Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: CMA/1/78
Reclamation and surface mining scheme to extract FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : coal and fireclay involving the remediation of contaminated and derelict land followed by restoration to appropriate afteruses
UK Coal Mining Ltd now operating as UK Coal NAME OF APPLICANT : Surface Mines Ltd.
Land to the south of Marley Hill and east of ADDRESS: Crookgate Bank
ELECTORAL DIVISION : Tanfield & Burnopfield and Dipton
Claire Teasdale Principal Planning Officer Strategic Team CASE OFFICER: Tel. 03000 261390 [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
Background
1. Planning applications have been submitted to this Council and to Gateshead Council for the extraction by surface mining methods of high quality coal and fireclay from mainly agricultural land to the south of Marley Hill, Sunniside, north of Stanley and to the east of Byermoor and Crookgate Bank. The proposed scheme straddles administrative boundaries of the two Authorities hence the need for two planning applications. The duration of the scheme is proposed to be 4 years 6 months from commencement to full reinstatement. The majority of the site lies within the administrative boundary of Gateshead Council, the whole scheme comprising 123.22 ha (42.72 ha within County Durham), extracting 1,067,257 tonnes of coal and 175,000 tonnes fireclay overall, from a total extraction area of 45.4 ha (7.5 ha within County Durham). The proposal also involves the remediation of 1.8 ha land within Gateshead.
The site
2. The site lies on a south facing valley slope with Bobgins Burn to the south. It is bordered by the Tanfield Railway and the Road A6076 to the east, Beckley Wood (that - 1 - includes ancient woodland) to the south west and agricultural fields to the north with the Road A692 (Lobley Hill to Consett Road) beyond.
3. The site includes land which contained the former Marley Hill and Andrew's House Collieries, the Marley Hill Coke Works, Gas Works and Chemical Works which have been demolished - the last buildings and works being removed in the mid-1980s. In the time since, much of the site has vegetated with a few areas of hardstanding, colliery spoil, made ground, brick walls and trenches remaining. Parts of the site are also made up of agricultural land and woodland.
4. The site has a complex topography with land levels running steeply from the Bobgins Burn and its tributary upwards in a north westerly direction to meet a high level ridge containing the A692 and beyond this Blackmoor Hill. Land levels also rise upwards in an easterly direction towards the A6076 and the visitor car park for the Tanfield Railway. The site also slopes gradually downwards in a southerly direction towards the Causey Burn. Localised land levels in the site vary primarily due to made ground and a large flat area that contained the previous buildings and works. The Bobgins Burn also cuts into the land with steep slopes either side of it.
5. The northern part of the site generally comprises of arable farmland as the land slopes up to meet the A692 and Blackmoor Hill. Bobgins Wood and Beckley Wood are located just outside the site boundary. Tinklers Wood is located wholly within the site boundary and would be lost to the development. A small part of the woodland around Wheatley’s Gill would be located within the site boundary but would be retained as part of the proposals. The eastern part of the site contains the Tanfield Railway line and car park with the land sloping up towards the A6076 with areas of gorse on some of these banks. The southern area of the site also contains areas of arable farmland around the former Andrew's House Farm as the land gradually slopes in a southerly direction towards the Bobgins Burn.
6. The central area of the site is the main area which contained the former collieries and works. This area contains made level ground which is in the process of regenerating naturally through the growth of scrub, trees and other vegetation. However, other parts of this area still include bare ground, a large hardstanding area and remnants of structures such as walls where buildings once stood on the site.
7. The Tanfield Railway contains a number of railway buildings comprising of workshops and a small railway station with a recreational railway line running in a north south direction between Sunniside and East Tanfield Station. The railway line and station are open to visitors mainly at weekends.
8. There is no vehicular access through the site itself although vehicular access can be obtained to St Cuthbert's Road (the former road serving Marley Hill Colliery) from Marley Hill before it is blocked off to vehicles. St Cuthbert's Road continues as a public right of way (PROW) in an east-west direction through the site towards Byermoor. In addition there are several other footpaths crossing the site. The nearby visitor car park for the Tanfield Railway is served from the A6076.
9. The settlement of Marley Hill is located approximately 500m to the north of the site. Marley Hill is a traditional former pit village and conservation area containing a number of terraces. The A692 also runs through the village. There are two modern housing estates to the south end of Marley Hill - these being St Cuthbert's Park and Sandygate - 2 - Mews. Whilst some parts of Marley Hill are located approximately 500m from the site boundary, the closest point at St Cuthbert’s Park would be approximately 230 metres from the site boundary. The larger settlement of Sunniside is located approximately 1.5km to the north east of the site and approximately 500m to the west of the site is the small settlement of Byermoor. Within County Durham, the settlement of Crookgate Bank is located approximately 1.5km south west of the site with the largest settlement of Stanley located approximately 2.2km to the south of the site. There are no other settlements in the vicinity of the site although there are a number of properties in small groups to the south and east of the site off the A6076. These include Hedley West House Farm, the Beamish Park Hotel both within Gateshead and Causey and Beckley Farm - a Grade II Listed Building - both located in County Durham. Beamish Open Air Museum is over 1.5km away.
10. Part of the site is located in a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) - now known as Tanfield Railway Sidings Local Wildlife Site (LWS). This is located to the north and west of the existing railway buildings on the site and also runs alongside the northern part of the Tanfield Railway line. Part of the site is also located in a Wildlife Corridor - this being an area to the south and west of the existing railway buildings. To the south east boundary of the site lies the Causey Bank Mires Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is located within County Durham. To the south and west is the Beckley Wood/Fortune Hill/Bobgins Burn LWSs - located partly in Gateshead and County Durham.
11. To the south of the site is Causey Arch, a Scheduled Ancient Monument and Grade I listed building, as are Bob Gins Engine House and Causey Road Culvert also Grade I listed buildings. The northern part of the site is within the Gateshead Green Belt. There are no landscape designati ons within that part of the site within County Durham. Areas of High Landscape Value within County Durham lie some 300m to the south and 1.7km to the west. A number of public rights of way, both footpaths and bridleways, cross the site as well as part of the Great North Forest Heritage Trail and two advertised Sustrans routes.
The proposal
12. The proposed development in County Durham needs to be considered in conjunction with the application submitted to Gateshead Council, as the working method is not related to administrative boundaries. Most of the proposed excavation area, soil mounds, site compound, coal and fireclay stocking areas and access to the A6076, are all located within Gateshead. The mostly southerly part of the proposed main site overburden mound, three soil mounds and half of the proposed water treatment areas would be located within County Durham.
13. The coal and fireclay would be taken from a total area of 45.4 ha. Most of the remaining area would be utilised as part of operations (mounds, lagoons, plant yard, etc.) with an area of 7.3 ha being retained habitat within Gateshead and 3.62 ha within Durham being used as a receptor site for ancient woodland soils, and a further 2.67ha within Durham being preserved for Badgers. Subject to the receipt of planning permission and issue of other necessary licences (a protected species licence from Natural England, discharge consents from the Environment Agency and licence from the Coal Authority) the applicant would wish to commence preliminary operations in Spring 2015.
- 3 - Preparatory works
14. Preparatory works would commence with the establishment of a new site access to Road A6076 some 200m north of the existing access to the Tanfield Railway, fencing, provision of alternative rights of way, construction of cut off ditches and water treatment areas, internal haul roads, plant yard and site offices, early tree and hedge planting, tree felling in the centre and west of the site. A coal processing area would also be provided in the north eastern part of the site. A combined surface water and foul sewerage pipeline serving Marley Hill then Byermoor and Burnopfield runs through the site and would be diverted. A pumping station lies part way along St Cuthbert’s Road and would be removed. Discussions are on-going with Northumbrian water regarding the status of an underground water distribution pipeline and whether or not a diversion is required. An existing gas main adjacent to the western site boundary would be unaffected by the proposal. Overhead electricity lines crossing parts of the site would also be diverted at this stage and a disused telephone line running along St Cuthbert’s Road. In addition, a rail crossing point and signalling over the Tanfield Railway would be installed. Advance offsite planting (comprising woodland) would take place in the first available planting season to the south of the site near Bobgins Burn. Soils from an area of ancient woodland would be translocated to an area to the west of Wheatley Gill Wood. In addition the translocation of material from areas of the Local Wildlife Site within the site to land to the east of the A6076 adjacent to Burdon Moor LWS would take place.
Soil stripping and overburden movement
15. Soil stripping to facilitate the removal of overburden, coaling and fireclay extraction would take place during the first 6 months of operations assuming an April start. The vast majority of the site would be stripped in the first year of working with the resultant soil being either stored separately and intermittently around its periphery. Certain areas may not be stripped until the second year of operations. Soil mounds heights would vary between 3m and 5m for topsoil and 5m and 8m for subsoil (all but one would be 8m). The mounds would perform a screening function along the A6076 and for views from Marley Hill, St Cuthbert’s Park Estate, the south east and north. Most of the mounds would be in place for the entire life of the site and all would be seeded following formation to provide a grass sward.
16. All excess overburden that could not be backfilled prior to reaching the maximum void depth would be placed in an overburden mound until required to backfill the final cuts of the excavation. Although one overburden mound is proposed, it would be constructed in two parts that eventually join starting in the south east corner of the site and in the western part with the outer faces being constructed first to provide both screening and acoustic functions. At its maximum the overburden mound would contain 4.9 million m3 of material, cover an area of approximately 37.6 ha and extend up to 27m in height in the south eastern part and up to 24m in the western section. The south eastern part would be in place for 48 months, the western part for approx. 30 months, 48 months in total (maximum height for approximately 28 months). The proposed overburden mound would be fully constructed at 34 months.
17. Overburden replacement would be completed within 52 months of initial works commencing at the site. Landfilling with imported waste materials is not proposed. Only material from the site would be used in restoration. Perimeter top and subsoil mounds would be removed during the latter stages of restoration with the - 4 - final placement of soils completed within 54 months of initial works commencing.
Coaling
18. Coaling operations would take place over 3 years within an identified excavation area. These would commence in the western part of the excavation area initially advancing in a south easterly direction then in a north easterly direction and finally in a southern direction through a total of 16 cuts. The depth of working would range between 31m and 63 m. During the first 12 months, coal production would commence 5 months after the start of overburden excavation (and 7 months from initial works) as the void would need to be established to its full depth before coal would be encountered. Excess overburden that could not be backfilled into the resultant void would be stored in the mound to the south and west of the excavation with the outer faces being formed first to screen both visually and acoustically.
19. 13 months following the commencement of site operations a third prime mover would be used on site and by month 14 a fourth. By 24 month the south eastern and north western faces of the overburden mound would be formed and the box cut restored to overburden level. At the 34 month stage maximum void would be reached and the overburden mound would be fully formed and seed with the western part located over the backfilled part of the excavation. All other mounds would also be complete. A proposed open ditch draining water from the northern part of the site into the water treatment area in the south would be established at this stage between the two parts of the overburden mound. Contamination works would be complete at this stage.
20. At 43 months overburden excavations would be complete. Recovery of overburden from the mound would commence in month 41 commencing in the north west and preserving the outer face as long as possible to screen views from the south. Mineral extraction would cease at this stage and the central part of the site would be restored to topsoil and seeded. 48 months from the commencement of operation the later stages of backfilling the final void would be taking placed. After 4 years the final void would be backfilled with the remaining overburden from the mound and all soils would be placed. The internal haul road and rail crossing would be removed along with the coal processing and stocking area, water treatment areas etc.
21. The proposal would take coal from the Low Main/Top Brass Thill, Bottom Brass Thill, Bottom Brass Thill Top Leaf, Bottom Brass Thill Bottom Leaf, Hutton Top Leaf, Hutton Bottom Leaf seams. Most of these seams have been subject to deep mine working in the past. Once exposed the coal would be cleaned by small hydraulic excavators and site workers to remove overlying overburden. It would then be excavated and taken to the processing and stocking area. No coal washing is proposed on site and any mineral that could not be recovered cleanly due to the presence of old workings (known as a ‘dirty mix’) would be lifted and transported to the coal processing area for blending onsite with suitable low ash and high calorific value coal to make a saleable product. Alternatively it may be transported to another location for blending with other suitable coal. It is estimated that 170,237 tonnes of coal could be produced in this way.
22. Fireclay is present beneath the Bottom Brass Thill coal seam. Marketable fireclays would be recovered using small hydraulic excavators, transported via dump truck to the fireclay stocking ground adjacent to the coal processing area prior to dispatch to market. The amount stockpiled would be restricted due to the size of the designated - 5 - area.
