. MLP Policy M8 indicates that the piecemeal working of opencast coal deposits will not be allowed.

45 As the application area forms part of a previous much larger prospect,

the seams of coal continue beyond the proposed excavation areas. The Environmental Statement contains an assessment of alternative schemes of working coal resources in the vicinity of the present application area, concluding that working the coal beyond the current boundary is neither viable nor environmentally acceptable. The applicant considers the proposed scheme a ‘once and for all’ development and proposes tree planting over areas where there are known coal resources. The applicant also offers a Section 106 Agreement preventing future opencast coal mining on the considerable areas the Company owns in the surroundings of the current application site. This Agreement would apply to any successor in title.

Restoration 46 MLP Policy M24 requires that restoration schemes for mineral workings

have regard to the quality of the local landscape and seek to provide landscape improvements where appropriate. The restoration and after-use proposals for this site take account of opportunities for improvements to the landscape, safeguarding the current quality of agricultural land, and provide for the planting and establishment of community woodlands, and new rights of way. Structure Plan Policy 69 encourages an increase in tree cover in the County where there are no significant adverse impacts on the character of the landscape, nature conservation interest or heritage features. New tree planting is encouraged where it will contribute to the development of community woodlands.

47 It is proposed that the site would be progressively reinstated and the

restored landform would be similar to that which currently exists. In the area to the west of Dere Street, a community woodland would be planted together with an area of species rich grassland, a water feature, and a small car park. The eastern part of the site would be reinstated to a mix of agricultural uses with practical but attractive field layouts, some species rich grassland, wetland, ponds, areas of woodland and a reinstated butterfly habitat. The proposed restoration strategy would enhance the environmental quality of the area,

13

improving biodiversity and landscape qualities, whilst encouraging public access and would accord with Structure Plan Policy 69.

48 MPG3 favours financial guarantees for the restoration of opencast coal

sites as a legitimate and appropriate means of reassuring the local community of a prospective operator's commitment and ability to restore a site and on time. The advice does accept that a bond should not be necessary where an operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the mineral planning authority, that the Company is covered by an established and properly funded industry guarantee scheme, which would adequately finance a programme of restoration and aftercare. Similar guidance is also included in MPG7, concerning the restoration of minerals sites, and reflected in MLP Policy 52. Nevertheless, the applicant has agreed to provide a financial guarantee for the restoration of the site and a legal agreement has been drafted.

Economic issues 49 The British Coal Hill Top Brusselton proposal was rejected on appeal

14 years ago on grounds which included that a market for the coal had not been substantiated and that the proposal would increase the severity of the impact caused by the then recent closure of the Shildon Wagon Works. The recent Southfield application was refused on the grounds, amongst others, that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the image and regeneration prospects of Shildon, detracting from initiatives to attract investment and funding into a town which has experienced a long history of opencast working. In the time since the previous appeal decision in the aftermath of the Wagon Works closure, the economic fortunes of Shildon have gradually improved.

50 The current application incorporates amendments with the aim of ensuring that the revised proposals are not overtly intrusive, and information has been provided to suggest that the development will not pose a significant threat to the regeneration of this part of the County, and in fact will in its own way provide economic benefits and help support wider initiatives. Any direct consequences of the proposed opencast development for the economic regeneration of Shildon are likely to be small, given the relatively short timescale on the scheme and distance and visual separation from Shildon itself. Indeed the proposed opencast development itself would maintain 50 jobs locally and generate spending and activity of its own to help support the economy of the area. The ‘once and for all’ scheme proposed would preclude further working taking place in the future in the vicinity of the site, which might otherwise cloud the ongoing economic regeneration or tourism potential of Shildon and the surrounding area.

51 MPG3 provides current guidance with regard to the need for opencast

coal. It indicates that, where the major argument advanced in support of an application to extract coal is that the need for the development outweighs the planning disadvantages inherent in it, the mineral

14

planning authority should have regard to the possibility of meeting that need from alternative sites or sources of supply. Generally, the greater the planning objections to a particular site, and the greater the reliance on need to overcome those objections, the more material will be the possibility of supplying the market from less damaging alternative sites or sources of supply.

