A.2 (S)

Local Members' Interest

I. Parry Stone Rural

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 16 AUGUST 2007

MINERAL COUNTY MATTER – Stafford: S.06/25/401 M

Date Received: 18 August 2006

Further Details Received: Cross-section/sightline plans (13/11/06); Proposed unilateral agreement & vehicle routing plan (28/11/06); Additional supporting site plans (24/11/06); revised landscaping scheme and planting schedule (30/11/06); Consideration of alternative sites/options (10/11/06 and 1/12/06); Protected species survey report (21/5/07)

Greenpark Energy Limited for an application to extract and utilise mine gas (methane) from the former Florence Colliery for the production of electricity comprising of the installation of a temporary borehole platform and drill, erection of gas extraction and power generation plant and ancillary apparatus and construction of a new site access at land off Cocknage Road, Cocknage Farm near Lightwood

Background

This planning application was first considered by Planning Committee at its meeting held on 12 July 2007 when it was resolved to defer determination pending the outcome of a site visit. Set out below is a copy of the July Committee report to which the following amendments have been made.

• The report has been updated (Section 8) to detail the Member’s Site Visit which took place on 31 July 2007.

• The report has been updated to take into account the great crested newt discovery which was reported to the County Council and verbally presented to the Planning Committee at the meeting held on the 12 July. A summary of the advice received and mitigation proposed in response to this matter is provided in paragraphs 9.19 and 9.20.

• Two further ‘alternatives’ to the proposals had been suggested during the Planning Committee meeting in July and the Planning Committee’s visit to the site on 31 July 2007. The ‘alternatives’ suggested are; (i) the transportation of the underlying gas to a similar development at Trentham Lakes via an existing disused gas pipeline and; (ii) the construction of a new pipeline between the application site and the similar development at Trentham Lakes. The applicant has been asked to respond to these suggested ‘alternatives’ and a summary of the response is detailed in paragraphs 9.42 to 9.44.

- 38 - Introduction

This application seeks to extract and utilise mine gas (methane) associated with the former deep-mine coal workings known as Florence Colliery near to Lightwood, Stoke- on-Trent. Whilst the former Florence Colliery lies within Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s administrative area the surface installation and extraction plant would lie within the Staffordshire County boundary. As a result, the overall responsibility for the determination of this application rests with the Members of Staffordshire County Council’s Planning Committee.

For the purposes of this report the proposals have been divided into two separate phases; Phase 1 - Temporary site investigation and borehole drilling and; Phase 2 - Full construction and installation of generation equipment. Details of the works involved for each of these phases are set out in turn below. Both phases require planning permission however, the implementation of Phase 2 would be dependant upon the findings and outcomes of the Phase 1 works. The applicant is seeking full planning permission for both phases of these works and therefore for the avoidance of doubt Members are being asked to consider both phases of this development.

1. Summary of Proposals

Phase 1 - Temporary site investigation works and borehole drilling

1.1 This phase would involve temporary works to facilitate the drilling of a borehole from the surface into the abandoned coalmine workings of the former Florence colliery. The borehole would be drilled from the application site and directionally drilled so as to intercept the top of a vertical shaft lying approximately 145m north-east of the surface site and at a depth of approximately 337m below ground level. The purpose of the borehole is to verify that the underground works are open and are not flooded by rising mine waters and that there is sufficient mine gas within the void to make the scheme viable.

1.2 The temporary works would involve opening up an existing field access off Cocknage Road and forming a temporary access track to the proposed borehole site using crushed hardcore or stone. Topsoil and subsoil would be excavated from an area measuring approximately 70m x 50m in order to form a level ‘borehole platform’. This area would then be surfaced using crushed hardcore at a minimum depth of 300mm thick. Topsoil and subsoil stripped during these works would be stored in separate temporary bunds which would be positioned to the north and east of the site. In order to attenuate the noise from the drilling operations temporary screening barriers would be erected around the drill site in the form of straw bales. The straw bales would be constructed to a height of 4m and retained throughout the drilling operation. Should the initial site investigation works prove to be successful then it is envisaged that the hardcore ‘borehole platform’ would be retained so as to provide the hard standing for the generation equipment and that the landscaping earthworks would also be retained and planted in order to screen the generation plant and equipment.

1.3 The applicant proposes that the initial site construction works (i.e. earthworks and access construction) would take place between 07:00 and 19:30 hours Monday to Saturdays and between 07:00 and 15:00 hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays. The drilling rig would extend approximately 30m (100ft) above the ground surface and would operate 24 hours per day for a period of approximately 3 weeks. The total construction

- 39 - and commissioning works (including the 3 week drilling operation) are expected to take around 12-16 weeks.

1.4 If the initial preparatory works and drilling were to be unsuccessful then the hardcore platform would be removed, the borehole would be filled and made safe and the site would be restored back to existing levels. It is anticipated that these restoration works would be completed within 3 months from the date that the decision is made to not progress the scheme onto Phase 2. Alternatively, should the initial drilling works prove to be successful then the temporary infrastructure would be removed and replaced by the Phase 2 works as detailed below.

Phase 2 - Full construction and installation of generation equipment

1.5 Subject to the results of the initial site investigation works (Phase 1), the Phase 2 works would then be implemented which comprise of the installation of the mine gas extraction and generation equipment and associated infrastructure. The compound area would contain the gas extraction, generator units and associated servicing which include the following;

• Two electrical power generators and one gas pump housed within sound-proofed steel container units • Gas filter and analyser unit • Two electrical transformer units (converting 415V to 11kW) • Generator cooling radiators • Clean and dirty oil tanks • Water storage tank • 7500 litre condensate storage tank • Portable toilet unit • Coolant store • Electrical switch room • General storage unit • 4.3m high acoustic barrier/fencing • 2.8m high compound security fence • 1.1m wire and post fencing (along the site access track) • Other site formation and engineering works including the placement of underground and surface pipework, foundation excavation and concreting, construction of a permanent site access and re-profiling of the existing ground so as to achieve the proposed landscaping mounds.

1.6 The main structures are generally below 4.3m in height but the flue stacks on top of the generator units would be approximately 8m above ground level. In order to mitigate any impacts upon the landscape character and visual amenity of the area screening bunds would be constructed to the south-western, north-western and north-eastern side of the compound. These bunds would be planted with tree and shrub species in accordance with the planting scheme submitted in support of the application (or as otherwise agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority) as well as additional new and replacement hedgerow planting around the site.

1.7 The applicant proposes that the Phase 2 construction works would take place between the same hours as those cited in paragraph 1.3 above. Following the completion of these works the extraction of gas and generation of electricity would be carried out 24

- 40 - hours per day for an estimated period of up to 25 years. Although the site would be unmanned, contractors would carry out regular monitoring and maintenance visits (up to a maximum of twice a day) and the site would be remotely monitored from the applicant’s offices in Chesterfield and the offices of the company carrying out the maintenance contract.

1.8 Following the completion of the extraction operations it is envisaged that the foundations would be broken up and the security fencing removed and then the site would be restored to create a small coppice. This would include the retention of the established screen planting and additional planting would be undertaken within the site to supplement these features. Details with regard to this restoration scheme would be agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority at the appropriate time.

1.9 In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, the County Council has conducted a “Screening Opinion” on the proposals (ref: SCE.10/401M) which concluded that the proposed development is not EIA development and therefore need not be supported by an Environmental Statement. Although a full Environmental Statement is not required a planning statement has been submitted in support of the application which assesses the potential environmental impacts of the development and includes details of any measures to be taken so as to mitigate and minimise against any impacts. The topics considered in this statement are as follows;

• Landscape and visual amenity • Noise • Dust and airborne emissions • Ecology • Archaeology and cultural heritage • Hydrology • Transport • Rights of Way • Alternatives to the Proposals

2. Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site lies within the North Staffordshire Green Belt and occupies an area of relatively flat agricultural grazing/pasture land which is located off Cocknage Road on the outskirts of Lightwood, Stoke-on-Trent. The land to the south and west of the site is typified by open countryside with ground levels rising gently to a ridgeline that roughly coincides with Woodpark Lane towards the south. To the east of the site lies Cocknage Road and the restored spoil tip of Florence Colliery which is now designated as public open space. The ground levels of the former tip rise much more sharply in this area and therefore provide more open and elevated views of the site from this direction.

2.2 The nearest residential properties to the site lie approximately 100m north and 200m north-west of the site and form part of a new housing development which were constructed as part of the regeneration of the former colliery site. A combination of topography, roadside hedges and existing mature trees and vegetation lie between a number of the properties lying towards the north of the site which filter views of the site from this location. A number of properties also overlook the site including properties on Woodpark Lane (395m south-west), Cocknage Farm (430m south) and Windy Arbour (200m north-west).

- 41 -

3. Relevant Planning History

3.1 There is no planning history related directly to the application site however, the proposals do seek to utilise mine gas from beneath the adjacent former Florence Colliery site. Florence Colliery closed in 1990 and has now been restored to a mixture of residential housing and public open space.