23. A limited amount of blasting may be required to loosen overlying sandstone. The frequency of blasting cannot be determined at this stage and test blasts would be required prior to any blasting taking place at the site. Blasting would be restricted to 3 blasts per day over the coaling period if concentrations of sandstone were encountered.
Remediation proposals
24. It is proposed that contaminated materials (Black Tar, Bituminous Tar, Oily Tar, Blue Billy (spent oxide) from former cokeworks) would be treated in a treatment area within the site. The materials would be stabilised using binders of either Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) or Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slap (GGBS) or Pulverised Fuel Ash (PVA). The stabilised waste blocks would then be buried within the void created by the surface mine, but above the water table. No treated material would be placed at depths less than 5m. It is estimated that approximately 25,000m 3 of contaminated materials would require treatment, the final volume being more accurately assessed during detailed remediation design that would be required through condition prior to works commencing on site. It is anticipated that the treatment and remediation of contaminants would take 12 months and will be undertaken within the first two years of being on site.
25. The contamination treatment area would be located in the eastern part of the site over part of Cut 16 adjacent to the proposed haul route into the processing area and adjacent to the retained part of the Tanfield Railway Sidings Local Wildlife Site. The contamination treatment area would be within a compound measuring 98m x 102m and be surrounded by a perimeter security fence. Untreated and unscreened contaminated material would be stockpiles in three mounds up to 3m high (over cuts 7 to 13 in the eastern part of the site). It would then be sorted and screened. Material requiring treatment would be stored in either an adjacent mound (up to 10m in height over cuts 13 to 16) or in a mound within the contaminated treatment area (stockpiled up to 8m in height). Within the compound would be a 3m topsoil mound for screening purposes, stockpiling area for material requiring treatment (material would be stockpiled up to 8m in height), silt separation/metals treatment area contaminated water holding tank (3m high), stabilisation unit (5m high) and two silos (13m high). There would be two entrances, one to the west for the delivery of contaminated soil and treated material out to backfill and one to the east for the delivery of Pulverised Fuel Ash (PVA) and cement. Any contaminated materials that could not be treated on site would be removed off site and treated appropriately at a licenced site.
Working hours
26. The proposed working hours for site operations are 07:00 – 19:00 Monday to Friday, 07:00 – 12:00 Saturday with no working on Sundays or Public/Bank Holidays. Haulage would take place 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00 – 12:00 Saturday, Soil handling operations within 200m of any occupied third party residential house would not commence prior to 0800 hours Monday to Saturday. Maintenance hours would be more extensive (07.00 – 23.00 Monday to Friday, 07.00 – 17:00 Saturday and 08.00 – 17.00 Sunday) in order to ensure that the ‘down time’ for the plant and vehicles is minimised and the site runs to schedule . Operations outside of these hours would be restricted to maintenance and pumping. Hours for the proposed remediation works - 6 - would be within the normal working hours of the site. Some illumination of the site would be required, especially in the winter months, but this would primarily be in association with plant working in the void area which would be below ground level. Coal and fireclay processing and stocking area would be lit by directional lig hting. Floodlighting on the overburden mound would be visible in distant views. Details of lighting would be submitted through condition should planning permission be granted.
Traffic and access
27. At normal production it is anticipated that an average of 122 (61 in and 61 out) HGVs per working day would enter and leave the site. During the remediation period this would equate to an average of 132 (66 in and 66 out) HGVs per working day entering and leaving the site. At peak production (for period of three months) it is anticipated that an average of 178 (89 in and 89 out) HGVs per working day would enter and leave the site.
28. A new access off A6076 to north of Tanfield Railway entrance would be constructed. The vehicle haulage route would be split between Durham and Gateshead with the laden vehicles leaving the site turning left onto the A6076and on to the A692 to the A1 at Lobley Hill then right to Tyne Dock via the A1 and A194 for rail loading to market. The empty returning vehicles would access the site through County Durham from the A1 at Chester-le-Street then onto the A693 to the A6076. The haulage route would be secured through a Section 106 Agreement under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the planning obligation) and would apply to all laden and unladen HGVs. Additional site traffic would include vehicles moving excavation plant and other items for a short period during the commissioning and de-commissioning phases.
Restoration
29. It is proposed that the site would be reinstated to a landform similar to that which currently exists although the after uses would be more diverse. The restoration strategy for the site is to restore large areas of the site for ecological conservation comprising woodland, woodland edge, scrub, mosaic of scrub/bare ground habitat and open water with the remainder being for agricultural purposes. In total the detailed proposals include 68.42 ha agriculture, 15.55 ha woodland (7 ha native species core woodland, 8.6 ha scrub/woodland edge), 1.5 ha woodland grassland, 24.6 ha scrub and bare ground habitats, 0.73 ha open water, 0.67 ha marshy grassland habitat. 6.48km new hedgerow. In addition there would be increased recreational access: approximately 1.86km footpaths, 2.94km new bridleway, 1.6km existing footpath upgraded to bridleway. 2km extension to Tanfield Railway. 1.65km multi-user route trail running alongside Tanfield Railway extension, off site management of land to the north near Marley Hill and to the west at Byermoor.
30. The entire site would be subject to the statutory 5 year aftercare requirement. An additional 5 years of stewardship/management for nature conservation is proposed for the areas to be restored to woodland and nature conservation. Five areas have also been identified outside of the site boundary for management for nature conservation purposes (3.9 ha within the Tanfield Railway Sidings LWS, 15.3ha in the west at Byermoor, a 3.59 receptor site to the east of the A6076, and 9ha to the south of the site near Bobgins Burn). Advance offsite planting (comprising woodland) would take place to the south of the site and management of these areas would commence once - 7 - planted and continue until the end of the extended management period. Through the proposed planning obligation is proposed not to fell trees planted for a period of 40 years. Due to the progressive nature of the restoration proposals various areas would go into aftercare before others and this period would likely be staggered across the site.
Revisions
31. A number of revisions to the scheme have been made since the application was first submitted as a result of consultee responses and further ecological surveys. An Addendum to the Environmental Statement was submitted in February 2014. These revisions provide for adjustments in the application boundary to incorporate a receptor site to the western part of the site for ancient woodland soil and deadwood and the haulage route associated with it (an increase in the site boundary of 3.62 Ha (3.55ha in County Durham) from 119.6 ha to 123.22 ha. As a result there have been alterations to the configuration of the northern topsoil mound. The overburden mound was redesigned so that an escarpment field could be preserved resulting in the footprint of the mound being altered and increasing its height in the northern part of the mound by 2m but not the maximum height overall. No changes are proposed to the limit of excavation, quantity of minerals to be extracted or water treatment areas. The overall timing of the proposal has not altered and amendments to the phasing of the operations are minor. The revisions also introduced temporary contaminated material storage mounds in the eastern part of the site and changes to the layout of the contamination treatment area.
32. Further ecological surveys identifying important Dingy Skipper habitat with heathland vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed haul road from the excavation area to the site compound has resulted in the relocation of the haul route. The route now avoids these habitats and is proposed to go directly from the rail crossing to the northern end of the contamination treatment area, where it divides site traffic going straight on and contamination traffic turning left onto the contamination treatment area. The design of the contamination area has been altered to accommodate two separate entrances, one to the east for the delivery of Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) and cement and one to the west for delivery of contaminated soil and treated material out to backfill. As a result a screening mound is proposed along the southern boundary of the proposed contamination treatment area. As a result to changes to the site design a revised landscape and visual assessment has been submitted along with a revisit of the noise assessment. Further information has been submitted in relation to transport. A revised historic environment assessment has been submitted following trial trenching that took place in September 2013.
33. Amendments to the restoration scheme include the repositioning of habitats of most value along the proposed dene valley linking retained habitats at Tanfield Railway with the southern end of Byermoor, increasing the width of the proposed multiuser trail along the line of the proposed extended route of the Tanfield Railway from 10 to 18m; retention of existing badger habitat and slopes to the south east retained; amendments to the restoration contours to accommodate a bridleway at a suitable gradient and also resulting in wooded areas being steeper and mosaics on shallower slopes; increased levels on proposed agricultural land to the north to accommodate changes to a proposed valley feature; additional areas of marshy and acid grasslands and wet woodland to the south; reducing in the site of proposed ponds; an additional broadleaved woodland on the proposed translocated soils; amendments to the - 8 - proposed mosaic habitat.
34. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) and an Addendum to it. This report has taken into account the information contained in the ES and amended details and that arising from statutory consultations and other responses.
35. This planning application is being reported to the County Planning Committee because it involves major minerals development.
PLANNING HISTORY
36. Both the site and surrounding area has a history of coal mine working dating from the 17 th Century onwards with remains of shafts and waggonways from that period still evident. Around the industrial development housing, shops and chapels were built. Although demolished during the 20 th Century there are remains of the former Marley Hill and Andrew’s House Collieries within the application site. There has been previous surface coal mines worked within the application area (but not the excavation area) . The Gibraltar site (to the north east in the proposed coal stocking and plant by area) operated in the early 1950’s. The Byermoor site covering two locations is outside of the application site boundary (with the exception of a small area in the north western part of the site) operated in 1946 and 1947. The Lobley Hill Road II site to the south of Lobley Hill Road was operational between 1945 and 1947. During the 19 th Century there were three coking works on or around the site. The original Marley Hill coke ovens were demolished in the early 20 th Century and replaced by a new coking works in 1919. The history of the site has included extensive underground coal extraction, coke manufacture, chemical production and gas purification. Areas of dereliction are the Byermoor heaps area, derelict area to the south east of Longfield House and along St Cuthbert’s Road, an area identified with contamination. The Marley Hill Colliery was closed in 1983 with the housing, shops and chapels with the industrial activity having been demolished by 1960. Ravensworth Grange surface coal mine, some 1.4km to the east of the application site, was operational between 2001 and 2003.
37. The site is part of the former Marley Hill site proposed by the British Coal Corporation Opencast Executive during the 1980’s that straddled County Durham and Gateshead. The application being made following the closure of Marley Hill Colliery in 1983. That application was for the extraction of coal, sand and gravel by opencast mining methods, the provision of sewage disposal facilities and the provision of water treatment lagoons, the reclamation of derelict land and the extension of Tanfield Railway. This was refused planning permission by the County Council in January 1989 and subsequently dismissed on appeal by the Secretary of State in October 1990 . That scheme involved the extraction of 2.8 million tonnes of coal and approximately 600,000 tonnes of sand and gravel 249 ha over 8½ years with 105 ha within County Durham and 144 ha within Gateshead.
38. Durham County Council was of the view that the application was for a large and prominent site in an attractive area on one of the main northern entry and exit points to the County. Working of the site would have major environmental disadvantages in terms of visual intrusion, loss of vegetation and topographical features, impact on tourism, industry and the overall attractiveness of the County, in addition to the loss of good agricultural land and adverse effects on recreation and, possibly, a listed building. - 9 - At that time the site lay partly within a “No-Go” area, and wholly within a Landscape Improvement Area. It also lies adjacent to an Area of Special Landscape Value and it was thought that working would conflict with the Council’s policies for improvement and protection of these three areas. It was considered that economic and environmental advantages put forward in support of the application did not outweigh the substantial environmental objections to the proposal.
39. The reasons for refusal at that time related to the location of the site (within the Derwent Valley “No Go” Area where the extraction of coal would not normally be approved); the scale of the proposal and its consequent visual impact that would adversely affect the overall attractiveness of the County for residents, industry, commerce and tourism and detract from efforts to promote tourism and industrial growth. The proposal would detract from appearance of the Northern Landscape Improvement Area and not be outweighed from reclamation and tree planting. It was considered that the unsightliness of proposal would adversely affect Causey Arch, and Beamish Area of Special Landscape Value where the County Council sought to maintain the historic character and appearance of area. In terms of need it was considered that alternative sources of supply were available, and established demand could be met from approved sites. It was thought that the environmental objections were overriding and any benefits were outweighed. Furthermore the Council was of the view that the proposal was inadequate as the restoration scheme did not provide a suitable landscape and planting framework for the site and that the agricultural restoration and aftercare were inadequate by agricultural standards. In addition it was considered that the applicant had not demonstrated that there would not be damage to ‘Beckley’ an 18 th Century Grade II Listed building as a result of vibration from heavy earthmoving equipment within the site. It was also considered that the proposals did not make adequate provision for alternative public rights of way around the south western part of the site.