52 In this particular case the applicant advances the recovery of

indigenous coal reserves (offsetting coal imports) and assisting the marketing of deep mined coal as economic reasons for working. The Environmental Statement submitted in association with the application proposes and provides for mitigation measures seeking to outweigh any inherent planning disadvantages. Alternative sites or sources to the present proposal are not assessed in the Environmental Statement. The Southfield Revised site was acquired by the applicant with a portfolio of sites on privatisation of the industry, and is part of an intended sequence of sites nationally, to continue to meet a shrinking market for coal. The site if permitted would follow the Eldon Deep scheme, and there are other longer-term site prospects in the applicant’s ownership within this County, although progress on these is not thought to be imminent. Previously the applicant indicated that arrangements could be made to avoid concurrent working of the Eldon Deep and Southfield Revised sites. The Eldon Deep site is currently scheduled to cease coaling in January 2002 with the loss of up to 15 mining jobs, with the loss of the remaining 15 jobs when the site closes upon reinstatement in Autumn 2002. The applicant has stated an intention to apply for a small extension to the Eldon Deep site, but no application has yet been received for consideration.

53 The coal within the site would be sold to the electricity supply industry

for use with deep mined coal as it has a high calorific value and is low in sulphur and chlorine content. MPG3, however, notes that any technical requirement for coal blending is not a significant issue for the land use planning system, nor does the Government see a role for the planning system in influencing the operation of the coal market.

54 The recovery of indigenous fireclays for Durham’s and other brickworks

further afield is given as a benefit of the proposal. No agreement has yet been reached for the purchase of the fireclay from the site, although a letter of intent from a Durham company has been submitted with the application. The MLP acknowledges the importance of fireclay production in supporting the remaining local brickworks, and the need to avoid wastage of any material that may potentially be available. The recovery of fireclay alongside the extraction of coal would avoid the unnecessary sterilisation of a valuable resource and allow the concurrent working of two minerals, in accordance with Policies M7 and M19. Overall, the revised Southfield proposal would accord with the provisions of Policy M7(a) of the Minerals Local Plan if it is environmentally acceptable.

15

Access and traffic 55 Coal and fireclay would be transported from the site by road. Access to

the site is proposed along a haul route to an entrance onto the UC423 road, close to its junction with road A68 in Darlington Borough. The traffic route for coal would be south on the A68 to the A1(M) and then north to the Wardley Disposal Point for onward distribution via road and rail to power station customers or a transfer facility in Yorkshire. Fireclay would be transported via the A68 north either to brickworks in Durham, or south to Yorkshire, Lancashire and Northern Ireland. The actual market for fireclay has yet to be resolved, but the applicant has provided details of the likely traffic routes should the material be supplied to brickworks within the County. Traffic routeing can be controlled through both condition and legal agreement.

56 The Borough of Darlington has, by approving its part of the Southfield

application , accepted the suitability of the access and movements south on the A68 . The relatively limited numbers of vehicles carrying fireclay which may travel northwards through County Durham would also use the A68 and other principal routes, all recognised lorry routes. The Director of Environment and Technical Services has raised no concerns on highway or safety grounds.

Legal agreements 57 The applicant offers a Section 106 Agreement which, as well as

preventing future working, also provides for the setting up of a liaison committee; for lorry routeing for both coal and fireclay and access to the site; for undertaking advance planting; for an extended aftercare period beyond the statutory five years; for management of the intended car park; for public access to the site and for the creation of a ‘community fund’. The applicant has also offered to enter into a further Agreement under Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to provide for the long term management of areas of community woodland and habitat creation areas following restoration of the site thus ensuring that these areas are maintained in accordance with an approved management plan in perpetuity and a suitable agreement has been drafted.

Consultations and views received 58 Sedgefield Borough Council consulted on the revised proposals on 12

July 2001 has not yet commented. I understand that the application is to be reported to the Council’s planning committee on 21 September 2001.

16

59 Teesdale District Council has no objections but highlights the need for close monitoring. I am also advised that in terms of the proposed lorry routeing for fireclay Teesdale considers that there will be no unacceptable environmental effect.

60 Wear Valley District Council (consulted as neighbouring authority)

objects to the proposal on the following grounds:

i) The site would be visible on a hillside.

ii) The site would be an eyesore for motorists entering Wear Valley and would spoil a beautiful scenic route.

iii) The site is close to West Auckland and St Helen Auckland. If the wind is blowing in the direction of these areas, residents would experience noise and dust problems.

iv) There will be large numbers of wagons using the road network if the applicant is allowed to extract coal and fireclay.