4. Relevant Development Plan Policy and Planning Guidance

4.1 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policy QE1 – Conserving & Enhancing the Environment Policy EN1 – Energy Generation Policy M4(iii) – Energy Minerals

4.2 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan (1996-2011) Policy D1 – Sustainable Forms of Development Policy D2 – Design & Environmental Quality of Development Policy D5B – Development in the Green Belt Policy D7 – Conserving Energy and Water Policy NC1 – Protection of the Countryside: General Considerations Policy NC2 – Landscape Protection and Restoration Policy NC8 – Habitats of Protected Species Policy NC13 – Protection of Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands Policy NC14 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Policy MW6 – Evaluation of Proposals Policy MW9 – Reclamation

4.3 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Minerals Local Plan (1994-2006 ) Policy 10 – Legal Agreements Policy 12 – Unacceptable Adverse Impacts Policy 17 – Protected Species Policy 19 – Areas of Special Character or Conservation Interest Policy 21 – Landscape Character & Quality Policy 24 – Archaeological Sites Policy 26 – Historic Landscapes Policy 27 – Green Belts Policy 28 – Cumulative Impacts Policy 36 – Ground Stability Policy 44 – Exploration/Production of Oil and Gas Development

4.4 Stafford Borough Local Plan (2001) Policy E&D1 – General Requirements Policy E&D2 – Consideration of Landscape or Townscape Policy E&D4 – Sewage, Effluent and Surface Water Policy E&D5 – Noise Attenuation Requirements Policy E&D7 – Development in the Countryside Policy E&D9 – New Buildings in the Open Countryside Policy E&D10 – Inappropriate Development in the Green Belt Policy E&D28 – Landscape Conservation Policy E&D30 – Mitigation of Impact on the Landscape

- 42 - Policy E&D34 – Archaeological Evaluations Policy E&D36 – Nature Conservation: General Requirements Policy E&D41 – Protected Species Policy E&D48 – Landscaping Proposals Policy E&D49 – New Tree and Shrub Planting Policy E&D56 – Renewable Energy

4.5 National Planning Policy Documents and Other Guidance Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG2) – ‘Green Belts’ Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) – ‘Biodiversity & Geological Conservation’ Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1) – ‘Planning & Minerals’ & Annex 4 ‘On-shore oil and gas and underground storage of natural gas’ Minerals Policy Statement 2 (MPS2) – ‘Controlling and mitigating the environmental effects of mineral extraction in England’ Energy White Paper (2003) – ‘Our energy future: creating a low carbon economy’ Energy White Paper (2007) – ‘Meeting the Energy Challenge’

5. Findings of Consultations

Internal

5.1 Transport Development Control has no objections to the proposals but comments that the proposed access works and routing arrangements fall within the administrative control of Stoke-on-Trent City Council. Therefore the applicant should seek the necessary approvals from Stoke-on-Trent City Council prior to any construction. In addition it is commented that a unilateral undertaking relating to access and routing of heavy vehicles should be secured with the applicant.

5.2 The Head of the Environment & Countryside Unit (ECU) has provided a detailed response which considers the implications and potential impacts of the development upon the historic environment, local biodiversity, forestry and landscape, rights of way and climate. Full consideration and assessment of each of these issues is given in the ‘Observations’ section (below) however, in summary the ECU has made the following comments;

5.3 The development would not comply fully with Minerals Local Plan Policy 21 or Structure Plan Policy NC2 as it would introduce incongruous features into the landscape and there would be a detrimental visual impact from the structures proposed. However, the restoration proposals have been informed by landscape character and in the long term would contribute to the landscape policy objectives for the area. Furthermore, based on the preliminary calculations undertaken by the ECU the proposed development would appear to make a significant contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The benefits in this respect are therefore a material planning consideration and should be weighed in the balance against other environmental impacts.

5.4 The Development Services Noise Engineer states that there are two aspects to noise associated with these proposals and these are the noise impacts associated with the drilling operations (Phase 1) and the extraction/electrical generation operations (Phase 2). The Noise Engineer comments that whilst it is noted that local residents consider noise to be a major impact arising as a result of these operations, the actual measured and predicted levels considered within the noise report do not show this to be the case. Having considered the information and findings of the noise report it is considered that

- 43 - subject to the appropriate amount of screening the predicted noise levels from both the drilling and operational phases can be kept to an acceptable level and therefore there are no objections to the proposals on noise grounds.

External

5.5 Stafford Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has no comments to make on the proposals but advises that the nearest noise sensitive properties to the site are in the City of Stoke-on-Trent and therefore if there are any complaints with regard to noise from these residents then it would be for Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s EHO to investigate and take any action. The same principle applies in terms of air quality issues. Stafford Borough Council is responsible for reporting on air quality for the Borough and this report is done to strict government guidelines. The EHO comments that currently a plant of this size would not affect this report however, if a complaint is made about smell then the responsibility for dealing with this issue would be for the Local Authority for where the complainant lives (i.e. Stoke-on-Trent City Council or Stafford Borough Council) as they would have the responsibility and power to act.

5.6 Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has commented that the noise attenuation measures specified as part of the proposals are acceptable and would ensure that the development would not have an adverse impact in terms of noise. In addition, it is anticipated that there would be no odour problems associated with the development as the methane gas would be burnt as part of the electrical generation/combustion process. Finally, whilst concerns were initially raised that the combustion/generation process could result in an increase in nitrogen dioxide levels within the area, following subsequent amendments made to the scheme to address these concerns, the EHO has confirmed that there are no objections from an air quality perspective.

5.7 The Environment Agency commented that they are satisfied that the proposed development would not create a surface water drainage problem and that a flood risk assessment is therefore not required. The Environment Agency does however, note that the proposed access track would cross an existing ditchcourse to the south-west of Cocknage Road and the provision of any new or replacement culvert would require the prior consent of the Environment Agency. It is therefore recommended that the applicant be advised of this requirement via an Informative.

5.8 The Coal Authority has confirmed that there are substantial quantities of methane gas emitting from the abandoned shafts of the former Florence colliery and that over recent years there has been an increase in a sulphurous odour emitting from these shafts which can be unpleasant to residents who live within close proximity to the vent stacks. The proposed development may therefore have the beneficial effect of ameliorating these odours however it cannot be discounted that these odours may continue to persist even if the proposed development were to go ahead.

5.9 The Coal Authority adds that whilst the drilling of the proposed borehole would provide a route to the surface for underlying gasses these would be controlled initially by the safety valves incorporated in the drilling rig and eventually by the safety devices installed on the operational plant. Consequently, the Coal Authority would not expect the proposals to result in any uncontrolled release of mine gasses however, it is recommended that a risk assessment be undertaken to address any potential problem areas which may include issues such as risk of fire on site, power failure and the

- 44 - potential for methane gas levels to reach the explosive range. It is noted that the Health & Safety Executive (see paragraph 5.14 below) has advised that the applicant is required to submit a similar assessment/document to them for approval under the Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995. As this is a requirement of separate legislation it is suggested that the applicant be reminded of this obligation in the form of an Informative attached to any planning consent.

5.10 The Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) advise that the proposals would result in the loss of agricultural land and soils that are of ‘moderate’ quality (i.e. are sub- grade 3b). Therefore whilst they do not represent the ‘best and most versatile land’ should planning permission be granted, conditions should be attached to any consent granted which would ensure that soils are handled and stored in accordance with good practice guidelines and only stripped in dry ground and weather conditions. In addition to these comments, DEFRA also asked for clarification with regard to the proposed after-use of the site following the completion and decommissioning of the proposed development. In response to these concerns, the applicant has re-confirmed that should the Phase 1 works prove to be unsuccessful then the site would be restored back to existing land levels and agricultural uses. However, if the site was successfully developed into Phase 2, then upon the cessation of these operations the infrastructure/mechanical plant would be removed and the site restored to a woodland coppice. The landscaping bunds and planting would however be retained so as to provide a coppice or nature conservation area. DEFRA have subsequently commented that the proposals are considered appropriate and acceptable should the site be developed into Phase 2.

5.11 The Health Protection Agency (on behalf of the South Western Staffordshire Primary Care Trust) has commented that due to the size of the proposed development the effects of emissions to the atmosphere from the gas engines are unlikely to be significant. It is stated that the overall effect of the proposal is likely to improve the health and safety of the population as the Applicant states that fugitive emissions of mine gas have been monitored in the vicinity of the site and these should decrease with the installation of the gas engines.

5.12 The Police Architectural Liaison Officer (Stoke Division) has no objections to the proposals but recommends that planning conditions be attached to any permission granted requiring details of the CCTV and proposed security measures/fencing to be submitted for the approval of the Minerals Planning Authority. In addition it is also recommended that the proposed security fencing be changed from Palisade fencing to 3 metre high Paladin (close weld mesh) type fencing as this is more crime resistant.

5.13 The Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service has commented that the plant would be subject to the same safety regime as those of other natural gas installations which require a high level of safety. Having assessed the supporting statement and proposed safety provisions included within the application the Fire and Rescue Service have confirmed that there are no major concerns from an operational fire-fighting point of view. However, whilst there are no objections to the proposals it is recommended that should planning permission be granted the applicant should be advised to develop a Site Emergency Plan with the Fire and Rescue Service which would cover matters such as:

• means of raising the alarm and summoning the fire service; • fire service access ;

- 45 - • attendance of specialist representatives from the operating company; • emergency contact telephone numbers.