40. The Gateshead Council refusal reasons were similar, referring to adverse visual amenity, loss of amenity, adverse impact on tourism other economic disadvantages, loss and impact on public rights of way, haulage affect upon countryside roads, general amenity, adverse effect on standard of educational provision and effect on Marley Hill and Byermoor Schools, contrary to Government Guidance (MPG3), no evidence to ensure sand and gravel would not be sterilised, restoration proposals unsatisfactory (size, shape of fields), interrelationship with bridleways, view that the proposals should be for alternative landuse opportunities in particularly tourism, creation, leisure and forestry. It was also considered that the proposal would be detrimental to wildlife and would destroy habitats, and there were no overriding considerations of national/local need.
41. The appeal Inspector’s recommendation, which was accepted by the Secretary of State, considered that there was no present need for the development to outweigh its prolonged and, by reason of noise, dust and unsightliness, generally adverse effects on nearby occupiers, whether or not the working area was set back from occupied premises. It was recommended that if planning permission were granted that it should be for a reduced area, taking the development further away from properties in Marley Hill and the Causey Arch Inn.
42. The Secretary of State generally agreed with the Planning Inspector. He noted that because of national interest in developing this low cost energy source there was no general requirement on applicants to demonstrate a national need for coal from any - 10 - particular site. However, where there are clear planning objections to a proposal it is necessary to consider whether there are any material benefits which would outweigh those objections and whether the market could be met from less damaging alternative sites of secure economic sources of supply. The Secretary of State took the view that the reclamation of the derelict land within the site would be a considerable planning advantage of the proposal and agreed with the Planning Inspector that development need not have an adverse long term effect on the quality of the surroundings. However, he was of the opinion that the scheme was unsatisfactory since the considerable environmental impacts of the operations were not outweighed by the material benefits of the development at the present time.
Current Application
43. The current submission has had regard to the previous decisions on the previous application as well as opportunities and constraints presented by the site. The main differences between the previous and current applications as highlighted by the applicant are: • Area reduced from 249 ha to 123.22 ha (162 ha working area reduced to 45.4 ha) • Maximum depth of working reduced from 89m to 59m resulting in a reduction in overburden storage. • Timescale to final restoration (green to green) reduced from 8½ to 4½ years. • Coaling period reduced from 7½ years to 3 years. • Tonnage of coal reduced from 3 million tonnes to 1,067,257 tonnes, with weekly output reduced from 8,500 tonnes to 7,623 tonnes. • Lorry movements reduced from 8 per hour leaving the site to average of 6, although at peak production there could be an average of 9 vehicles leaving the site per hour. In addition the previous scheme would have had an additional 3 lorry loads per hour for sand and gravel for the first 4 years. • Alternative lorry route. No part of the previous route was within County Durham but used unsuitable lanes between the site and Lamesley roundabout. The current proposal would utilise A roads with returning vehicles travelling through County Durham. . • No night time working. 24 hour working was proposed as part of the previous application. • No dragline working is proposed, reducing noise, dust and visual impact. • Improved working method and design resulting in improved design and screening from Marley Hill, Byermoor and in views from the south in County Durham. • Increased environmental protection measures resulting in lower noise levels and increased control of dust. • Direction of working west to east towards Marley Hill to reduce noise and visual impact compared to the previous scheme which would have worked in a semi- circle starting in the south west exposing Marley Hill to the full effects of plant working on exposed faces. • No sand and gravel extraction proposed leaving that area undisturbed and resulting in a reduction in lorry numbers. • Comprehensive remediation strategy for the treatment of waste, with most of it being treated on site over less than a year. Unclear what British Coal was proposing. • Increased standoff distances from Marley Hill. • Improved restoration scheme that includes woodland, ecological habitat areas and agriculture. - 11 - • The preservation of ancient woodland and Tanfield Local Wildlife Site would be preserved along with preservation, where possible of hedgerows and veteran trees. • A rationalised and increased public access on the current proposal. • Community fund for the current proposal.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY :
44. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependent.
45. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’. The following elements are considered relevant to this proposal.
46. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. Decisions should support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting.
47. NPPF Part 3 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy. States that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, plans should: support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses; support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres.
48. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. States that the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. It is recognised that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions which will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.
49. NPPF Part 7 – Requiring Good Design . The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable - 12 - development, indivisible from good planning. Planning policies and decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.
50. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities . Recognises the part the planning system can play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities.
51. NPPF Part 9 – Protecting green belt land . The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. Green Belt land serves 5 purposes; to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
52. NPPF Part 10 - Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change. Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.
53. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognising the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land. It is stated that planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.
54. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. In determining applications LPAs should take account of; the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage asset, the positive contribution conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities and economic viability, and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character.
55. NPPF Part 13 – Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals – In determining planning applications for minerals development there are a number of matters to take into account. These include ensuring that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural environment and human health, taking into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality, and providing through condition for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards. - 13 -
56. Paragraph 149 states that permission should not be given for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so through conditions or obligations, or if not, it provided national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission.
57. The NPPF identifies brickclay (especially Etruria Marl and fireclay) and shallow and deep-mined coal as being minerals of local and national importance. These being minerals which are necessary to meet society’s needs. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (NPPF)
58. Accompanying the NPPF the Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters. Of particular relevance to this development proposal is the practice guidance with regards to mineral development and their working and restoration and the principal environmental issues of minerals working that should be addressed by mineral planning authorities. Paragraph 147 that the environmental impacts of coal extraction should be considered in the same way as for other minerals. However, both coal operators and mineral planning authorities must have regard to the environmental duty placed on them under Section 53 of the Coal Industry Act1994 when preparing and determining planning applications. http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
LOCAL PLAN POLICY : DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL
COUNTY DURHAM MINERALS LOCAL PLAN (DECEMBER 2000) [MLP] POLICY :
59. Policy M7 – Opencast coal and fireclay – states that within the exposed coalfield area there will be a presumption against proposals for the opencast mining of coal and/or fireclay unless they are environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations, or they provide local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the adverse impacts of the proposal.
60. Policy M8 – Piecemeal Working – states that the piecemeal working of opencast coal deposits will not be allowed.
61. Policy M17 – Exploration outside site boundaries – requires that when considering proposals for mineral extraction where there is , where sufficient information on the extent of workable deposits is not otherwise available; and land outside the proposed boundary is physically capable of being worked as part of the application site; the mineral planning authority may require an applicant to indicate through supporting information their understanding of the location of mineral reserves in surrounding land in order to justify the proposed extent of mineral extraction. Such information may take the form of data from mineral exploration, old mining records and other relevant sources of geological information.
62. Policy M19 – Concurrent working of minerals – encourages the concurrent working of two or more minerals from the same site where mineral extraction is acceptable in principle with certain provisions.
- 14 -
63. Policy M23 – Designated landscapes – requires that in Areas of High Landscape Value and Historic Parks and Gardens, proposals for mineral working will be given the most careful consideration. Proposals will only be allowed where the environmental impact on the special character and quality of the landscape is acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations and where certain criteria are met.
64. Policy M24 – Local landscapes – requires that the scale of any adverse effects on local landscape character from minerals development is kept to an acceptable minimum and conserves as far as possible important features of the local landscape. It also requires that restoration schemes have regard to the quality of the local landscape and provide landscape improvements where appropriate.
65. Policy M27 – Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites – Minerals development affecting regional or locally identified sites of nature conservation interest, including LNRs, RIGs, SNCIs and Ancient Semi Natural Woodlands, which may have an adverse effect will not be permitted unless the Mineral Planning Authority is satisfied that the developer has demonstrated there are reasons for the proposal which clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the intrinsic qualities of the site.
66. Policy M29 – Conservation of nature conservation value –requires all proposals for minerals development to incorporate appropriate measures to ensure any adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of the area is minimised.
67. Policy M30 – Listed buildings/Conservation areas – states that planning permission for mineral development will not be permitted where this would have an unacceptable adverse effect on listed buildings, conservation areas, or their settings. Where it is justified the permission will only be granted where the working and restoration of the site ensures the retention of important built and landscape features; and final restoration is to at least the original landscape quality, with replacement of any landscape features that it is not possible to retain during working.
68. Policy M31 – Archaeological field evaluation – relates to archaeology and the need for archaeological field evaluation prior to the determination of planning permission where there is reason to believe that important archaeological remains may exist.
69. Policy M32 – Archaeological remains – states that where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are affected by a proposed mineral development there will be a presumption in favour of their preservation in situ. Proposals for mineral development that would have a significant adverse effect on regionally important remains will only be permitted where no other suitable locations are available; or where there is an overriding need for mineral which outweighs the requirement for physical preservation.
70. Policy M33 – Recording of archaeological remains – states that where the preservation of archaeological remains in situ is not appropriate planning permission will not be granted unless satisfactory provision has been made for the excavation and recording of the remains.
71. Policy M34 – Agricultural land – states that mineral development which affects or is likely to lead to the loss of 20 or more hectares of the best and most versatile land (Agricultural Land Classification Grades 2 and 3a) will not be permitted unless there is - 15 - no overall loss of agricultural land quality following restoration; or there is a need for the mineral which cannot be met from suitable alternative sources on lower quality agricultural land.
72. Policy M35 – Recreational areas and public rights of way – aims to prevent development that would have an unacceptable impact on the recreational value of the countryside unless there is a need for the mineral which cannot be met from suitable alternative sites or sources. It also requires adequate arrangements for the continued use of public rights of way both during and after mineral development, either by means of existing or diverted routes.
73. Policy M36 – Protecting local amenity – requires the incorporation of suitable mitigation measures to ensure potentially harmful impacts from pollution by noise, vibration, dust and mud, visual intrusion, traffic and transport, subsidence, landslip and gaseous emissions are reduced to an acceptable level.
74. Policy M37 – Standoff distances – seeks to prevent mineral development within 250m (500m where operations involve blasting) of a group of 10 or more dwellings unless it is demonstrated that residential amenity can be protected from the adverse impacts of mineral working.
75. Policy M38 – Water resources – states that if a proposal for mineral development would affect the supply of, or cause contamination to, underground, or surface waters, it should not be permitted unless measures are carried out as part of the development to mitigate those impacts throughout the working life of the site and following final restoration.
76. Policy M40 – Scope for rail use in planning applications – states that in determining a planning application for mineral development conditions may be imposed or planning obligations or legal agreements sought with the developer and rail operator, to ensure that, where rail use is feasible, the movement by rail of mineral, or mineral products, is maximised.
77. Policy M42 – Road traffic – states that mineral development will only be permitted where the traffic generated can be accommodated safely and conveniently on the highway network and the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity is otherwise acceptable.
78. Policy M43 – Minimising traffic impacts – requires that planning conditions should be imposed, and planning obligations or other legal agreements sought, to cover a range of matters such as routeing of traffic to and from the site, highway improvements or maintenance, prevention of the transfer of mud and dirt onto the public highway and operating hours of lorry traffic to and from the site.
79. Policy M45 – Cumulative impact – requires that when considering proposals for mineral development the cumulative impact of past, present and future workings must be considered and states that planning permission will not be granted where the cumulative impact exceeds that which would be acceptable if produced from a single site under the relevant policies of the Plan.
80. Policy M46 – Restoration conditions – indicates that conditions will be imposed, planning obligations or other legal agreements sought as necessary to cover a range of - 16 - issues relating to the satisfactory restoration of minerals sites.
81. Policy M47 – After uses – provides advice in relation to proposals for the after use of mineral sites.
82. Policy M50 – On site processing – where planning permission is required, minerals processing and manufacturing plant, and other developments ancillary to mineral extraction, will be permitted within the boundaries of mineral extraction sites subject to certain criteria. Conditions will be imposed, planning obligations or other legal agreements sought as necessary to cover the minimisation of environmental impact, removal of the plant, structure, buildings as soon as extraction has ceased time limits on the storage of materials after working has ceased and preventing the import of materials from elsewhere..
83. Policy M51 – Storage – in granting planning permission for mineral stocking areas the Policy requires conditions to be imposed or planning obligations or other legal agreements sought, to cover the minimisation of environmental impact, time limits on the storage of materials after working has ceased and preventing the import of materials from elsewhere.
84. Policy M52 – Site management – states the ability and commitment of the intended operator to operate and reclaim the site in accordance with the agreed scheme will be taken into account.