If the County Council were to decide to allow the proposals, the District Council Planning Committee would: i) Support the proposal to restore the site to agriculture, woodland

and wetland. ii) Request that the applicant be asked to carry out an

archaeological investigation before carrying out coal extraction. iii) Recommend that the Roman road (Dere Street) be excluded

from the area(s) of mineral extraction.

Comment: Wear Valley's concerns are addressed in this report. Although in an elevated location the site sits behind the Brusselton ridge and falls away to the east, such that its impact in views from the north-west would not be great. The working void and associated surface activities will not be visible from Wear Valley, although the peripheral soil mounds and possibly the top of the overburden mound may be seen at a distance. It is unlikely that the residents of West Auckland or St. Helen Auckland will experience any physical effects of the working being nearly 1km away from the nearest boundary. A full archaeological assessment has been undertaken, and the necessary safeguards can be put in place. It is not proposed to excavate the Roman road UC423. An ‘at grade’ crossing will be constructed for access purposes between the two parts of the site for the life of the site.

61 Darlington Borough Council (consulted as neighbouring authority, which has resolved to permit its part of the scheme) raises no objection to the application.

62 Shildon Town Council has requested that its previous reasons for

refusal of the earlier Southfield application should stand. At that time the Town Council met with the Planning Committee to give its views,

17

indicating that on balance it rejected the proposal in principle, but was not entirely decided. The Council was particularly concerned that the proposed Section 106 Agreement would not guarantee the ‘once and for all’ scheme. The Town Council has also stated that the view taken by the Council reflects public anxiety over the development “whether real or imagined.”

Comment: Clarification has been provided to the Town Council. The Section 106 Agreement would apply to any successor in title. Whilst an owner could apply to modify or discharge the agreement after 5 years, the only justification would be that the Agreement no longer served a useful purpose. However in the opinion of the Director of Corporate and Legal Services the useful purpose would continue indefinitely.

63 Great Aycliffe Town Council consulted on 12 July 2001, has not

commented on the application, but hopes to forward them to the County Council on 20 September 2001.

64 Etherley Parish Council consulted on 12 July 2001 has not commented

on the application. 65 As a result of re-notification of the revised proposals specific objections

have been received from Heighington Parish Council (in Darlington Borough area), the CPRE Durham and Darlington Branches, the Ramblers Association Darlington Group, the group No Opencast, and the Durham County Badger Group.

66 The submission has also been advertised locally and in the local press,

with a total of 1,403 representations received (including those listed in paragraph 65 above).

67 1,372 proforma letters of support for the proposal and the current

appeal have been submitted. 1,147 of these are from Shildon residents, 203 from other residents in County Durham, 9 from outside the County, and 13 from local businesses. In addition full letters of support have been received from 7 local businesses and from 14 employees at the applicant’s Eldon Deep site, as well as the deputy chairman of the Eldon Deep site liaison Committee. The letters refer to the claimed benefits of the application and stress the importance of the employment opportunities afforded by the proposal. In total 1,394 expressions of support have been received.

68 Of three objection letters received from private individuals, one is from an address in County Durham. The concerns raised by those making representations opposing the application relate to the effect of the proposal on the following issues, all of which are covered in this report:

i) water quality and hydrology; ii) flora and fauna; iii) environmental effects including noise and dust;

18

iv) effects on public rights of way; v) road safety; vi) tourism; vii) possible damage to property, and viii) concern that viable coal reserves exist outside the application

site.

Conclusion 69 The present proposal is greatly different from the scheme of working

and restoration refused permission in the 1980s, and includes significant improvements modifying the Southfield proposals refused permission last year. The current proposal must be considered on its own merits in the light of national guidance containing a general presumption against opencast development in light of adopted development plan policies.

70 In development plan policy terms, the revised application addresses

the previous proposal's potential conflict with Policy 72 of the Structure Plan and Policy M35 of the MLP in relation to the combined effects of the operation of the site on the local environment, the amenity of the local community, public rights of way and the recreational value of the countryside, Significantly improved proposals have been provided to further help mitigate possible effects of disturbance during working and reinstatement and to improve the restoration scheme. The revised proposals now accord with Policy M35. Also in mitigation, the proposal is limited in time and extent, in an area not unduly close to communities or cumulative with other workings, and is promoted as a 'once and for all' development with short term economic benefits and longer term environmental benefits. The revised Southfield proposals are environmentally acceptable, according with the provisions of Policy M7(a) of the MLP.