The Fire and Rescue Service have confirmed that this is a matter that can be dealt with as an Informative attached to any consent granted.

5.14 The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) has no specific comments to make on the proposals but has advised that as the borehole is to be drilled to extract gas to generate electricity rather than to de-gas mine workings, the Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995 (BSOR) would apply to the site operations. These regulations, which are meant primarily for onshore oil and natural gas well sites in Great Britain, require the preparation of a health and safety document with particular reference to the prevention of uncontrolled releases of flammable gas and of fire and explosion. In order to comply with the BSOR, the applicant is therefore required to notify the HSE of their intent to drill (along with specified details of the design of the construction of the borehole and of the planned operations) at least 21 days before operations commence. Whilst your Officers note that this requirement is not a planning issue, it is suggested that the applicant be reminded of this obligation in the form of an Informative attached to any planning consent granted.

5.15 The Staffordshire Wildlife Trust were consulted on the proposals following reports that great crested newts (GCN’s) had been seen in and around the application site and that the proposed development could therefore adversely affect a European protected species. In response to these concerns the applicant undertook presence/absence surveys in March/April 2007 which concluded that there is no evidence of GCNs being present within or around the site. No further comments have been received from the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust.

5.16 Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) have commented that the proposed development is contrary to Green Belt policy as it does not fall within one of the exceptions or types of development which are considered to be acceptable within this location. CPRE strongly suggest that this type of facility would be better located within an industrial site and therefore alternative sites for this facility should be investigated. A consideration of alternatives to the proposed site is considered in more detail in the ‘Observations’ section below.

5.17 Central Networks has confirmed that there are no objections to the proposals.

6. Views of District/Parish Council

6.1 Stoke-on-Trent City Council , as the adjoining planning authority to the proposed development, has commented that the sites location in the Green Belt is not ideal but if this site is proven to be the only feasible location, then the City Council takes the view that the benefits of reducing the emission of methane to the atmosphere and the sustainable generation of electricity outweighs the impact that the scheme might have on the appearance and openness of the Green Belt. In addition, whilst it is noted that traffic would be generated during the initial construction period thereafter this would be minimal and therefore there are no objections to the proposals from a highways perspective. In conclusion, Stoke City Council has confirmed that subject to Staffordshire County Council being satisfied that the site is the only realistic option for the proposed development and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions there are no objections to the proposals.

- 46 -

6.2 Stafford Borough Counci l has confirmed that there are no objections to the proposals.

6.3 Barlaston Parish Council comments that whilst they are not against the principle of the development the location of the proposed facility is unsuitable and therefore object to the proposals on the following grounds;

• Inappropriate development in the Green Belt • Visually intrusive development • Noise • Adverse impacts on wildlife • The application site forms part of a field which can become waterlogged • Highways – unsuitable road for large vehicles and access safety concerns • Risks of vandalism and focus for anti-social behaviour • Queries and concerns over how electricity would be exported off site (i.e. need for pylons or more visually intrusive equipment)

7. Publicity and Representations Received

7.1 The application has been advertised as a departure from the development plan as the site lies within the Green Belt and has been publicised by press notices, site notices and with neighbour notification letters. A public meeting was organised by local residents on 19 September 2006 which two of your Officers attended. At the meeting local residents voiced their concerns/objections to the proposals and the Officers explained the planning process and answered questions with regard to the procedures on how the application would be dealt with and considered.

7.2 A total of 99 letters have been received in response to the public consultation, 97 of which raise objections to the proposals (reflecting the objections/concerns raised during the public meeting in September 2006) and 2 letters which support the proposed development. In addition to the individual letters of representation a petition of 657 signatures has also been received which objects to the proposed development on the grounds that the development is inappropriate within the Green Belt.

Summary of representations in objection to the proposals

7.3 Stoke-on-Trent City Council Councillor Joan Bell (Longton South) has objected to the proposals on the grounds of the development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt and the impacts on the local residential and community amenity (i.e. visual and noise impacts). The 99 individual letters/representations raise objections to the proposals on the following grounds:

Green Belt • The proposals are an industrial development and if permitted would set a precedent for other industrial development within the Green Belt • Alternative locations should be found which are not within the Green Belt • The development is an inappropriate structure/building within the Green Belt and the Green Belt should be protected • The development would affect the openness and character of the Green Belt. Green Belt land should be left open around urbanised areas

- 47 - Traffic • Increased traffic on unsuitable narrow bending road which would increase the risk of accidents and residents/children along proposed routes to/from the site. • Cocknage Road is used as a ‘rat-run’ and the speed limit is set at a national limit road of 60mph • Unsuitable entrance/access to the site • Previous accidents resulting from speeding vehicles and bend near to proposed site

Noise • Noise resulting from operations (24 hours per day, 7 days per week) • Noise during the night and the summer months would impact on local residents quality of life • Noise from plant would scare horses and effect local livery business

Visual Impact • Impact upon views into/across the open countryside from Florence Park • Borehole rig would be 30m (100ft) high and therefore a blot on the landscape • The proposed landscaping is an artificial construction and would clash with the general appearance of the area • Planting will take a long time to establish and therefore would not provide adequate screening • Lighting to be provided would severely affect the surrounding area

Safety • Risk of fire/explosion which would have a devastating impact on local residents • Subsidence • Questions over what precautions/emergency procedures would be in place to deal with potential problems (i.e. explosion/fire) • Unmanned facility and therefore risk of vandalism and terrorism

Wildlife & Historic Environment • The area is an important site for wildlife including protected species such as great crested newts, badgers and bats • Rare and declining birds such as buzzards, owls, skylarks, spotted flycatcher, kestrel and lapwing which are on the RSPB’s Red and Amber Lists have been observed in the area • Bronze Age artefacts have previously been found in the area and there are concerns that this development could prevent the recovery of any remaining finds

Air Quality & Health • Asthma rates are high in Stoke due to polluted air – the proposal would worsen this situation • Dust will be generated during the construction phases • Fumes & gasses such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide would be emitted by processing the mine gas which contribute to global warming • Smell only ‘virtually removed’ - impact on ability to enjoy and use garden

Groundwater • Impact upon hydrology and hydrogeology of the area. Possible impacts on the local water table which has dropped in recent years • Impact on the drainage ditches around the site

- 48 -

Miscellaneous/Other • The signatories of the petition request that the Planning Committee visit the site prior to making any decision on the application. • Impacts on the value and future saleability of properties • Land is owned by the County Council and County Council Members are to make the decision – concern that there is a conflict of interest. • Concern that other fuels would be imported and used to supplement the mine gas when mine gas supplied dwindle • Contravention of Articles 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Act in that the noise and visual impact of the plant would affect peoples right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property and gardens

Summary of representations in support of the proposals

7.4 A local resident has written in support of the proposed development as well as Stafford Borough Council’s local member, Councillor Russell (Barlaston & Oulton). Cllr Russell makes the following comments in support of the proposals: • the proposals are a well proven technology with similar such sites in Yorkshire • facility would reduce the amount of methane currently being vented into the atmosphere • proposed development would reduce the offensive odours which have been experienced in the past from the current venting stacks • the proposal would reduce the overall pressure of the mine gasses below residential properties and therefore reduce risk of fissures and the uncontrolled escape of gas within the area • subject to suitable landscaping would have minimal impacts in terms of visual and light pollution on the surrounding landscape • regrettable that site is in the Green Belt but if no other possible locations are possible then this is the least environmentally damaging site • recommends that Planning Committee support the proposals

8. Members Site Visit

8.1 Members of the Planning Committee visited the site on 31 July 2007 accompanied by planning officers from the County Council. On arrival at the site Members met representatives from Greenpark Energy (the applicant), the applicant’s agent, a representative from Barlaston Parish Council and a spokesperson for the local residents.

8.2 The Chairman set out the purpose of the visit and Members were shown the proposal site. The planning officer and applicant summarised the proposed development and highlighted matters relevant to the consideration of the application including the duration of the operations, proposed landscaping works, alternative locations to the site and noise. The representative from Barlaston Parish Council and the spokesperson for the local residents were invited to raise any issues or concerns relevant to the proposals and the planning officer and applicant responded to questions raised.

- 49 - 9. Observations

9.1 The main issues to be considered in determining this application are compliance with national, regional and local planning policies; the potential environmental and amenity impacts (inc. visual impact, historic environment, biodiversity and ecology, noise, dust, air quality and health); traffic; ground stability; emergency planning; alternatives to the proposed location of the development; and finally as the proposals are inappropriate development within the Green Belt whether or not very special circumstances exist to allow the development in this location.

Planning Policy Context

National Planning Policy

9.2 The 2003 Energy White Paper recognises that UK energy supplies are increasingly dependant on imported oil and gas and that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the burning of these fossil fuels is a large contributor towards climate change. In order to tackle climate change, the 2003 White Paper encourages the development of a wide range of different energy sources and technologies which would help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions whilst also ensuring security over future energy supplies by increasing the energy mix and reducing reliance on imported oil and gas.