LOCAL PLAN POLICY
Derwentside District Local Plan (DLP) (Adopted January 1997)
85. Policy GDP1 – General Development Principles – Aims to ensure that all developments incorporate a high standard of design are energy efficient, protect landscape, natural and historic features, protect and manage ecology, protect valuable open land, provide adequate landscaping, incorporate crime prevention measures and improve personal safety, protect amenity and provide adequate drainage.
86. EN6 – Development Within Areas Of High Landscape Value – states that in named areas of high landscape value (including Beamish and Causey) development will be permitted provided that it pays particular attention to the landscape qualities of the area in the siting and design of buildings and the context of any landscaping proposals.
87. EN27 – Development on or close to landfill sites – states that planning permission will only be granted for new development within a 250 metre radius of a landfill site, mine workings, or on or adjacent to a contaminated site, if the developer: provides the results of an expert investigation to detect and monitor the presence and likely effects of any gases, leachates, corrosive materials, groundwater areas of permeable sub strata and the potential for subsidence within and around the site; and identifies a detailed programme of remedial works to resolve known and potential problems, covering site preparation, design and building construction, protection for workers and all other measures required to make the site, proposed development and surrounding area safe and stable.
- 17 - EMERGING POLICY :
88. The emerging County Durham Plan was submitted in April 2014 ahead of Examination in Public. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, decision- takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. To this end, the following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application:
89. The Proposals Map shows that part of the site within County Durham to be within the proposed Green Belt.
90. Policy 14 – Green Belt – Within the Green Belt the construction of new buildings will be regarded as inappropriate and will not be permitted apart from exceptions which minimise the openness of the Green Belt such as agricultural buildings and a number of other forms of development such as mineral extraction.
91. Policy 57 – Surface Mined Coal and Fireclay – sets out the future policy framework for the determination of planning applications relating to surface mined coal and fireclay. This Policy is based upon Policy M7 of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan and has been amended to incorporate reference to the NPPF’s national benefit test and additional text relating to economic, environmental and local and community benefits.
The Policy states:
Proposals for the extraction of coal and/or fireclay should not be granted permission unless: a. They do not have an unacceptable adverse impact on both the environment and amenity of local communities, or can be made acceptable by planning conditions or obligations; or if not b. They provide national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the unacceptable adverse impacts of the proposal to justify the grant of planning permission. In assessing such benefits particular regard will be had to: 1. The economic benefits of the proposal including its contribution to the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth through the provision of domestically produced coal for power generation and other sectors of the UK economy and the employment generated through the working, restoration and after-use of the site; 2. The environmental benefits of the proposal in particular those that can be delivered through the high quality restoration and after-use of the site; 3. The local and community benefits generated by the proposal including those that can be provided to the economic and social well-being of local communities 4. The contribution of the proposal towards the comprehensive reclamation of areas of derelict or contaminated land, or the remediation of coal mining legacy issues; 5. The avoidance of the sterilisation of mineral resources in advance of development which is either subject to a planning permission or allocated in the County Durham Plan in accordance with Policy 60 (Safeguarding Mineral Resources); and - 18 - 6. The need for supplies of fireclay to meet the ongoing needs of local brickworks or if this is not possible other brickworks regionally or nationally. In this regard all proposals for surface coal mining should avoid the unnecessary sterilisation of fireclays and brickclays. In order to minimise the environmental impacts of surface coal extraction and provide certainty, the piecemeal working of surface mined coal sites will not normally be permitted.
In order to minimise the environmental impacts of surface coal extraction and provide certainty, the piecemeal working of surface mined coal sites will not normally be permitted. http://www.durham.gov.uk/pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=856 (County Durham Plan)
LOCAL PLAN POLICY : GATESHEAD COUNCIL
GATESHEAD ’S UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (ADOPTED IN 2007)
92. UDP Policy MWR2 – Minerals Environmental Impact – states the environmental impact of any proposal for mineral extraction will be assessed individually and cumulatively with regard to its effect on local amenity (based on the scale and likely duration of the operation, visual impact, dust, noise, blasting, traffic, days and hours of working or other potential disturbances site specifically and within its zone of influence) and by taking into account currently available protective measures.
93. UDP Policy MWR3 – Minerals Five Year Rule – states that unless there are overriding material considerations no zone of influence of a mineral extraction should suffer a continuous or nearly continuous series of such schemes (i.e. within a minimum period of five years).
94. UDP Policy MWR11 Minerals Site-Specific Level – parts a), b), c) and d) set out that planning permission will be granted where applicants for developments that are expected to produce significant volumes of waste will be expected to submit a waste audit or site waste management plan as part of their planning application to include information on the type and volume of waste the development will generate, the steps taken to ensure that the maximum amount of waste arising from the development is re-used within the development, the steps to be taken to manage the waste which cannot be incorporated into the new development, and d) how treatment of the waste identified conforms to the principles of the waste hierarchy.
95. UDP Policy DC1 – Environment – sets out that (amongst other criteria that are not relevant to the consideration of this application) planning permission will be granted for new development where it; (a) retains and incorporates landscape and natural features into the design and layout of the scheme and does not have a negative effect on them or their setting; (b) would not result in the loss of or harm to individual or groups of trees; (c) achieves an improved landform, landscape or more beneficial after-use; (d) does not have an adverse impact on statutorily protected species; (e) takes opportunities to undertake advance planting/screening; (f) incorporates adequate open space and landscaping within its design and layout, including the incorporation of natural habitats that are beneficial to wildlife; (h) does not significantly pollute the environment with dust, noise, light, emissions, - 19 - out-fall, or discharges of any kind; (i) would not give rise to unacceptable harm from flood risk, or risk of flooding elsewhere; (j) has no adverse impact on the substrata drainage or the quality of water in watercourses, lakes, ponds or groundwater; (k) provides adequate foul and storm water drainage within and away from the development site, not exceeding the capacity of the existing or planned sewerage and drainage system; (p) addresses the issues of potential land contamination, derelict land, hazardous substances and ground stability; (q) contributes to the provision of mineral, energy or other resources at local, regional and national levels; and (s) would not endanger or damage important national, regional or local wildlife habitats or have a detrimental impact on ecology or geology.
96. UDP Policy DC2 – Residential Amenity – part a) sets out that planning permission will be granted for new development where it does not have an adverse impact on amenity or character of an area, and does not cause undue disturbance to nearby residents or conflict with other adjoining uses.
97. UDP Policy DC4 – Highways & Transport – parts a), b) and e) set out that planning permission will be granted for new development where it secures safe access to the site by all modes of transport and provides adequate servicing and cycle parking facilities that meet Council standards, and would not have a significant adverse impact on the safe and efficient operation of the road network, would not create significant additional congestion and have an unacceptable impact on the environment or amenity of areas nearby and does not disturb, or result in an inadequate replacement of, public rights of way or the core cycle network.
98. UDP Policy DC5 – A1/A194(M) – part b) sets out that the Council will work with the Highways Agency, developers and other interested parties to ensure that the impacts of generated traffic on the trunk road network are minimised. Measures to support the above will include the development of effective travel plans for all developments which could have a significant effect on the trunk road network.
99. UDP Policy PO1 – Planning Obligations – Facilities & Infrastructure – sets out that Financial contributions will be sought from developers to meet needs created by their developments, but which cannot be satisfied on site, or which the developer does not directly provide for, or which need to be provided or maintained over a longer timescale. The totality of contributions required will be proportionate to the size and nature of the development in question. Such contributions may include, but will not be limited to transport infrastructure, recreational facilities including public open space, nature conservation benefits and environmental improvements.
100. UDP Policy PO2 – Planning Obligations –Employment/Training – sets out that the Council will seek, in appropriate circumstances, Section 106 obligations or agreements to support targeted employment and training opportunities for the unemployed and underskilled.
101. UDP Policy ENV3 – Character and Design – sets out that the design, density and scale of new development should make a positive contribution to the established character and identity of its locality. All development will be expected to recognise - 20 - established design principles with regard to such factors as scale, massing, height, materials, density, legibility, views and vistas. The relationship between buildings and the spaces around and between them must be handled in a sensitive manner.
102. UDP Policy ENV 9 – Setting of Conservation Areas – sets out that development that protects or enhances the setting of a Conservation Area, including important views into and out of the Conservation Area, will be permitted.
103. UDP Policy ENV14 – Historic Parks and Gardens – states that development within the setting of a historic park or garden will be controlled to protect its setting and character.
104. UDP Policy ENV19 – Locally Listed Parks and Gardens – sets out the need to retain the use and character of locally listed park and gardens as open designed landscapes.
105. UDP Policy ENV20 – Scheduled Ancient Monuments – development which would harm these or their setting will not be permitted.
106. UDP Policy ENV21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance – Known – in accordance with para. 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework, where archaeological remains survive, whether designated as a scheduled ancient monument or not, there will be a presumption in favour of their preservation in situ. However, where the significance of archaeological remains is such that their preservation in situ is not essential, or is not feasible, a programme of archaeological works aimed at achieving preservation by record will be required, the findings of which should be published.
107. UDP Policy ENV22 – Sites of Archaeological Importance – Potential – where there is the likelihood that archaeological remains will be encountered as a result of development, and on all developments over 0.5ha in size, the Council will require a programme of investigative research and/or fieldwork to determine whether the remains, that might exist, merit preservation in situ or by record. Research and fieldwork findings should be published.
108. UDP Policy ENV36 – Green Belt – Purpose and Extent – sets out that the Green Belt is required to: a. check unrestricted sprawl, including around Gateshead and Whickham; b. prevent the merging, including of Gateshead and Whickham and Whickham and Sunniside; c. assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, including around Sunniside; and d. assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
109. UDP Policy ENV44 – Wood/Tree/Hedge Protection/Enhancement – sets out that works that will damage or lead to the loss of trees which contribute to the amenity of an area and have a significant wildlife interest will not normally be permitted. The policy goes on to state that schemes that will protect, maintain, manage and enhance existing woodland, trees and hedgerows will be generally encouraged.
110. UDP Policy ENV46 – The Durham Biodiversity Action Plan – states that the delivery of relevant targets for species and habitats in the Durham Biodiversity Action Plan - 21 - (BAP) will be actively pursued in considering development proposals.
111. UDP Policy ENV47 – Wildlife Habitats – sets out that wherever possible, all types of wildlife habitats will be protected and enhanced. Land management practices beneficial to wildlife will be encouraged in line with the Durham BAP. New development will be laid out and landscaped so as to be beneficial to wildlife. Proposals should avoid the use of non-native or inappropriate species in sensitive locations.
112. UDP Policy ENV49 – Sites of Nature Conservation Importance – states that sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) will be protected from adverse development wherever possible. It should be noted that SNCI s are now known as Local Wildlife Sites (LWS).
113. UDP Policy ENV51 – Wildlife Corridors – states that a network of wildlife corridors will be protected by resisting development or recreational use which would seriously impair their integrity or value to wildlife. Exceptionally, damaging developments may be allowed where habitats would be enhanced or where suitable replacement land is provided to retain the integrity of the corridor.
114. UDP Policy ENV54 – Development on Land Affected by Contamination – parts a) b) c) d) e) and f) set out that planning permission will be granted for new development where it is on land affected by contamination if the site will be reclaimed to a standard which is suitable for the proposed end use, there is no threat to public health or safety, environmental standards are not compromised, no threat is posed to controlled waters, appropriate measures are taken to protect local amenity while works are carried out and any nature conservation interest, habitat, species and geological features on the land are protected.
115. UDP Policy ENV56 – Derelict Land – states that derelict land will be reclaimed for the most appropriate beneficial uses. In particular the major site at Marley Hill and Byermoor Collieries will be reclaimed for recreation, nature conservation and woodland.
116. UDP Policy ENV61 – New noise-generating developments – states that new noise- generating development will not be permitted if the rating level would exceed the pre- existing background noise level by 10 dB(A) or more for existing noise-sensitive land uses. Where the increase in the noise level would be less than 10 dB(A), the developer will be expected to demonstrate that acceptable noise levels can be achieved.