71 Overall, the current proposal accords with the provisions of the adopted

Structure Plan and Minerals Local Plan. During the relatively short period of working and reinstatement there will be some visual and environmental adverse impacts. However, despite the site's elevated location, the proposed mining operations will not be unduly obtrusive and main views from within County Durham would be limited and distant. The site adjoins the countryside area at Brusselton used for recreation by residents of nearby Shildon. The areas to be worked are not themselves of great intrinsic landscape or ecological value, being in agricultural use. The Environmental Statement submitted in association with the application proposes and provides mitigation measures and the adoption of best practices of working and restoration in order to limit effects on the environment, landscape, wildlife and local communities. The proposed restoration scheme is designed to create a mix of habitats, including planting a significant area of woodland with improved public access and progressive local benefit. The applicant

19

has agreed to enter into a Legal Agreement securing amongst other matters, a 'once and for all’ opencast coal scheme, an extended aftercare period, and a financial guarantee.

Recommendation 72 On balance, having regard to the considerable amendments to meet

important environmental and local objectives, made since its previous submissions, I believe that the proposed development meets the stringent tests for acceptability of opencast proposals as set out in MPG3 and the development plan. With adequate controls and monitoring, the scheme, with the mitigation measures proposed, is acceptable environmentally as a ‘final’ development. The proposed advanced planting and restoration strategy provides for significant landscape and local benefits sufficient to outweigh the environmental impacts likely to result from such development.

73 Having considered the balance of planning considerations and

assessed the environmental and community effects of the proposal, I recommend that the application be permitted, subject to the conclusion of appropriate Legal Agreements and provision of a suitable financial guarantee in order to ensure full and proper restoration of the site and provision of all benefits as intended.

No departure Background Papers Planning application and Environmental Statement dated 9 July 2001 as amended by correspondence on the application files CMA/6/4 & CMA/7/9. Consultation letters and responses.

Contact: John Suckling Tel: 0191 383 3376

20

Sedgefield and Teesdale Districts: Proposed extraction of coal and fireclay by opencast methods and restoration to agriculture, community woodland, varied habitats and extended rights of way network at a site to be known as Southfield Revised, Brusselton Lane, near Shildon, for UK Coal Mining Ltd. Key Facts Site area: 103.9 ha total area: of which

51.2 ha in County Durham 54.8 ha in Darlington. 49.1 ha total working area.

Existing land use: Agriculture. 64.7 ha Grade 3a & 3b quality land affected. 2.9 ha non-agricultural land. Some small areas of dereliction.

Proposed restored land use: Agriculture, woodlands and wetlands.

Mineral resources to be extracted: 580,000 tonnes of coal overall, of which c.515,000 tonnes in County Durham. 180,000 tonnes of fireclay overall, all from County Durham.

Seams to be worked: Top Tilley, Bottom Tilley, Top Busty, Middle Busty, Bottom Busty, Top Threequarter, Bottom Threequarter, Top Brockwell, Middle Brockwell, Bottom Brockwell, Victoria, Un-named.

Use of mineral resources: Electricity generation, and brick making.

Duration of working (including re-instatement):

2 years 4 months from commencement to full reinstatement.

Hours of operation: Site operations: 07.00 - 19.00 Mon. - Fri. 07.00 - 12.00 Sat Coal haulage hours: 07.00 - 18.00 Mon. - Fri. 07.00 - 12.00 Sat

Lorry movements: Average of 156 (78 in and 78 out) per working day in total, of which 118 (59 in and 59 out) per working day - coal, and 38 (19 in and 19 out) per working day - fireclay. (The above figures are based on a 5 day working week; Saturday morning movements may be a possibility, reducing the overall daily numbers slightly).

Lorry routeing: Coal to be transported via the A68 south to the A1(M) and then north to the Wardley Disposal Point for onward distribution by road and rail. Fireclay to be transported via the A68 either north to brickworks in Durham, or south to Yorkshire, Lancashire and Northern Ireland.

Blasting: May be required to loosen solid sandstone overlying coal.

Employment: 50 full time jobs for the duration of the scheme are anticipated.