9.3 Whilst large infrastructure schemes/projects such as nuclear power plants and large- scale wind farms would obviously make the greatest contribution in terms of achieving these aims, the White Paper also recognises that smaller sized developments could also play their part. For example, and relevant to this application, the White Paper acknowledges that disused coal mines continue to produce methane even after they are closed and that methane is significantly more damaging to the environment in terms of its global warming potential than carbon dioxide. Consequently, where this gas can be captured and used to generate electricity and heat, the White Paper encourages such schemes as they would help to contribute towards to the energy mix at a local level and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from abandoned mines.

9.4 In May 2007 a new Energy White Paper was published which generally reflects the aims and objectives of the 2003 Paper. The 2007 White Paper reiterates the need to tackle climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions and bringing forward a range of measures to support more distributed forms of energy supply.

9.5 Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1) ‘Planning and Minerals’ sets out the core policies and principles for minerals planning in England. MPS1 is accompanied by four annexes which focus on matters specific to certain sectors of the minerals industry including aggregates, brick clay, natural building and roofing stone and on-shore oil and gas. Annex 4 of MPS1 ‘On-shore oil and gas and underground storage of natural gas’ is therefore relevant to the consideration of this application and sets out the Government’s planning policy on land-based exploration, appraisal, development and extraction of oil and gas (including gas from coal) and the underground storage of gas.

9.6 MPS1 and Annex 4 recognises that on the abandonment or closure of deep mine coal workings, coal mine methane (mine gas) may accumulate in residual voids and that in some cases the natural escape of this gas may cause a danger to property or health. Mine gas is comprised largely of methane (approximately 70%) and is recognised as being a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. As a result, MPS1

- 50 - advises that the uncontrolled release of mine gas from former workings should wherever possible be avoided and prevented and that sometimes it may be economic to recover and use the gas for electricity generation. As a result, MPS1 states that Mineral Planning Authorities in coalfield areas should acknowledge the potential role that schemes such as the proposed development can have in minimising the environmental effects of former mine workings and, where practicable, encourage the capture and use of coal mine methane by including appropriate policies in their development documents.

9.7 In this case, the applicant is seeking planning permission for the installation of specialist equipment for the capture and utilisation of coal mine methane. The proposed development would utilise a potential beneficial energy resource and reduce the release of methane gas to the atmosphere which is recognised as being 21 times more damaging as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The applicant has provided calculations which indicate that the proposed development would burn approximately 8,000 tonnes of methane gas per annum (equivalent to approximately 150,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide) which is currently being allowed to vent into the atmosphere. Based upon these calculations, and assuming a maximum duration of 25 years, the development would therefore utilise a total of approximately 200,000 tonnes of methane (equivalent to 3,750,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide) and therefore would help to significantly lessen the adverse environmental effects that the existing Florence workings have on the environment.

9.8 In conclusion, both the Energy White Paper(s) and MPS1 support the concept of electricity generation from coal mine methane and it is clear from the calculations above that the proposed development could have significant practical benefits upon the environment. As a result, in principle at least, the proposals accord with the general principles and objectives of MPS1 and the Energy White Paper, and are therefore a material consideration in the determination of the application.

Regional Planning Policy

9.9 The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) recognises the importance of climate change and states that the Region should, as far as possible, aim to contribute towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions and encourage the increased generation of electricity from renewable sources. To achieve this aim Policy EN1 encourages Local Planning Authorities to include policies within their development plans which seek to promote the development and use of renewable resources. Policy M4(iii) also recognises the role that new technologies can play in releasing sources of energy from worked and unworked coal resources within the Region.

9.10 Mine gas (methane) is not by definition a renewable resource however it does offer a recognised alternative energy resource to conventional energy minerals such as coal, oil and gas. At present the mine gas at Florence is being vented to the atmosphere which is not only a waste of a potential energy resource but also increases greenhouse gas emissions which contributes towards climate change. Whilst Policies EN1 and M4 are not directly applicable to the consideration of individual planning applications the proposed development would utilise the mine gas to provide a useful energy resource whilst helping to reduce the environmental impacts that result from the current venting practices. As a result, the development is considered to be in general accordance with the overall principles and objectives of Policies EN1 and M4(iii) and therefore are a material consideration in the determination of the application.

- 51 - Local Planning Policy

9.11 Policy 44 of the Minerals Local Plan states that proposals for the exploration and production of oil and gas will be supported where the development can take place without an unacceptable adverse impact and subject to the proposals being compatible with the Development Plan and national and regional planning guidance. Whilst the current proposals do not seek to actively produce gas (but rather utilise the existing mine gas that is naturally emitted from the old coal workings) Policy 44 is still considered to be relevant to the consideration of this application. Consequently, whilst the proposed development is generally supported by Policy 44, in considering whether or not planning permission should be granted, the proposals must first be considered in light of their compatibility with other policies within the development plan and demonstrate that the operations would not have any unacceptable adverse impacts.

Environmental and Amenity Issues

Visual Impact

9.12 There are two phases to this development each of which would have markedly different visual impacts on the locality. The first phase (Phase 1) would be the site investigation and borehole drilling phase and would take place over a total of 12-16 weeks (including approximately 3 weeks for the drilling operations). The second phase (Phase 2) would be the gas extraction/electrical generation phase which, depending upon the quantity of gas within the underlying mine could be undertaken for upto 25 years. The potential visual implications of each of these phases are therefore different and are considered in turn below.

9.13 Phase 1: Whilst soil screening bunds (1.5m in height) and a temporary straw bale noise attenuation barrier (4m in height) would be constructed around the drill site these would not fully screen the 30m (100ft) high drill rig and associated equipment and therefore there would be a negative visual impact upon the surrounding environment. However, whilst it is accepted that the Phase 1 works would have a negative visual impact this would only be for a limited period of time (i.e. total of 12-16 weeks). Furthermore should the development not progress onto Phase 2, then the site would be restored back to its existing use and therefore there would be no long-term or lasting impact upon the visual appearance or character of the surrounding area.

9.14 Phase 2: Should the development progress into Phase 2, then new structures would be introduced within the landscape which would have their own implications in terms of visual impact. The applicant has proposed to mitigate against these impacts through the provision of a landscaping scheme which incorporates both soil screening bunds and tree/shrub planting. Several amendments have been made to this scheme since the application was first submitted and the applicant now proposes to plant a number of semi-mature trees (i.e. 7-8m in height) around the site in order to further minimise views, particularly from the north and from the elevated public footpath which lies within the adjacent Florence Park to the east of the site.

9.15 Despite the landscaping and screening proposals submitted by the applicant the Environment & Countryside Unit (ECU) state that due to the position of the site in relation to its surroundings, much of the proposed mitigation would have limited effects in the short term. It is however, accepted that the proposed planting and development of a small scale woodland would screen the development and contribute towards the

- 52 - landscape objectives for the area in the long-term, albeit that these would not be realised until the scheme had become established. As a result, it is considered that this aspect of the development does not fully accord with the principles of Structure Plan Policy NC2 and Minerals Local Plan Policy 21 as, in the short-term, there would be a detrimental visual impact upon the landscape.

Historic Environment

9.16 The ECU has confirmed that a number of Bronze Age artefacts have been recovered from a location close to the site (i.e. Windy Arbour Farm) however there is no evidence to suggest the presence of similar artefacts or important sites within the application area. Therefore whilst these artefacts are of local importance they are not considered to represent a nationally or regionally important site and consequently are not so significant so as to necessarily prevent this development from being undertaken. However, as artefacts have previously been found in the locality it is recommend that a planning condition be attached to any permission granted which requires a programme of archaeological fieldwork (in the form of a watching brief) to be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority for their approval prior to any works taking place. This watching brief should set out the measures to be taken to monitor and record any finds discovered during the sites construction. Consequently subject to the securing of such a programme of archaeological fieldwork it is considered that the proposed development would not adversely affect any potential archaeological remains and therefore complies with Structure Plan Policy NC14, Minerals Local Plan 24 and Stafford Borough Local Plan Policy E&D34.

Biodiversity & Ecology

9.17 Policy NC8 of the Structure Plan, Policy 17 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policy E&D41 of the Stafford Borough Local Plan all advise that development that would have an adverse impact, incapable of satisfactory mitigation, on legally protected species will not be permitted. Guidance and advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) and Circular 06/2005 also advise that where new developments would result in the damage, destruction or loss of a protected species or its habitat then the application must not be determined until detailed population studies have been completed and a full mitigation strategy worked out.

9.18 Concerns had initially been raised with regard the possible presence of great crested newts (GCNs) at the site, and therefore in line with the above policies and advice in PPS9, the applicant commissioned specialist consultants (RPS) to undertake a presence/absence survey. The purpose of the survey was to establish if GCNs were present in or around the site and in particular if there was evidence of their presence in all existing ditches/ponds/water bodies lying within 500m of the site. The surveys were completed in March/April 2007 and the subsequent report concluded that there was no evidence of GCNs being present within or around the site and therefore the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on a legally protected species.