117. UDP Policy ENV62 – Minerals and Waste Development – states that proposals for mineral and waste developments will be permitted in appropriate circumstances where the operator can demonstrate that noise levels at specifically identified noise- sensitive properties will not exceed existing background levels by more than 10dB(A) subject to a maximum of 55dB LAeq,1h (free field) during normal daytime hours (07.00-19.00 hours), existing background levels by 10dB(A) in the evening (19.00- 22.00 hours)subject to a maximum of 42dB LAeq,1h (free field) at night-time, where tonal, peak or impulsive noise contributes to total site noise, the Council may impose specific limits for this element. Operators will be expected to use reversing bleeper warning systems that do not cause noise nuisance off-site. For particularly noisy short-term activities, the Council may permit a temporary increase in day-time noise - 22 - limits up to 70dB(A)LAeq1h (free field) at specified noise sensitive properties. In exceptional circumstances, a higher limit for a very limited period may be agreed, in order to obtain specific environmental benefits. However, operators will be expected to make every effort to deliver temporary works at a lower level of noise impact. Planning conditions will be used to apply absolute controls on noise emissions with limits normally being set at particular noise-sensitive properties.
118. UDP Policy JE4 –Sustainable Economic Development – part (f) sets out that proposals should support sustainable development principles through the provision of local employment opportunities.
119. UDP Policy JE5 – Tourism Development – has a general approach in favour of improved tourist attractions subject to a number of criteria but then goes on to state that proposed development that would reduce the appeal to visitors of existing tourist assets will not be permitted.
120. UDP Policy T1 – Transport Requirements for New Developments – parts a) b) c) d) and e) set out that where a development is likely to have a significant impact on the transport network an assessment of accessibility based on the Council’s guidelines, a transport assessment, an action plan setting out how issues highlighted by the accessibility assessment will be addressed, a travel plan; and agreement on a contribution from the developer towards off-site transport measures are required. http://www.gateshead.gov.uk/Building%20and%20Development/PlanningpolicyandLDF/UnitaryDevelopmentPl an/UDP.aspx (Gateshead Unitary Development Plan)
EMERGING POLICY :
Planning For the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan (submission draft)
121. The emerging Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne was submitted in February 2014 with an examination hearinghaving now taken place and an Inspector’s report expected in Autumn 2014.. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. To this end, the following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application:
122. Emerging Policy CS5 – Employment and Economic Growth Priorities – aims to attract and support a skilled labour force and improving skills and access for local people to job opportunities including through targeted recruiting and training.
123. Emerging Policy CS13 – Transport – seeks an integrated transport network to support sustainable development and economic growth to be achieved by promotion of sustainable travel choices, improving the operation of the transport network and its wider connections and ensuring development is located where the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised, minimises car trips and provides sustainable travel plans, connects safely to existing transport networks, provides cycle parking and direct, safe and secure and continuous cycling and pedestrian links.
- 23 -
124. Emerging Policy CS14 – Wellbeing and Health – seeks to maintain and improve the wellbeing and health of communities by requiring development to contribute to creating an age friendly, healthy and equitable living environment through creating an inclusive natural environment, promoting and facilitating active and healthy lifestyles and providing good access for all to green spaces, play and recreation facilities.
125. Emerging Policy CS15 – Placemaking – seeks development that will contribute to good place making through the delivery of high quality and sustainable design achieved by creation of safe and inclusive environments, connectivity, accessibility and legibility, and respecting significant views and the setting of heritage assets.
126. Emerging Policy CS17 – Flood Risk and Water Management – seeks development that will avoid and manage flood risk from all sources taking into account the impact of climate change over its lifetime.
127. Emerging Policy CS18 – Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment – seeks a high quality and comprehensive framework of interconnected green infrastructure that offers ease of movement and an appealing natural environment for people and wildlife to be achieved by (including other measures) protection, enhancement and management of green infrastructure assets including; biodiversity and geodiversity assets – designated sites, designated wildlife corridors and biodiversity action plan habitats and species and trees, woodland and hedgerows; and protecting and enhancing open spaces, sport and recreational facilities.
128. Emerging Policy CS19 – Green Belt – states that The Tyne and Wear Green Belt forms a wide band of protected land around Gateshead and Newcastle. The Green belt as shown on the Proposals Maps will be protected in accordance with national policy to: 1. Prevent the merging of settlements, 2. Safeguard the countryside from encroachment, 3. Check unrestricted urban sprawl, and 4. Assist in urban regeneration in the city-region by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
129. Emerging Policy CS20 – Minerals – reflects the NPPF in that it requires mineral resources to be managed to meet current and future needs in a way that supports the Council’s social, environmental and economic objectives. The policy lists how this will be achieved and bullet point 4 of CS20 states "worked land being subject to high standards of restoration and aftercare to ensure it is returned to the most appropriate and beneficial after use at the earliest opportunity taking into account airport safety and securing biodiversity, woodland and recreational enhancement." http://www.gateshead.gov.uk/Building%20and%20Development/PlanningpolicyandLDF/LocalPlan/Gatesheadan dNewcastleJointDocuments.aspx (Gateshead and Newcastle Joint Core Strategy)
- 24 - CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES :
130. Gateshead Council – Notes that the site crosses the administrative boundaries of Gateshead and County Durham and accordingly UK Coal submitted an application to each Mineral Planning Authority. Gateshead officers recommended that the application submitted to Gateshead Council as MPA (ref DC/12/01349/MIN) was approved subject to a number of planning obligations and planning conditions. The essence of the Gateshead officer report was that the proposed scheme was not environmentally acceptable due to its impact on ecology (for all other environmental aspects the proposal was deemed to be acceptable) but there were benefits to the proposed scheme that were deemed to clearly outweigh the harm to ecology.
131. The application was considered by Gateshead Council’s Planning and Development Committee at their meeting on 16 July 2014. The meeting included verbal representations made by supporters and objectors of the scheme. The Committee resolved to grant planning permission for the proposal subject to the planning conditions set out by officers and subject to the signing of the legal agreements for the various planning obligations.
132. Stanley Town Council – has provided a number of comments in respect of the application. The Town Council is of the view that inevitable increase on traffic overall would have an impact on road safety, pedestrians, vehicles and residents in general with must be given due consideration. Vehicle movements and site access is the main concern of the Town Council. The Town Council is of the view that the most suitable of the options considered is that of the principle of “left out and left in” as a means of HGV access to the site. The Town Council is of the view that other routing options considered would be very difficult to manage or enforce and unlikely to be workable in practice.
133. The Town Council understand that the “left in left out” access would entail the loaded HGVs travelling via the A6076/A692 and onward to their destination and returning empty to the site using the A693/A6076 through Stanley. As this is a designated HGV route in the DCC LTP3 the Town Council is of the opinion that this is the most acceptable in terms of highway safety. It is considered that prior to the start of any work temporary signage should be erected on the A693 approach to the junction with the C128 advising HGV drivers that there is no access to the Marley Hill site via the C128. This is in the interests of road safety and would prevent the HGVs using the C128/Pelaw Avenue past the entrance to Shield Row Primary School. If alternative routes are to be considered, similar considerations should be made. If the “left in left out” site access option is not put into practice then similar temporary signage should also be positioned on the A6076 approach to the C128 junction at Kip Hill for the same reasons of road safety. It is considered that this should be achieved by conditioning.
134. It is noted that there would be lorries carrying cement, blast furnace slag and pulverised fuel ash to the site for use in the reclamation scheme but there is no indication where these vehicles would be travelling from or returning to, or the route they are to use. The Town Council considers it inevitable that these vehicles would have an impact on traffic movement to and from the site and that it is essential these vehicles be taken into account in the overall assessment of vehicle movements to and
- 25 - from the site and the regulation of their route in the in same manner as the coal carrying vehicles should be given consideration. In addition, it is considered that these vehicles should be regulated in respect of their loads being totally covered by sheeting in the same manner as the coal carrying vehicles. It is noted that there will also be HGVs with regular deliveries of fuel etc to the site and it is considered necessary that all vehicles should be regulated in respect of wheel washing and that this should be achieved by conditioning. The Town Council also considers that the full reclamation scheme as detailed in the application and as per the restoration strategy should be conditioned if the application is granted permission.
135. Following receipt of the ES Addendum the Town Council advised that its Members discussed the issue with big wagons passing through Stanley every 18 minutes, especially the dangers of them passing schools. It was resolved that the Town Council propose to the County Council that the wagons find an alternative route or use a route that does not pass through Stanley.
136. Durham County Council Highways Authority – advises that it prefers a left in left out routing arrangement and is satisfied that the measures being put in place will ensure that the vehicle movements would not materially affect highway safety on Durham’s roads. Subject to a routeing agreement and restriction in vehicle movements officers have no objection to the proposal.
137. Highways Agency – has no objections to the proposed development in either Durham or Gateshead.
138. Gateshead Council Highways – officers have no objection in principle from a transport point of view to the proposals. As a consequence of significant pre-application discussions with the applicant’s transport consultants URS, many of the initial issues relating to safety, trip generation and haulage routes have been resol ved. Nevertheless, there remain a number of outstanding issues that should either be addressed prior to the application being determined or in certain cases an appropriate planning condition could be applied. These related to details of speed surveys on the A692, site parking, shift times, peak operational times and when these would be. Although no significant concerns about the overall number of movements are raised it may be appropriate to restrict the total number of HGV movements during a single hour to ensure the spread of movements will be as reported within the Transport Assessment.
139. Proposals for a left only entry and exit for the HGV movements is accepted in principle by Gateshead Council Transport Strategy officers. Considering that while this approach would result in all fully loaded vehicle movements taking place on Gateshead’s highway network officers are satisfied that the measures proposed would ensure that these movements would not impinge on highway safety. However, they do not consider the site access design would ensure that drivers adhere to this approach and as a consequence a haulage agreement would need to be conditioned setting out the details of routes/numbers and the measures put in place for wheel washing prior to site exit. It considered that the proposed left in left out access arrangement would assist in the enforcement of the haulage proposals and therefore ensure that the maximum number of movements is not exceeded. Details of auto-tracking carried out on the access were requested.
- 26 - 140. Given the number of turning movements associated with the site entry and the relatively high speeds that have been measured on the A6076 officers request that a small scale local safety scheme is incorporated into the design to ensure that other road users are aware of the site access and the associated movements that could be taking place. Officers are satisfied that a priority junction would function adequately for the numbers of movements proposed. Nevertheless, officers are of the view that the proposed level of trips generated by the site could be accommodated on the existing network without significant detriment to other/existing highway users.
141. Additional information was submitted with the Addendum to the ES and officers consider that previous comments in relation to traffic counts and speed data associated with the A692 have been resolved and officers are satisfied that a complete set of data has now been preferred and furthermore no adverse findings were identified. Officers are satisfied that the applicant would intend to operate the site under a single shift, which would run from 7am – 7pm resulting in the result in the majority of HGV movements associated with the site occurring outside the network peaks. Officers accept details relating to the number of HGV movements during any single day and these figures have then been averaged out to give hourly rates. However, it is considered that there is nothing within the proposals to ensure that the movements are spread throughout the working day so to ensure no single hour has an inappropriate number of movements taking place. Consequently it is requested that a condition is applied to limit the number of movements during any single hour, this being 20 two-way movements (10 in/10 out). The auto-tracking that has been provided in relation to the movements of HGV’s in and out of the site is accepted by officers. A submitted indicative local safety scheme (signage/lining) is accepted in principal with details being requested through condition. Officers are satisfied with information provided in relation to visibility splays and Picady analysis. It is requested that through a condition a final travel plan requiring surveys to be provided 3 months and then 12 months after the start of operations is imposed.
142. Environment Agency (EA) – has no objection to the proposed development as submitted providing that a number of planning conditions are imposed on any planning permission. In terms of flood risk a condition requiring the submission and approval of a surface water management scheme to be implemented and maintained during the operational phase of development and upon restoration in order to prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. In terms of groundwater the submission and approval of a groundwater monitoring and management scheme to be implemented and maintained as the application indicates that extraction would extend below the groundwater table. The EA understands from the information submitted that groundwater levels in some of the coal measures may be controlled by Coal Authority minewater management at Kibblesworth and that the Coal Authority's plans for pumping may change in the future. Groundwater monitoring around the excavation should be put in place in order to better understand the groundwater regime, and the potential affects dewatering may have on the surface water courses. Advice is offered to the applicant in relation to groundwater. Advice is provided in terms the need for an Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.
143. With regard to land contamination the EA does not consider the site to be a priority, and therefore does provide detailed site-specific advice or comments with regards to land contamination issues for this site. The EA advises that the developer should address risks to controlled waters from contamination at the site. The EA has - 27 - confirmed that the site has been screened to identify land contamination risks and does not consider the site to be a high priority in respect of land contamination risk and therefore, it has provided its standard land contamination advice in respect of this site.