9.19 Prior to the July Planning Committee meeting, the County Council received reports from local residents of a GCN being found within 150m of the application site. Following this discovery the County Council sought advice from Natural England, Staffordshire Wildlife Trust and the County Ecologist. All 3 parties confirmed that whilst a GCN had been found within the vicinity of the site it is considered that sufficient information is available to the County Council to be able to determine the application. The application site is

- 53 - considered to be of relatively low GCN habitat value and supports no breeding habitat. There would be no significant loss of habitat as a result of the development and as a result it is considered that the development accords with Policy NC8 of the Structure Plan, Policy 17 of the Minerals Local Plan and Policy E7D41 of the Stafford Borough Local Plan.

9.20 However, in light of the recent GCN discovery Natural England, Staffordshire Wildlife Trust and the County Ecologist recommend that should Members be minded to permit the development then details of all protective/mitigation measures would need to be agreed with the County Council before any works commence. These matters could be appropriately dealt with by way of planning condition and therefore in response to this advice an additional condition has been included to those suggested in the Officer’s recommendation (refer to Condition 5).

Noise

9.21 The drilling phase is the potentially noisiest operation associated with this proposal and would take place 24 hours per day for approximately 3 weeks. In order for noise levels to be acceptable, a maximum level of 42 dB LAeq 1 at the nearest property would need to be achieved during the night time (in line with the maximum limits stated in MPS2). To achieve this figure during the Phase 1 works, the applicant would construct a 4m high temporary strawbale barrier around the drill site. The Development Services Noise Engineer confirms that these measures are appropriate and would help to attenuate the drilling noise and bring the levels within the MPS2 guidelines.

9.22 With regard to the Phase 2 operations, it is accepted that the noise from these operations would be quieter than that of the drilling, largely due to the fact that the plant would be contained within acoustically controlled containers. To further minimise any impacts however the site would also be screened using a combination of planting, landscape bunds and a 4m high acoustic fence. The predicted noise levels cited in the supporting statement state that the levels would be around 32 dB LAeq at the nearest residential property and is therefore below the maximum level considered to be acceptable during the night time as cited in MPS2. Furthermore, this predicted level is based upon the level that would be experienced outdoors and therefore excludes the additional benefit that windows (even partially open) would provide which can help to reduce noise levels by as much as 10 dB. Again, the Development Services Noise Engineer confirms that the proposed mitigation measures are acceptable and would help to attenuate any noise impacts resulting from these operations to within levels cited in MPS2.

9.23 In conclusion, subject to the implementation of the noise mitigation/attenuation measures as proposed by the applicant, the proposed development is not considered to have an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of noise and therefore is not contrary to Structure Plan Policy MW6.

Dust

9.24 With regard to possible nuisance from dust, it is considered that the potential sources of any dust would be restricted to that that may arise during the initial site construction works and soil stripping activities. In addition, the drilling operations are largely sub-

1 LAeq - equivalent continuous noise level

- 54 - surface and therefore there is unlikely to be any dust arising as a result of these operations. It is considered that any potential problems that may arise as a result of the site activities could be adequately controlled and mitigated against by the adoption of well-established good working practices and, where necessary, the use of water boswers/sprays on site.

Air Quality & Health

9.25 Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s Environmental Health Officer did initially raise concerns that the combustion/generation process could result in an increase in nitrogen dioxide levels within the area. In addition objections have been received from local residents stating that the emissions from the proposed generation engines would have an adverse impact on their health.

9.26 In response to these concerns, the applicant has proposed modifications to the arrangement and height of the flue stacks on the two gas engines so as to have a single stack rather than two. These amendments would result in an improved dispersal of exhaust emissions from the generation engines and Stoke City Council’s Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that the proposed amendments would significantly reduce the potential impact of the proposed plant on nearby residential properties and therefore subject to these amendments has no objections to the scheme. Furthermore, no objections have been raised by Stafford Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officer or the Health Protection Agency and therefore due to the size of the proposed development the effects of emissions to the atmosphere from the gas engines are considered unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on local residents or the surrounding environment.

Proposed Working Hours

9.27 Other than the drilling and gas extraction/electricity generation operations the applicant proposes that all operations associated with the development would take place between 07:00 and 19:30 Monday to Saturdays and between 07:00 and 15:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Minerals Policy Statement 1 (MPS1) recognises that drilling operations such as those proposed are typically a 24 hour operation and therefore, subject to the operations being undertaken within the maximum noise levels agreed, there is no objection to these operations being undertaken 24 hours per day/7 days per week for the duration of the drilling phase. However, whilst it is accepted that there is a need to allow extended working hours for the drilling and gas extraction/electricity generation operations, it is considered that there is no overriding need to allow other operations such as site construction works, landscaping etc to be carried out on Sundays and Bank Holidays. As a result, and in order to protect the amenity of local residents and minimise the impact of the development during evenings, weekends and Public Holidays, it is recommended that the working hours (excluding those for drilling and gas extraction/electricity generation operations) shall be restricted to between 07:00 and 19:00 Monday to Friday and between 07:00 and 13:00 Saturdays. No working should be permitted to take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Transport & Highways

9.28 Objections have been raised by local residents with regard to the size and number of vehicles associated with this development and in particular the use and construction of the site access onto Cocknage Road. However, whilst these concerns are noted both

- 55 - Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s Highways Officer and the County Council’s Transport Development Control Officer have taken into account the proposed location of the development, the frequency, size and number of vehicles associated with the proposals, history of accidents in the area as well as the nature and condition of the carriageway and confirm that there are no significant technical or safety concerns arising as a result of the development. Consequently, both Highways Officers state that there is no objection to the proposals from a highways perspective.

9.29 However, whilst no overriding objections have been raised from a technical stance, both Highways Officers agree that Cocknage Road is narrow in sections and that this would make the use of this route unsuitable for particularly large or heavy vehicles (i.e. those associated with the initial site construction and commissioning works). Although there is no weight restriction which specifically prevents such vehicles from using Cocknage Road, it is recommended that should planning permission be granted then a routing agreement should be secured which prevents vehicles associated with this development from travelling to and from the site along sections of Cocknage Road (i.e. not permitted beyond the sites main access). In response to this recommendation, the applicant has proposed a unilateral legal agreement which identifies specific routes to and from the site and which explicitly states that no vehicles would travel along the section of Cocknage Road which lies to the east of the proposed site entrance (i.e. that all vehicles would only be permitted to enter the site from routes lying to the north and that all vehicles must turn left when exiting the site). Subject to the applicant signing such an agreement, both Highways Officers have confirmed that there are no objections to the proposals from a highways perspective.

9.30 In conclusion, whilst a number of objections have been raised with regard to traffic and potential highway safety issues, it is considered that the location, size, scale and nature of the traffic associated with this development would not have a significant adverse impact upon the highway network. As such subject to the applicant signing a unilateral agreement to define suitable routes to and from the site and to prevent vehicles travelling along Cocknage Road beyond the sites entrance, it is considered that the development is acceptable in highway terms and therefore is not contrary to Policy MW6 of the Structure Plan.

Emergency Planning & Safety

9.31 Local residents have raised objections to the proposals on the grounds of the possible risk of fire and explosion and concerns over the capabilities of the emergency services to respond or deal with such a scenario. The Fire & Rescue Service has responded to these concerns and comment that the road configuration and proposed landscaping and security fencing considerably reduce the likelihood of a vehicle damaging the development in the event of an accident. Furthermore the emergency shut off arrangements installed on the plant would also reduce the extent of such an unlikely event to a very localised area and short period of time. It is also added that in terms of emergency response Longton Fire Station (with two pumping appliances) is within 2 miles of the site with additional support available from Hanley and Stone.

9.32 The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) has also considered the local residents concerns and advise that for this type of development the applicant is required to prepare a health and safety document as required under the Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995. This document is required to make particular reference to the measures to be taken to prevent any uncontrolled releases of flammable gas and/or fire and explosion

- 56 - and is checked by specialists at the HSE prior to any drilling operations taking place. It is also added that the risks arising from mine gas extraction operations are comparatively low.

9.33 In light of the comments made by the HSE and Fire & Rescue Service it is considered that there is already satisfactory legislation and procedures in place which would ensure that the proposed development does not pose a significant risk to the safety of the general public including local residents.

Ground Stability

9.34 The proposed borehole ‘target’ is a vertical shaft lying approximately 340m below the surface and lies adjacent to a panel of coal which was last worked in 1938. Although this ‘target’ is not within the shaft pillar and therefore is both technically and structurally outside the preferred area, the Coal Authority has advised that any ground movements and subsidence that may have been associated with the working of the panel of coal would have ceased in 1938/39. Furthermore, the Coal Authority consider that although the strata immediately around the panel of coal is likely to be fractured as a result of the working of the coal, at a depth of 340m and with an overlying geology of marls and clays these fractures will not have migrated to the surface. If this had occurred then there would be no gas reservoir to target. Consequently, the Coal Authority does not consider the proposals to pose any risk in terms of ground stability or subsidence and therefore there is no objection to the proposed development. As a result the development is considered to accord with Structure Plan Policy MW6 and Minerals Local Plan Policy 36.

Alternative locations for the proposals

9.35 The proposed development would be located within the Green Belt and a number of comments have been received which state that consideration should therefore be given to the possible siting of the development in alternative locations outside of this designated area. The supporting statement (and subsequent letters from the applicant) state that full consideration has been given to possible alternative locations for the development, however, due to factors such as the topography and physical nature of these sites and the proximity to sensitive receptors and technical issues associated with accessing the underlying mine shafts, it is stated that none of these alternatives are feasible and therefore the only practical site is the one proposed. The location of the alternative sites (A-D) is shown on Plan 2 (attached) and a summary of the reasons as to why these sites/proposals were ultimately discounted is given below:

(A) within Florence Park

9.36 This site offers the most suitable location to access the underlying shafts however this site was not considered feasible as the development would disturb the restored spoil heaps and directly impact upon the Florence Park public open space. In addition the landform in this area is steeply undulating and in order to drill the borehole a large area of relatively flat land is required which would require extensive ‘cut and fill’ engineering operations. In addition notwithstanding the physical constraints, this site would also bring the drilling and generation operations closer to nearby residential properties and would therefore give rise to amenity impacts such as increased noise which would not be able to be adequately controlled/mitigated.

- 57 - 9.37 In conclusion therefore, the applicant states that this site was considered to be inaccessible for the practical considerations set out above and therefore discounted as a possible alternative to the current proposal site. Your Officers agree with this conclusion.

(B) adjacent to the Chaplin Rd/Cocknage Rd substation

9.38 Similar to the reasons above, the applicant does not consider this site to be a feasible option as there is insufficient land around the substation to accommodate the drilling rig and therefore in which to drill the borehole. Furthermore, even if this was possible again the subsequent electrical/generation equipment would be located closer to residential properties and therefore have increased impacts in terms of noise. Finally, the applicant states that it is prudent for the surface position of the borehole to be as close as practicable to the position of the underlying target as this reduces the costs of drilling, ensures the accuracy of reaching the underlying ‘target’ and ensures the long- term durability of the borehole. This alternative site is located approximately 370m to the north-west of the identified drill target therefore drilling in this location would require the borehole to be drilled directly below the intervening residential properties and would reduce the accuracy of ensuring that the underlying drill target is reached. For these reasons the applicant considers that this site does not represent a practical alternative to the site proposed. Your Officers agree with these conclusions.

(C) at Hem Heath/Trentham Lakes

9.39 Consideration had also been given to extracting the mine gas within the former Florence complex via a similar scheme which is currently being constructed at the Trentham Lakes development site. The applicant has advised that it was originally envisaged that the gas within the Florence workings could be drawn via an underground connection that existed between the Florence and Trentham/Hem Heath collieries and that the gas could be utilised using the permitted electricity generating plant at Trentham. However, following investigations and testing of these shafts the applicant states that the connection between the two workings no longer appears to exist and that this was most likely due to the rising minewater. The Coal Authority has confirmed that in 2004 monitoring was undertaken in the Hem Heath shafts which appeared to show a change in the gas flow regime which could have been as a result of rising mine-water cutting off a low level connection between the two collieries. As a result it appears that the connection between the two workings no longer exists and therefore for this reason extracting the gas from a site at Trentham Lakes is no longer a feasible alternative to the siting of the development at Cocknage Road.

(D) on a field adjacent to the proposed site at Cocknage Road (further away from the residential properties)

9.40 This site is still within the Green Belt but is located further away from the residential properties close to Florence Park. The applicant states that this location is not as desirable as the site proposed as a new site access into the field would need to be created which (in order to achieve the necessary sightlines and visibility splays) would result in major disturbances to the hedgerow and therefore have greater landscape and ecological impacts. Furthermore, the applicant considers that the positioning of the development in this location would split up the existing farmland and create uninformed boundaries which could hinder the use modern agricultural machinery. By comparison

- 58 - the siting of the development in the corner of the field (as proposed) would have less of an impact in terms of the future management of the field.

9.41 Finally, the applicant has advised that there are also technical difficulties in drilling the borehole in this ‘alternative’ location. The applicant states that by increasing the surface distance from the proposed underlying drill target the risks of not accurately hitting the underground target are increased. Therefore it is preferable that the distance between the location of the surface borehole and the underlying drill target be kept to a minimum. For these reasons the applicant considers that this site does not represent a practical alternative to that currently being proposed.

Use of existing disused gas pipeline between the application site and the permitted Trentham Lakes/Hem Heath development

9.42 At the July Planning Committee a member of the public suggested that another possible ‘alternative’ to the proposed development would be to pump the underlying gas to the permitted development at Trentham Lakes via a pipeline which runs along a disused railway line between Cocknage Road and the eastern fringe of the Trentham Lakes development. The applicant has advised that the use of the existing pipeline was initially investigated in 2005 but was reluctantly abandoned following the discovery that sections of the pipeline were missing, issues and uncertainties over the condition and status of the pipeline and difficulties in terms of gaining permission or a lease agreement to use any such pipeline/route. A summary of the key issues/reasons cited by the applicant as to why the use of the existing pipeline is not considered to be feasible is given below;

• Access to the disused railway line off Cocknage Road is approximately 400m north- west of the application site. There is no mine gas pipe in Cocknage Road connecting these two locations. It would be necessary to install a new pipeline within the public highway. There is no guarantee that the Highway Authority (Stoke-on-Trent City Council) would permit such a private gas main in the highway. • The pipeline between the two sites is incomplete and some sections of the pipeline have either been destroyed/damaged or removed completely (see below). Approximately 2.5km of the old pipeline still remains in place and this belongs to Stoke-on-Trent Regeneration Ltd (STRL). Discussions over the possibility of leasing the pipeline were held in 2005 but terms could not be agreed. In any case the condition of the remaining pipeline is not known and it is uncertain as to whether or not it would be suitable to transport gas to modern health and safety standards. • The applicant has advised that it was found that approximately 800m of the original pipeline on the eastern side of Stanley Matthews Way was destroyed by developers constructing the Trentham Lakes development. The remaining pipeline on the western side of Stanley Matthews Way has also now been removed and therefore there is no direct connection between the two sites. In addition to missing sections within Trentham Lakes the applicant has advised that a further 18m of the pipeline has also been removed halfway along the route of the disused railway line where a former railway bridge has now been removed.

- 59 - Construction of a new pipeline between the application site and the permitted Trentham Lakes/Hem Heath development

9.43 In light of the difficulties and uncertainties associated with the use of the existing gas pipeline, a further possible ‘alternative’ would be to construct an entirely new pipeline between Cocknage Road and the Trentham Lakes development. Again the applicant has given consideration to this suggested alternative and states that the laying of a new pipeline would not be feasible for a number of reasons. A summary of the key issues/reasons cited by the applicant as to why the construction of a new pipeline is not considered to be feasible is given below;

• The most direct route between the application site and the permitted facility at Trentham Lakes is approximately 3.1km. The construction of a pipeline along this route would require the pipeline to pass through a number of agricultural fields in the open countryside, an established woodland (Clarks Wood) and through an intervening housing development which is approximately 1100m wide. The applicant states that the environmental impacts and disturbance associated with the construction of such a development would be far greater than the impacts associated with the current proposals. • It is estimated that any new pipeline would have to be approximately 5km long in order to minimise the impacts on the open countryside and to avoid the housing development. It is estimated that a new pipeline would cost approximately £190 per metre equating to approximately £950,000. This figure excludes costs such as professional fees, planning application fees and any environmental assessments or mitigation that may be necessary in order to make the development acceptable. As the pipeline would cross a large area of land there would also be issues associated with different land ownerships and obtaining permissions/agreements to undertake such a project. It is considered that the cost of such a development would have an adverse impact on the viability of the project. • Previous negotiations with the owners of the Trentham Lakes development (St. Modwen) regarding the use of the old pipeline were unsuccessful and were eventually abandoned when the old pipeline was removed as part of the Trentham Lakes development. The industrial units on the Trentham Lakes development have long lease agreements and the construction of the new pipeline across the site or up Stanley Matthews Way would require consent from St. Modwen. Based on previous negotiations, the applicant feels that there would be difficulties in securing consent from St. Modwen to construct a new pipeline within the Trenham Lakes site. • Finally, the applicant states that even if a pipeline could have been employed it would still be necessary to undertake the drilling operations at Cocknage Road (i.e. Phase 1 works). The site access works, drilling platform and landscaping works would therefore still be necessary. Furthermore, in order to pump the gas to the Trentham Lakes development larger gas compressors would need to be installed at Cocknage Road as well as other surface equipment and containers similar to those already proposed. The only equipment that would not be required would be the installation of the two electrical generation engines.

9.44 In conclusion, the applicant states that the employment of a pipeline (new or old) is not a viable ‘alternative’ to the proposed development and that the site off Cocknage Road is the only feasible site from which to locate this development. Your Officer’s note the comments and issues raised by the applicant and agree with this view.