144. In terms of biodiversity, the EA advises that providing that the development is undertaken in accordance with the submitted draft Habitat Management Plan and restoration plan, it would have no objection to the proposal. It is advised that the applicant takes full advantage of opportunities to create the Durham Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitats: Wetland Habitats and this should be done in association with (rather than to the exclusion of) the creation of other priority habitats such as ponds and lowland fen and improve connectivity by recreating the Bobgin’s Burn wildlife corridor and strengthening links to other adjoining wildlife corridors and sites. Advice is provided regarding biosecurity and it is highlighted that the developer or contractors do not inadvertently spread any invasive species and the bio-security guidance.
145. It is noted that there are three known former landfill sites within 250 metres of the proposed development. The EA states that developers may be required to carry out a comprehensive risk assessment due to the risks that the former landfill site poses. Advice is also provided to the applicant regarding Environmental Permit Regulations with the EA noting that the treatment and remediation of material on-site would have permitting implications with the use of mobile plant and possible need for deployment of existing permitted mobile plant. This development would require an Environmental Permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 from the Environment Agency.
146. Having considered the Addendum to the Environmental Statement, the Environment Agency has no objections to the proposal as submitted considering that the proposed development would be acceptable providing the recommended planning conditions in respect of flood risk and groundwater outlined in its initial response are attached to any planning permission. Advice is also provided in respect of biodiversity advising that providing the development is undertaken in accordance with the submitted draft Habitat Management Plan and restoration plan the Agency would have no objection to the proposal. In terms of a mining waste permit it is noted that the application site includes part of a former landfill site (at Longfield House Farm off St. Cuthbert’s Road). Should this area of the site require excavation as part of the workings, the re-deposit of material into the remaining void may require a mining waste permit, if the deposited material is not inert. It is also noted that as part of the proposals there would be an on- site water treatment plant. Consent to discharge from the proposed on-site water treatment plant would be required.
147. Northumbria Water – advises that at this stage it has no comments to make.
148. Natural England (NE) – has no objection to the proposal subject to certain conditions. It is noted that the application is in close proximity to Causey Bank Mires Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Pockerley Farm Ponds SSSI and Ridley Gill SSSI. However, given the nature and scale of this proposal, Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on these sites as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted. NE therefore advises that these SSSI’s do not represent a constraint in determining this application.
- 28 - 149. In relation to groundwater NE consider it to be unclear by what method water is supplied to Causey Bank Mires SSSI, Pockerley Farm Ponds SSSI and Ridley Gill SSSI and therefore recommends that through condition weekly groundwater monitoring of the excavation site and surrounding areas is conducted prior to and for the life of the project to ensure that the development, as submitted, will not impact upon the features of special interest for which Causey Bank Mires SSSI, Pockerley Farm Ponds SSSI and Ridley Gill SSSI are notified.
150. NE notes that 59.3 ha of the total 119.6 ha site is ‘best and most versatile’ (BMV) agricultural land; namely Grades 2 and 3a land in the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system. NE is generally satisfied that that the site working and reclamation proposals provided in support of this application meet the requirements for sustainable minerals development, in line with the guidance set out in the Technical Guidance to the NPPF (superseded by the Planning Practice Guidance). In particular, it has noted that specific sections of the ES are sufficient to demonstrate that an equivalent area of the BMV land disturbed as a result of the development would be reinstated to a similar quality, suited to a productive agricultural afteruse. Reference is made to specific Defra guidance relating to soil handling and reclamation. NE would welcome the adoption of “Loose-handling” methods to minimise damage to soil structure and achieve high standards of restoration.
151. In accordance with Schedule 5, Part 1, Paragraph 4 (1) of the 1990 Act, NE confirms that it would be appropriate to specify agriculture as an afteruse, and for the land to be reclaimed in accordance with Para 3 (1) of the Act; namely that the physical characteristics of the land be restored, so far as practicable, to what they were when last used for agriculture. NE would not wish to raise any objection to the granting of planning permission, provided it was made subject to conditions to safeguard soil resources and promote a satisfactory standard of reclamation appropriate to the approved afteruses. Proposed conditions are provided.
152. While the restoration proposals on some of the BMV land are for non-agricultural purposes, NE considers the proposed reclamation to a biodiversity afteruse acceptable, provided the methods used in the restoration and aftercare would enable the land to retain its longer term capability to be farmed to its land classification potential, thus remaining a high quality resource for the future. NE welcomes the proposed restoration plans, in particular the areas of woodland, grassland scrub and hedgerows to be planted and the areas of standing water to be created. In order to increase the biodiversity value of the site it recommends that such areas are managed for wildlife as well as for their aesthetic value.
153. In order to create a diverse range of habitats to support the greatest abundance of wildlife it is suggested that a variety of native tree and shrub species (appropriate to the local landscape character of the area) of different ages and heights are planted and managed. NE is pleased to see that decaying wood is to be retained on site to provide habitats for bat and bird species. It is also important to note that mixes of tree and shrub species are selected in order to provide an almost year round supply of fruit for animals and insects. With the onset of climate change, some trees and shrubs, such as hawthorn and blackberry already flower and fruit several weeks earlier than normal in some places. If these fruits are consumed early, then this may have serious implications for birds and animals which rely on them later in the winter. NE therefore advises that species which naturally fruit in late winter, such as guelder-rose, holly, crab apple and ivy are well represented. - 29 -
154. NE is pleased to see the introduction of long-eared owl nesting baskets on the site, mitigating for any possible disturbance. To increase the biodiversity value of the proposed woodland further NE recommends the introduction of bat and bird boxes to provide nesting and roosting spots for the species whilst the woodland is developing. NE recommends that nest boxes should be placed at a variety of heights to encourage a wide variety of bird species and positioned to face between north and east, thus avoiding strong sunlight and the wettest winds.
155. NE supports the proposed ponds as part of the restoration scheme. It recommends that such ponds are designed and managed for great crested newts, a European protected species, in order to increase the biodiversity value of the site and link up other newt populations outside of the site. Ponds should be free of fish and have gradually sloping sides and ‘hummocky’ margins in order to provide habitats for amphibians and to prevent wildlife becoming trapped in the pond.
156. NE advised that it has noted the presence of several protected species on the Marley Hill surface mine site, in particular badgers, bats and breeding birds. Natural England has adopted standing advice for protected species which includes links to guidance on survey and mitigation. Natural England advises that the Council discusses protected species issues with its in-house ecologist, following the guidance in the standing advice.
157. In response to the Addendum, NE reaffirms it has no objection and no conditions are requested. It is noted that the application is in close proximity to Pockerly Farm Ponds Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Ridley Gill SSSI and Causey Bank Mires SSSI. Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, would not damage or destroy the interest features for which the sites have been notified. Natural England therefore advises the authority that these SSSI’s do not represent a constraint in determining this application.
158. Natural England expects the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to assess and consider the other possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application. These being: local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity); local landscape character, and local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species. It is recommended that advice is taken from the appropriate bodies in order to ensure the LPA has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal before it determines the application. In terms of biodiversity enhancements, it is noted that the application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application.
159. English Heritage (EH) –has made comments and observations on the application. EH states that its remit resides essentially with Gibside and its estate, and Causey Arch and the Tanfield Railway system. However, it broadly concurs with the findings of the Environmental Statement in respect of the historic environment, and agree that these heritage assets effectively fall outwith any area of visual impact. As a consequence EH is satisfied that the proposals would not cause substantial harm to, or loss of, these designated heritage assets in the vicinity of the application site or cause substantial - 30 - harm to their setting. EH urges the applicant to work closely with the County Archaeologists in respect of mitigation; pre-commencement field-walking, geophysics, potential archaeological evaluations and watching briefs.
160. Having considered the additional information English Heritage does not offer wish to offer any comments. It is recommended that the application be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of the Council’s conservation advice.
161. The Coal Authority (CA) – As owner of the coal the CA encourages and supports the working of coal in environmentally and socially acceptable ways to meet the market requirements. It is stated that it would process any associated application for an operating licence under Part II of the Coal Industry Act 1994 in accordance with its statutory duties. The CA makes a number of comments in support of the application which are summarised as follows: • The application would contribute to the Government’s policy framework for a diverse and secure energy supply and incorporates the principles of sustainable development. This policy objective was incorporated into the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). • It is noted that the NPPF sets the most challenging standards for surface coalmining in England and the CA believes that the coal industry can successfully operate within these principles provided they are applied equitably by all MPAs. • Records indicate that the application site contains a range of coal mining legacy features, including mine entries and past underground coal mining at shallow depth. The CA considers that through the submission the applicant is fully aware of these constraints and would ensure that operations on site are carried out safely. • That the planning regime takes account of the occurrence of minerals which can only be worked where they occur. • The role of surface mining in supplying the UK market with good quality coal including energy generation and that the electricity generators made similar statements in their submission to the Energy Review in 2006 which informed the current Energy White Paper in 2007. • That coal supply in the UK should contain a significant proportion of indigenous production. Noting that UK supplied coal offers security against the volatility of international coal prices, freight and exchange rates and a reliance on port capacity • The environmental impacts of imported coal are highlighted in terms of increased transport related carbon and sulphur emissions. • The importance of continued production and the need to bring environmentally acceptable new sites on stream to replace exhausted sites on a regular basis. • That it is essential that any unnecessary sterilisation of coal reserves through permanent development should be avoided as recognised in the NPPF. • Surface mining frequently assists with the removal of surface dereliction but view that local benefits go beyond this and include dealing with instability. • Rather than divert investment away from an area, surface mining of cola has often created inward investment particularly in transport infrastructure as well as reduced hazard potential from mine gases and spontaneous combustion, improved water quality from treating minewater discharges and recovery of minerals other than coal which helps to support the fireclay, building and brick
- 31 - clay industries.
162. Having considered the Addendum to the ES, the CA confirms that the application site falls within the defined Development High Risk Area; therefore within the application site and surrounding areas are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered in relation to the determination of this planning application. The CA does not wish to make any specific observations at this stage and reiterate its earlier comments which remain valid.
NON -STATUTORY RESPONSES :
163. RSPB – does not object to the application but makes a number of comments. RSPB had initial concerns regarding red kites using the area, given the proximity of the site to the core Derwent Valley population. The Environmental Statement (ES) has adequately demonstrated that the site is not used for breeding and also not heavily used by foraging birds. However, RSPB strongly recommends that continued liaison with The Friends of Red Kites (FoRK) occurs throughout the lifetime of the scheme to ensure that if increased activity occurs the appropriate steps can be taken. RSPB notes that this is recognised in the ES.
164. In terms of the restoration plan it is stated that although the use of the area by golden plover in the winter was fairly low RSPB welcome plans to provide habitat within the management plan for the benefit of this species. However, as the management also includes restoration of hedgerows and linear features, the resulting field sizes are rather small. This may not be as attractive to wintering flocks of plovers. RSPB suggest that the restoration plan needs to be clear in its objectives and what it can deliver within the restoration area. RSPB welcomes the creation of wet scrub suitable for willow tits in the scheme. However, consideration must be made of how this will be managed in the long term to prevent eventual succession to woodland of this priority habitat. Aftercare is key and this should be made explicit in the restoration plan.
165. Durham Wildlife Trust (DWT) – objects to the proposal. DWT considers that the application contravenes Policy M7 (Opencast coal and fireclay) in the County Durham Mineral Local Plan. DWT considers that the proposal is not environmentally acceptable as there would be significant negative impacts on a nationally significant population of dingy skipper butterfly, a UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species. The fact that the recorded butterfly count on this site has been the highest in the country clearly shows that the population is of national, not regional, significance. In addition the proposal involves the destruction of two active badger setts, with no guarantee that the mitigation measures will be successful. The badger is protected by law and there can be no certainty that following restoration the site would be able to support the existing badger population, or that the existing population would survive the operation phase of the development after forced displacement from setts and the proven susceptibility of badgers to persecution in this area.
166. It is considered that the application has not demonstrated that there is a need for action to address contaminated land issues as there has been no information presented to show that there is currently a pollution problem. The high quality wildlife already found on the site shows that existing overall environmental quality is good. The contribution of the scheme to the local economy does not in the Trust’s view outweigh the negative impacts of the scheme as the mine would only be active for a relatively short period of time. - 32 -
167. DWT also considers that the application contravenes Policy M29 of the County Durham Mineral Local Plan. It is of the view that the negative impacts on protected and Biodiversity Action Plan species outlined above obviously shows that local features of nature conservation value would not be conserved. The information supplied on the ongoing management of the restored site is very brief and no commitment to long term management of areas, included identifying where the resources required for such management would come from, has been made.