- 60 - CPRE suggestion of ‘partially sunken’ development

9.45 In addition to the possible alternative locations considered above, the CPRE has suggested that if an alternative location outside the Green Belt cannot be found then consideration should be given to partially sinking the development into the ground in order to minimise the visual impact of the development. Whilst is it accepted that the partial submersion of the development into the ground would help to minimise the visual impact of the development this option is not considered to be feasible or practicable as the site is already low lying. As a result, any excavation or sub-surface development is likely to be more susceptible to flooding particularly from surface run-off from the surrounding farmland. The increasing amounts of soil produced would also have to be addressed either in more storage mounds or by removing the materials to other parts of the farm holding. These would in themselves have impacts.

Green Belt

9.46 The application site is located within the open countryside in the North Staffordshire Green Belt, as defined in the Structure Plan and Stafford Borough Local Plan. Structure Plan Policy D5B and Stafford Borough Local Plan Policy E&D10 are therefore relevant and reflect the guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG2) by re- iterating that inappropriate development within Green Belts will not be permitted, except in very special circumstances. Policy 27 of the Minerals Local Plan expands upon these policies and reflects the advice contained in paragraphs 3.11 and 3.12 of PPG2 by stating that mineral developments need not be inappropriate within the Green Belt provided that high environmental standards are maintained, the site is well restored and that the development does not effect the openness or purposes of the Green Belt.

Phase 1: Inappropriate development in the Green Belt?

9.47 The Phase 1 works are considered to represent a temporary mining operation and paragraph 3.11 of PPG2 advises that such operations need not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt provided that high environmental standards are maintained and the site is well restored.

9.48 In terms of high environmental standards, the drilling operations are a highly technical and complex operation and this is reflected in the fact that the operations are monitored by the Health & Safety Executive. The applicant has undertaken and operates a number of similar schemes across the UK and consequently has considerable experience in developing and constructing this type of facility. As a result, and taking into account the fact that the drilling operations would be required to be carried out in accordance with the strict standards and practices set by the HSE, there is no reason to doubt the applicant’s ability to undertake this phase of the development to a safe and acceptable standard.

9.49 In addition to the above, although objections have been raised with regard to the potential noise impacts resulting from the continuous drilling operations, the noise assessment submitted in support of the application demonstrates that the actual noise generated during this phase of the development would be within MPS2 guidelines. The noise report has been evaluated by the County Council’s Noise Engineer and both Stafford Borough and Stoke City Council’s Environmental Health Officers. Subject to the operations being carried out in accordance with the details submitted and appropriate noise attenuation/mitigation being provided as cited, neither of these bodies

- 61 - dispute the reports conclusions and it is considered that this phase of the development would not have an unacceptable impact on local residents or the surrounding area in terms of noise.

9.50 Finally, whilst is it accepted that the drill rig and associated equipment used during this stage would undoubtedly have a negative visual impact on the surrounding landscape, the rig and equipment are essentially temporary structures and there would be no long- term impact in terms of affecting the openness or purposes of the Green Belt. As a result, taking into account the applicant’s experience in undertaking this type of development and subject to the attachment of appropriate conditions, it is considered that during the implementation and operation of this phase of the development high environmental standards could be achieved.

9.51 With regard to the second ‘test’ (i.e. site to be well restored), there is no reason to doubt that the site could not be returned back to its present use as agricultural pasture land should the development not progress onto Phase 2. This is because the drill rig itself is essentially a temporary engineering structure which is mobile and therefore could be easily removed from the site once the operations have been completed. All topsoils and subsoils stripped from the site during the preparation of the drill site would be retained and therefore could easily be replaced so as to restore the land back to existing levels should the applicant not decide to implement Phase 2. As a result, there is no practical reason as to why the site could not be restored back to its existing use should the development not progress onto the Phase 2 works.

9.52 In conclusion, it is considered that the Phase 1 operations do not constitute inappropriate development in terms of Green Belt policy as high environmental standards could be achieved and the site is capable of being well restored.

Phase 2: Inappropriate development in the Green Belt?

9.53 The Phase 2 works differ from those in Phase 1 insofar as they would introduce new structures within the landscape such as gas extraction/electrical generation containers, a portable toilet block and oil storage tanks which are not necessarily considered to be associated with a mining operation. In terms of assessing whether or not this aspect of the development therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, consideration must be given to paragraph 3.12 of PPG2 which advises that such operations are inappropriate unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

9.54 In this case, the Phase 2 works would consist of a group of structures within a fenced compound and would be partially enclosed by a combination of screening mounds and landscaping. Whilst this phase of the development is also a temporary operation (insofar as it would be removed once the gas extraction has been completed) this could be as long as 25 years and therefore for the duration of this period the development would appear as a substantial static element in the landscape. As a result, it is considered that this phase of the development would compromise the openness of the Green Belt and consequently detract from the purposes of including this land within it by way of encroaching into the open countryside. Furthermore, whilst it is accepted that the applicant has put forward a detailed landscaping scheme in order to minimise any visual impact, in the short term these measures would not be sufficient to adequately screen the development from views outside of the site, especially from the elevated public footpath within the adjacent Florence Park. Consequently, on this basis it is

- 62 - considered that the Phase 2 works are not, in policy terms, appropriate development in the Green Belt and therefore it is necessary to consider whether or not very special circumstances exist to allow the development in the Green Belt.

9.55 PPG2 advises that ‘very special circumstances’ to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. As a result, the next step is to consider whether there are any benefits to the development which clearly outweigh any harm which could constitute ‘very special circumstances’ and therefore overcome the presumption against inappropriate development.

‘Very Special Circumstances’

9.56 Planning permission has been granted on appeal by the Secretary of State for a similar development at land south of Union Bank Farm Cottage, Warrington Road, Bold Heath (Appeal reference: APP/H4315/A/04/1168895). The Bold Heath proposal was of similar size and scale to that currently under consideration and was also located within the Green Belt. Similar to the current proposals, the Planning Inspector considered that the Bold Heath development constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt because for the duration of the operations the electrical generation equipment and plant would compromise the openness of the land and consequently detract from the purposes of the Green Belt. As a result, in considering whether or not planning permission should be granted ‘very special circumstances’ needed to be demonstrated which would clearly outweigh any harm.

9.57 In making his decision on whether the benefits of the Bold Heath development outweighed any harm, the Planning Inspector acknowledged that there is very important support in the 2003 Energy White Paper for electricity generation from coal mine methane and that the development would provide a beneficial energy resource and avoid the release of damaging greenhouse gas emissions. The development therefore had significant practical benefits which were recognised in national policy and as such these factors were given considerable weight in support of the development. Additionally, whilst it was accepted that the compound and structures would impact on the openness of the Green Belt it was noted that any planning permission granted would be time-limited (until 2012) and therefore any harm on the Green Belt would be temporary and limited. On this basis, weighing the very considerable benefits of the development against the temporary and limited harm, including that it was inappropriate development in Green Belt policy terms, the Planning Inspector was satisfied that there were ‘very special circumstances’ and that planning permission should be granted accordingly.

9.58 Whilst it is accepted that the Cocknage Road development could have a potentially much longer impact upon the openness of the Green Belt than the Bold Heath development (due to the proposed retention of the compound for 25 years), it is still essentially a temporary operation and any planning permission granted would be time- limited. Furthermore, taking into account that there is considered to be no suitable alternative location for this development outside the Green Belt and the developments contribution to tackling climate change by minimising the impacts that the current release of a damaging greenhouse has on the local environment, it is considered that similar to the Bold Heath development there are ‘very special circumstances’ to warrant the grant of planning permission for this development in the Green Belt.

- 63 - 9.59 As the proposed development does not accord with the exemptions from Green Belt policy in PPG2, the application would have to be treated as a departure and referred to the Department for Communities and Local Government c/o the Government Office for the West Midlands as the potential duration and nature of the development would have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Other Issues

Landownership

9.60 The proposal site forms part of Cocknage Farm which is a County Farm owned by Staffordshire County Council. County Farms is a function of the County Council and whilst the land may be owned by Staffordshire County Council, Members are reminded that the application must be considered on its planning merits and that landownership issues should not be taken into account in considering this application. Any future lease agreements would be a matter for discussion between Greenpark Energy and County Farms directly and the Planning and Development Control Unit would not be involved in these discussions.

Human Rights

9.61 A number of objectors to the application have stated that the proposed development would contravene their human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights and requires the County Council to comply with the Convention rights in making planning decisions on planning applications. In this instance the relevant Articles and Protocols in the Act which relate to this proposal are:

• Article 1 of the 1 st Protocol : protection of property (and possessions) but this is a qualified right and has to be balanced against the public interest; • Article 8 : right to respect for private and family life but this is a qualified right and has to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the public interest

9.62 The report has identified the potential “victims” under the Act and the extent to which the proposals could impinge on their right to respect for private and family life. The proposals will have impacts from the visual and physical condition of the land, duration of the operations, traffic, noise, dust, vibration, impact on the highway, but it is not considered that these impacts affect the rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the 1 st Protocol. In addition all these matters have been addressed in the report and as the report makes clear these impacts could be controlled/mitigated/minimised/avoided by the imposition of planning conditions.

Impact on property values

9.63 A number of objections have been received which object on the grounds that the development could have a negative impact upon the value of nearby residential properties. Property values are not a matter that the planning process can address and this is confirmed in the Government’s document ‘The Planning System: General Principles’ which states that “the planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another”. In considering planning applications for new developments, the key issue is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular

- 64 - development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings. The potential impacts of proposed development have been identified and taken into account and it is considered that the proposals would not unacceptably affect the amenities of local residents.

Need for a Legal Agreement

9.64 MLP Policy 10 makes specific provision, where appropriate, for Mineral Planning Authorities to seek applicants to enter into a S106 legal agreement to cover matters relevant to the development but which cannot be covered by planning conditions. Such matters include securing of highway improvements, off-site environmental improvements or nature conservation works, long-term management or environmental monitoring systems and relinquishment or modification of planning permissions.

9.65 Circular 5/2005 sets out the tests for determining whether a planning obligation should be sought to enable proposals to go ahead. The tests are that they should be: relevant to planning; necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the proposed development; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and, reasonable in all other aspects.

9.66 In this case it is considered appropriate, relevant and necessary to require a legal agreement to secure a vehicle routing plan because there is no weight restriction on Cocknage Road which specifically prevents the use of this road by large or heavy vehicles. It is recognised that the carriageway width of Cocknage Road does narrow to the east of the site entrance and therefore would be difficult for large or heavy vehicles to use. A routing agreement would therefore agree suitable routes to and from the site and prevent vehicles associated with this development from using this route.

10. Conclusions and Summary of Reasons for the Recommended Decision

10.1 The proposed development would have a negative visual impact upon the surrounding landscape until the landscape planting matures and is therefore contrary to Structure Plan Policy NC2 and Minerals Local Plan Policy 21. However, taking into account the lack of alternative sites, the important environmental benefits that the proposals would have in terms of reducing the release of a harmful greenhouse gas emission, the recognised support for such proposals within national and regional guidance, along with the fact that any other potential impacts arising as a result of this development could be adequately controlled/mitigated/minimised/avoided by the imposition of planning conditions, it is considered that overall the proposed development is acceptable and is in general in accordance with the policies contained within the Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan and Stafford Borough Local Plan.

10.2 Furthermore, whilst the proposals are considered to be inappropriate development and a departure from the development plan in Green Belt policy terms (namely Structure Plan Policy DB5, Minerals Local Plan Policy 27 and Stafford Borough Local Plan Policy E&D10), it is considered that very special circumstances do exist to justify the development in the Green Belt for the following reason(s);

• there is no demonstrable satisfactory alternative location for this development outside the Green Belt;

- 65 - • the proposed development would have significant practical benefits that are recognised in national and regional policy. The proposed development would provide both a beneficial energy resource and reduce the quantities on coal mine methane released into the local environment which is recognised as being a damaging greenhouse gas emission and contributor to climate change;

• any planning permission granted would be temporary and upon completion of the extraction/generation operations all plant and equipment would be removed and the site restored to a landform in-keeping with the nature and character of the surrounding landscape. As a result, there would be no long-term or lasting unacceptable adverse impact upon the environment.

CORPORATE DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION

1. As the potential duration and nature of the development would have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt then the application be referred to the Department for Communities and Local Government c/o the Government Office for the West Midlands under the Town and Country Planning (Green Belt) Direction 2005 as a departure from the development plan in Green Belt policy terms.

2. That the Department for Communities and Local Government c/o the Government Office for the West Midlands be informed that having regard to the matters referred to in the report, the County Council is MINDED TO PERMIT the proposed development due to the very special circumstances that exist, subject to the applicant and all other persons with an interest in the land first entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure a vehicle routing plan, and subject to planning conditions to cover the following matters:

1. Definition of permission and conformity with submitted plans and documents.

2. Commencement within three years.

3. Written notification shall be given to the Minerals Planning Authority a minimum of 7 days prior to commencement of the following works/operations;

a. commencement of site access works; b. commencement of initial site investigation, construction and drilling works (i.e. Phase 1 development); c. the intention to progress the development onto the gas extraction/electricity generation works; d. commencement of the site construction, gas extraction and electricity generation operations (i.e. Phase 2 development).

4. Prior to the commencement of the development, a method statement on how the drill cuttings, mud and other drilling residue resulting from the drilling operations are to be disposed shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority.

5. Prior to the commencement of the development details of the proposed great crested newt protection/site exclusion measures shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority.

- 66 - Landscaping

6. Submission of details relating to the measures to be implemented to protect and enhance existing trees/hedgerows to be submitted for the written approval of the Minerals Planning Authority.

7. Submission of details relating to the external treatment/colour of the generator/extraction containers; the design and treatment/colour of all perimeter, security and acoustic fencing; and location and details of all CCTV cameras and on-site lighting to be submitted for the written approval of the Minerals Planning Authority.

8. Prior to the commencement of the development an archaeological watching brief shall be submitted for the written approval of the Minerals Planning Authority.

9. Submission of details relating to the siting, height, and gradients of all proposed screening and landscaping bunds to be submitted for the written approval of the Minerals Planning Authority.

10. All operations involving soil stripping, storage and replacement shall only be carried out during dry ground and weather conditions and in accordance with best practice guidance.

11. No turf, topsoil and subsoil shall be removed from the site.

Working Hours

12. Except in case of emergency, no site construction and reclamation operations shall take place on site other than between 0700 and 1900 hours Monday to Friday and 0700 and 1300 on Saturdays. No working shall take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Drilling and gas extraction/electricity generation operations shall not be subjected to these restrictions.

Access & Highways

13. Prior to the commencement of the development details of site access improvements to be submitted for written approval of the MPA.

14. No mud, dust or other deleterious materials to be deposited on the public highway. Any accidental deposition of such materials shall be removed immediately by the developer.

15. All HCV’s visiting the site shall only access/egress the site via the new access point off Cocknage Road as hereby permitted. All HCV’s shall turn left upon exiting the site.

Noise & Dust

16. Drilling operations shall only be carried out for a period not exceeding 30 days unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority. At the

- 67 - end of this period the drilling rig and temporary acoustic screening measures shall be removed from the site.

17. Noise emitted from the site during the 24 drilling operations shall not exceed 42dB LAeq when measured at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive property to the site.

18. Noise emitted from the site for all other operations, shall not exceed the existing background noise level by more than 10dB LAeq when measured at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive property to the site.

19. Noise monitoring scheme to be submitted and agreed with the Minerals Planning Authority setting out the periods/frequency that operations will be monitored to ensure compliance with permitted noise limits.

20. All machinery, vehicles and plant/equipment to be fitted with effective silencers to minimise noise.

21. Effective measures to be taken to prevent and control dust from the site.

Cessation of Operations and Restoration

22. Within 1 month of the completion of the initial site investigation and drilling operations all temporary buildings, plant, structures, fencing and associated equipment shall be removed from the site and the land reinstated to its original conditions before the development took place unless the Minerals Planning Authority receives written notification that the development is to progress onto the gas extraction/electricity generation works.

23. Gas extraction/electricity generation operations to cease 25 years from the date of commencement, or until such a time as the commercially recoverable gas resource is exhausted, whichever is sooner. Upon cessation of operations all buildings, plant, structures, fencing and associated equipment shall be removed and land restored to a woodland coppice in accordance with the restoration scheme previously submitted and agreed in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority.

24. Within the first available planting season following written notification to the Minerals Planning Authority of the intention to progress the development onto the gas extraction/electricity generation works, the landscaping scheme hereby permitted shall be implemented and any plants/species dying, removed, destroyed or severely damaged/diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced.

25. Within 6 months of the commencement of gas extraction/electricity generation operations, a final restoration and 5 year aftercare scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Minerals Planning Authority.

26. Expiration of permission once aftercare period completed

- 68 - Informative(s)

1. The Environment Agency has commented that the proposed site access will cross an existing ditchcourse to the south-west of Cocknage Road and that any works affecting the flow of the watercourse or proposals to install a new length or replacement of an existing culvert would require the prior consent of the Environment Agency under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. It is recommended that the applicant contacts the Environment Agency’s Development Control Team on 01543 404996 for further guidance on Land Drainage Consent requirements.

2. Prior to the commencement of gas extraction/electricity generation operations the Fire & Rescue Service has requested that the applicant agrees a Site Emergency Plan directly with them to cover matters such as;

• Means of raising the alarm and summoning the Fire Service; • Means of access for Fire Service personnel/vehicles; • Names and contact numbers of persons of representatives of the operating company in the event of an emergency. • Other details and matters as deemed necessary by the Fire Service

3. In accordance with the Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995, the Health & Safety Executive reminds the applicant of the requirement to give written notification 21 days prior to their intention to commence the drilling operations. Such notification should include details of the design of the construction of each borehole and of the planned operations.

Case Officer: Marc Willis - Tel: (01785) 277271; email: [email protected]

A list of background papers for this report is available on request and for public inspection at the offices of Development Services Directorate, Riverway, Stafford during normal office hours Monday to Thursday (8.30 am – 5.00 pm); Friday (8.30 am – 4.30 pm).

- 69 -