168. Butterfly Conservation (BC) – objects to the proposal. BC advises that its objection is based upon the fact that northern England's, and possibly Great Britain's, largest colony of the dingy skipper butterfly occupies this site. This species is afforded High Priority Species status within the UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plans and a single- day count of 180 butterflies indicates that this colony is of national, not regional, importance. BC notes that although the provided literature suggests that a proportion of the habitat occupied by the butterfly is to be left in situ , it appears that all information on the species' abundance, distribution and location of its breeding habitat have been gleaned by means of desk studies, as opposed to the targeted surveys which would have been appropriate to this colony. BC is of the view that given the size of population and the likely extent of the core breeding area, it is exceedingly unlikely that adequate mitigatory measure can be undertaken, and therefore urge that this proposal is rejected by your planners.
169. Durham County Badger Group (DCBG) – originally objected to the application because of the destruction of active setts, for which mitigation measures may not be able to compensate. DCBG did not think that the ecologists had produced a good comprehensive picture of badger activity on the application site, which would be difficult considering the high level of sett disturbance and badger persecution in the area. The loss of foraging was raised as a concern along with the re-location of badgers proposed initially which was considered to tricky. Following submission of the Addendum to the ES and modification to the working area, DCBG is pleased to see that the setts are to be retained.
170. The Group consider this to be a slightly better situation, but in itself has, in its view, not rendered the application environmentally acceptable. Although the setts are not to be destroyed, almost all the badger foraging surrounding them would be lost and do not consider it to be temporary as the restoration of the site would not be able to replace the earthworm content to a high enough level to sustain the clan of badgers. The Group is still of the opinion that loss of foraging would be above 25%, the level above which badger viability is considered to be threatened. One of the mitigation measures proposed was during phased restoration, the restored soils would be inoculated with earthworms, to aid soil recovery DCBG consider that it is unclear if inoculation is still intended and ask that this is clarified. The Group note that during operation, blasting may have to be used and setts could be disturbed, at a much greater distance than the proposed protection area surrounding each sett entrance. The Group ask that this is given some consideration and clarified with Natural England as to whether or not a disturbance licence may be needed.
171. Natural History Society of Northumbria – objects to the proposal. The grounds of objection relate to the impact of the proposed development on the important populations of insects on brownfield land and the destruction of ancient woodland.
- 33 - 172. British Telecommunications plc (BT) –has studied the proposal with respect to EMC and related problems to BT point-to-point microwave radio links. The conclusion is that, the project indicated should not cause interference to BT’s current and presently planned radio networks.
173. Public Health England (formerly the Health Protection Agency (HPA) – has made a number of comments regarding the application. The PHE notes that existing contaminated land would be remediated and the applicant proposes controls to minimise risk of spreading or creating further contamination. Emissions from operations would include particulate matter. It is noted that the residential receptors within 500m of the site are identified and that mitigation measures for the control of particulate matter would be sufficient such that any residual effect at nearby sensitive receptors would be minor to insignificant. It is noted that the applicant proposes to agree with Durham County Council and Gateshead Council Environmental Health Departments the monitoring of particulate matter (including respirable) on site and off site with trigger levels for action and monitoring data would be published.
174. If planning permission is granted for the proposed development, then it is recommended that the planning authority does apply conditions to require that: mitigation measures employed by the site must be sufficient to prevent adverse impacts off-site arising from dust, and any dust released from the site must be appropriately controlled through a dust management plan, including the establishment of criteria for when the site would suspend operations if dust levels are unacceptable. Provided that the site is well managed and regulated the potential for risk to public health is considered to be low. It is recommended that the planning authority consult with the Local Authority Environmental Health Departments at Durham County Council and Gateshead Council for matters relating to: nuisance potential; contaminated land and background air quality.
175. It is noted that amongst other permits and consents, operations would require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency to operate (under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010). Conditions of the Environmental Permit would require the installation to comply with the requirements of best available techniques (BAT). Public Health England is a consultee for bespoke environmental permit applications and would respond separately to any such consultation. Public Health England advises that it has no additional comments in response to information contained in the Addendum to the ES.
176. NHS North Durham Clinical Commissioning Group (formerly the Durham Primary Care Trust) provided health information pertaining to the geographical area involved. In response to the Addendum the Group advises that it has no further comments to make noting that the original health profile of the community within the County Durham boundary previously submitted by NHS County Durham and Darlington (the former primary care trust) remains pertinent. In addition, the Group is also aware of and concur with information and comments submitted by the former Health Protection Agency in 2013 and any subsequent responses from Public Health England.
177. Health & Safety Executive (Hazardous Installations Directorate) – advises that Environmental Impact Assessments are concerned with projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. HSE’s principal concerns are the health and safety of people at work and those affected by work activities. HSE has no - 34 - comments on this environmental statement.
178. Northern Gas Networks – Advises that it owns and operates a high pressure natural gas pipeline in the area. However, the pipeline runs outside of the development area to the west of the site and so is not affected by the proposals unless there is an intention to use blasting techniques. In which case there is a maximum permitted vibration level of 75mm/sec Peak Particle Velocity. The proposed site access to the development is to the East, which is away from the pipeline.
179. In response to the Addendum to the ES which involves the translocation of soils in the vicinity of the pipeline, Northern Gas Networks Note that no excavation works, blasting or tree planting would take place within the extended area of the proposal. Therefore it can see no proximity issues relating to the pipeline. The pipeline is subject to an easement that extends 20ft either side of the pipeline. No works should take place within the easement without prior arrangement with Northern Gas Networks. From the information received, Northern Gas Networks considers that the development appears to be outside of the pipeline easement. Assistance is officered if it is thought that the site boundary lies within the easement or wish for Plant Protection team to attend site and mark out the pipeline.
180. Network Rail – Notes that the site abuts the Tanfield Railway, which is a heritage line and not owned by Network Rail. The working area is remote from Network Rail infrastructure (approximately 5km away) and, in the circumstances, has no comments to make on the proposed development.
181. Newcastle International Airport (NIA) – Is satisfied that the proposed development would not result in any obstruction to aircraft transiting overhead having had concerns at the pre-application stage. With regard to the creation of bird attracting habitats on- site, on a number of occasions the Airport has requested that the developer fully consider aviation issues in relation to bird attracting features on the site. It does not however appear that this has been considered within the planning application. Whilst this is disappointing, as the site lies just outside of the 13 km statutory consultation zone for bird considerations, NIA had requested this information informally and had hoped that the developer would consider this request. On this basis NIA would not therefore offer any objection to the scheme.
182. CPRE Durham Branch – object to the application. It is noted that CPRE submitted evidence at the previous inquiry in 1989, at a time when areas of dereliction on the site were substantially greater than at present and an appeal that was dismissed. It is considered that the site has now recolonised with areas of attractive woodland and productive arable land and that now only relatively small areas of dereliction require treatment. It is stated that one of the concerns and reasons why the appeal was dismissed related to the toxic land where the coke works had been and it was believed that a disturbance of this land would pollute the water courses and presumably this would still be the case after 25 years. Concerns are raised regarding the impact upon good agricultural land that would take years, if ever, to return to its present production levels.
183. Comments are made regarding references in the application to high quality coal with CPRE considering that it is coking coal which the power stations are not designed to burn and such coal burns with a likely loss of boiler efficiency of 2-3% when burned as a solid fuel. It is considered that it is misleading to state that there is a very strong - 35 - need for the coal and burning such fuel in power stations is a waste of a scarce resource. In any case, it is noted that the demand for power station coal is falling rapidly and will further fall as several large power stations come to the end of their lives in the next few years. CPRE is fundamentally opposed to any new, unabated coal fired power stations, as well as opencast mining, in terms of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as well as landscape impacts. CPRE believes that continuing to burn unabated coal is contradictory to the Government’s objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 which it has committed to do through to the 2008 Climate Change Act. Its argument over many years is that coal, especially coking coal, is a finite resource and should be left in the ground until there is an urgent need.
184. County Durham Local Access Forum – In commenting at the pre-application stage the Forum supported the need to survey habitat types from public rights of way considering it is the quality of the landscape through which access routes go that is important. It was noted that Red Kites are often seen and attract visitors and that the scheme would need to take into account habitat restoration to ensure that this continues. Recognition of saved development plan policies was welcomed related to public rights of way and environmental protection. Specifically it was stated that restoration should ensure that, apart from returning existing rights of way to their current route unless the equivalent or alternative route is clearly more appropriate, opportunities are actively taken for creation of new rights of way where possible, Such as use of coal haul roads to tie in with other routes, and that every opportunity is taken for them to be available for use at the highest of right of non-motorised access possible (i.e. foot, cycle and ridden and driven horse users. In response to the Addendum the Forum states that it has reviewed the covering letter and the non-technical summary and can find nothing that would make it want to change its initial response. The forum notes that the plans have been changed, but this is in a direction that it welcomes.
DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :
185. Durham County Council Spatial Policy – Highlights that the policy framework against which this planning application will need to be determined is evolving. Nevertheless, given the timescales for the preparation of the County Durham Local Plan, it is understood that that the planning application will be determined prior to the adoption of the County Durham Local Plan. In these circumstances it is recommended that due weight be given to the relevant saved policies of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan, in particular Policy M7 (Opencast Coal and Fireclay) which is broadly in line with paragraph 149 of the NPPF. It is also recommended that the guidance set out in the NPPF and its associated Planning Practice Guide be considered as key material considerations which should be read alongside the relevant saved development plan policies. In this respect it is essential that full regard is given to:
• Paragraph 144, in particular the requirement ‘to give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy’; and • Paragraph 149, in particular if the proposed development is found not to be environmentally acceptable any national, local or community benefits which outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission.
186. Durham County Council Landscape – Officers consider that the proposals would have some significant effects on the character of the local landscape during the operational period and until such time as the restored landscape began to mature. The restoration - 36 - proposals are considered to be in keeping with the character of the landscape and would be broadly beneficial in time. It is considered that the proposals would have some significant effects on the visual amenity of residents, recreational users of countryside paths and trails and motorists. It is noted that the scheme has been designed to reduce those effects where possible but significant effects would remain but these would be of a relatively localised and temporary (medium term) nature.
187. Durham County Council Ecology – Officers object to the proposal. Officers consider that the Marley Hill site has a very high biodiversity value, including: • a large area of linked habitat networks across the county boundaries, • a diverse range of habitats and associated species demonstrating natural succession over a large area, • protected habitats including ancient woodland, • protected species including some rare or notable species, • species and habitat assemblages which are now rare in the north east of England.
188. The mining proposal would result in the loss of almost 100% of the important habitats and species on site. The proposed mitigation is primarily by translocation which is not proven to work and therefore any loss of biodiversity value cannot be adequately mitigated for; meaning that the proposed opencast mine would be contrary to those policies in the NPPF, the emerging Durham Local Plan, Gateshead’s UDP and emerging Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan protecting biodiversity. Similarly there is no proven need to remediate the small area of pollution on site but which, if needed could be remediated and mitigated on a small scale without opencast mining. Given the major loss to biodiversity opencast mining as proposed in the planning application should not be permitted at Marley Hill.
189. Durham County Council Design and Conservation – Officers raise no objection to the application considering that a detailed and professional assessment of the setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets within a 5km radius has been submitted, supplemented by visualisations within the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment. This assessment has been carried out to an acceptable standard, with the judgements made backed up with documentary evidence and the visualisations and officers are generally in agreement with the conclusions reached. Officers do not consider that there would be substantial harm to the nearby listed building at Beckley Farmhouse.
190. It is noted that there are a number of designated heritage assets within the surrounding area, including the Grade II listed Beckley Farmhouse 500m south west of the site, the Grade I listed and scheduled monument Causey Arch and Culvert to the South, and the Tanfield, Beamish Burn and Burnopfield Conservation Areas. The Marley Hill Conservation Area is closest to the application site, but is governed by Gateshead Council. The adverse visual impacts on the Marley Hill Conservation Area within the Gateshead District are more definable.
191. In response to the ES Addendum, the Design and Conservation officer’s main interest is the potential impact on the setting of heritage assets as a result of the changes. Officers have assessed the revised details and conclude that there would be no additional impact on the setting or significance of these assets.
192. Durham County Council Archaeology – Raise no objections to the proposal. Officers are in agreement that the currently known heritage assets are generally of local - 37 - significance and interest, albeit a few which when taken together are of potential regional interest. However, consider that there was outstanding work required to inform the planning application, namely a geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation.
193. Following additional evaluation work and submission of the Addendum to the ES, officers advise that pre-determination archaeological evaluation works have been undertaken (geophysical survey, fieldwalking and targeted trial trenching) in order to better determine the potential for archaeological remains to be disturbed by the proposed development and their local, regional or national significance. Using the results of the evaluation works, a proposed mitigation strategy has been put forward by the applicant's historic environment consultants. Archaeology officers fully support the proposal to include an aspect of community involvement in the archaeological mitigation strategy should planning permission be granted. It is considered that this can be secured through conditions requiring a written scheme of investigation to be submitted by the applicant prior to development commencing and another requiring the final analysis and reporting is carried out, published if required and deposited with the two local Historic Environment Records.
194. Officers consider that the proposed restoration scheme for the site also has benefits for the historic environment which Archaeological officers support. Officers do not consider that there is a need to condition anything specific to the historic environment with regards to it unless the Mineral Planning Authority feel it is necessary. However, should the restoration plan change significantly from what is described then officers would wish to be notified and/or reconsulted to ensure that these benefits are not lost or unduly watered down. It is noted that as the site crosses into Gateshead there is a need to ensure that the requirements of the Gateshead Archaeology Officer are also taken on board. The pre1840 Andrews Hill farm is within that area and it is for that Council to advise with regards to the community excavation side of the mitigation strategy.
195. Durham County Council Environmental Health & Consumer Protection (noise) – Raise no objection but makes a number of comments and requests for clarification in respect of certain elements of the application. These being: which items of plant would be used during both the short-term operations and operational phases of the development; whether at any stage of development it would be intended to use items of plant outside of the proposed working hours in order to assess if any further noise assessments would be required to determine the impact on the nearest localised sensitive receptors to the site. A separate noise level for Saturday morning working was suggested as there is some variability in the measured background noise measurements at all of the receptors on a Saturday compared to a weekday. Officers note that the noise assessment includes predicted noise levels for short-term activities or operations that fall into the category of temporary works which would be afforded an increased noise level of 70 dB(A) Leq (1Hr). It is considered important that activities or operations that fall into the category of temporary works are clearly defined prior to the commencement of works on site including timescales. Officers consider that this may form a part of the Noise Management and Action Plan and that a condition should be included to require the submission of a Noise Management Action Plan for approval prior to the commencement of works on the site.
196. In terms of the additional information submitted as part of the Addendum officers note the only plant operated during the night-time period would be pumps to regulate the - 38 - water levels on the site that is typically the case with this type of activity. This is a continuous noise source and the correspondence makes reference to the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and to a level of 42 dB 1Hr LAeq (free-field). A condition can therefore be included to restrict the level of noise to not exceed 42 dB 1 Hr LAeq (free-field) during the night-time period in accordance with the Technical Guidance. It is noted that all maintenance activities that may take place during extended hours would be carried out within a covered workshop and therefore it is unlikely that this would give rise to any noise being carried from the site to impact on neighbouring sensitive receptors. It is recommended that the application should provide details of any work that falls into this category to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority together with the extended hours during which the work is to be carried out.
197. The types of short term activities that would qualify for increased noise level are set out in the Planning Practice Guidance and it is highlighted that the times and duration of when these types of activities are to be carried out (permitted 8 week period) should be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and can be dealt with by way of condition. The submission of a Noise Management Action Plan is acknowledged as being a matter that can be required through condition. Officers note the comments made concerning the issues raised regarding monitored ambient background noise levels during the Saturday morning period. It is accepted that the derived noise limits in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance are dependent on the measured ambient background noise levels (LA90) and not the measured LAeq. There is also variability of the measured LAeq levels at each of the sensitive receptors that can be expected from the noise sources in this area and also with the time of day the measurements are made. The derived noise limits for this period therefore should be made in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance by the addition of 10 dB on the measured ambient background (LA90) level at each of the identified receptors.
198. Durham County Council Environmental Health & Consumer Protection (Air quality and dust) – Raise no objection but makes a number of comments with regard to air quality and nuisance dust emissions. It is noted that an assessment of potential emissions of PM10 has been carried out and the predicted concentration levels have shown compliance with the National Air Quality Objectives for this pollutant (24 Hr mean 50 microgrammes/m3 and an annual mean of 40 microgrammes/m3).
199. National Air Quality Objectives for PM2.5 have now been included in UK legislation and it is understood that these will apply from 2015. The duration of the proposed mineral extraction activities on the site is likely to extend over this period. Therefore, it is requested that an assessment of the potential for emissions of PM2.5 to occur from the activities on the site, having regard to the availability of current baseline information contained in the National Air Quality Emissions Inventory Database, be carried out.
200. A proposed methodology for the assessment of nuisance dust being carried from the site is included in the Environmental Statement involving the carrying out of passive dust monitoring (sticky pads’ positioned close to the perimeter boundary of the site) at three locations. It is requested, that prior to the commencement of works on the site, the number of and location for the passive dust monitors is agreed with the Local Planning Authority. This information could be incorporated into the Dust Action Plan (DAP) that should be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of working activities on the site. It is noted that continuous monitoring is currently being undertaken at a location within Gateshead and that it will - 39 - be for that Authority to agree a ‘trigger’ level to be included within the proposed DAP.
201. It is noted that there are a number of activities that are proposed to be carried out on the site that will be regulated by either the Local Authority (Gateshead MBC) or the Environment Agency depending on the type of or characteristics of the activity. The required permits are required prior to the commencement of activities on the site.
202. In terms of the additional information submitted as part of the Addendum officers note that an assessment of the potential for emissions from PM2.5 has been undertaken. It is stated that at the current time there is not an air quality objective for the pollutant but one is to be introduced from 1 January 2015 (Annual Mean 25 ug/m 3). The predicted background concentration levels of PM2.5 have been obtained for the site from the National Atmospheric Emissions Database and they are well below the air quality objective at this site.
203. The outcome of research by Newcastle University determined an increase in PM10 emission concentrates of 2.1 ug/m3 from surface mineral activities. Although surface mineral extraction activities are defined as an uncontrolled or fugitive source of particulate emissions there is not, at the moment, a method detailed in Technical Guidance LAQM.TG (09) for determining the impact of PM2.5 emissions. Since the assessed concentrations of PM2.5 are well below the 2015 annual mean air quality objective then officers are in agreement with the conclusion that there are no significant assessed adverse impacts of fine particulates from the proposed activities.
204. Durham County Council Environmental Health & Consumer Protection (Contamination) – has raised a number of queries and comments relating to potential contaminated land issues. Officers note that overall this is a complicated site which has had a significant amount of investigation and analysis undertaken on it to achieve an outline remediation proposal. It is only outline and as always the “devil will be in the detail” and as such there are still additional reports/documents which need to be produced and agreed prior to any commencement on site. All of the above would need to be discussed and approved with the Local Authority and Environment Agency where applicable. Officers consider that at present that the outline remediation option appears satisfactory and is possibly one of the only opportunities a site such as this would get remediated to this standard.
205. On the other hand, it would appear that from the findings of all investigation works to date, that should planning be refused, this site may be determined under Part 2A, and, as the land owner, UK Coal would be required to undertake some remedial works. The enforcement could come from the Local Authority and Environment Agency depending upon the issue of the acid tar lagoons (i.e. designated as a special site?) However, the works are unlikely to be anywhere near as comprehensive as currently proposed.
206. In response to additional information contained in the Addendum, officers note that the applicant has responded to the comments raised by both Durham and Gateshead officers regarding land contamination. Some of the comments have been answered but some require further investigative work, risk assessment and remediation proposals to be undertaken before they can be fully considered. Given the submitted additional information, comments from the Environment Agency and proposals, Pollution Control officers have no objections to the further works taking place via condition should planning permission be granted. Officers stress that the further works (sampling, risk assessment, remediation proposals and verification testing) are all - 40 - necessary to be able to satisfy a contaminated land condition.
207. Durham County Council Public Rights of Way – consider that the proposal offers the potential to significantly improve the public rights of way network in this part of Durham, and as such have no objection. It is noted that there are a number of public rights of way which cross or abut the site. Pre consultations with UK Coal and liaison with Gateshead MBC Public Rights of Way staff have ensured that all affected public rights of way would be adequately catered for during the period of working, with significant improvements to the wider public rights of way network within Durham and Gateshead as part of the proposed restoration of the site. Certain minor issues require further clarification, in particular the route of the proposed bridleway through Beckley Wood.
208. Within Durham, Bridleway 71 and Footpath 69 Stanley would need to be temporarily diverted under section 261 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The alternative routes proposed are considered acceptable. It is noted that the applicant also proposes to temporarily divert sections of Footpaths 4 and 5 Gateshead onto the Durham side of the site, although officers do not envisage any issues with this. It is proposed that Gateshead MBC undertake all section 261 orders connected with the scheme. All legal order costs associated with the affected public rights of way must be met by the applicant and all proposed new footpaths and bridleways within Durham must be dedicated as public rights of way again by the applicant.
209. Access & Rights of Way Officers consider that the revised proposals set out in the Addendum to the ES have no significant changes affecting the public rights of way network on the Durham side of the site and therefore have no further comments.
210. Durham County Council Employability Team – in line with the Targeted Recruitment and Training (TRT) Policies and emerging draft Developer’s contribution officers would seek to include a commitment from the applicant to engage with both Durham TRT & Employability Team and Gateshead to jointly support the recruitment and selection of new jobs. Durham and Gateshead officers have agreed a suggested / tentative target of 3 apprentices and 6 jobs to be targeted towards unemployed/unwaged Durham and Gateshead residents. It is hoped that officers can assist with the wider employment needs beyond this target and that a high percentage of the jobs are secured by Durham or Gateshead residents. Officers would like to agree targets in a Section 106 as suggested in pre-application advice but the draft agreement does not mention an employment and training target. Officers would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with the applicant alongside Gateshead officers.
211. In response to the Addendum, the Employability Team emphasises its willingness to explore employment and skills training that would assist the local community by improving job prospects and employability. Noting that 62 jobs would be created as well as 6 jobs during the reclamation works, the Employability Team asks that the applicant works in collaboration with Durham County Council and Gateshead Council to secure candidates from their partner organisations as part of the proposed planning obligation. Both Councils Targeted Recruitment & Training Officers have agreed a target of 3 apprentices and 6 jobs to be targeted towards unemployed Durham and Gateshead residents. It is hoped that officers can assist with the wider employment needs beyond this target and that a high percentage of the jobs are secured by Durham or Gateshead residents.
- 41 -
PUBLIC RESPONSES :
212. The proposals were displayed at public exhibitions held by the applicant at Marley Hill (29 May 2012), Sunniside (30 May 2012) and at Burnopfield (31 May 2012) prior to formal submission. The application was also advertised by both Councils through site notice and in the local press as part of the planning procedures. Within County Durham notification letters were sent to properties within 1km of the site boundary. Within Gateshead notification letters were sent to properties in Marley Hill, Sunniside and other individual properties within the vicinity of the site boundary. Receipt of the Addendum to the Environmental Statement was advertised by both Councils through site notice and in the local press as part of the planning procedures and those who commented on the application were also notified.
Application submitted to Durham County Council – objection
213. Within County Durham 75 individual letters of objection have been received from individuals in response to the application from the local area including the occupiers of Beckley Farm and Bankwell House. 63 of these objections are proforma letters from residents of north Durham (Stanley, Shield Row, South Moor, Greencroft and Tanfield Village). The grounds of objection and concern raised by those objecting to the proposed development are summarised below.
Residential amenity/Quality of life • The proposal would cause extensive, noise, traffic (wagons), mud etc on roads, dust and debris causing major disruption for this area. • It is considered that the land is full of wildlife and history and offers on the doorstep countryside relaxation to many residents of Sunniside. The natural beauty of this land requires no reclamation. • The works are planned for a number of years causing much disruption to the lives of residents, such as noise levels and haulage traffic which has safety issues for young children and the elderly. • Specific concerns are raised as to the circumstances of the resident of Bankwell House. • Concern that there would be an environmental impact to the area. • It is stated that the proposal would be within 500m of properties. • Concern that there would be health problems including sleep deprivation for shift workers. It is considered that this could amount to torture which obviously is prohibited under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The loss of enjoyment of a person’s garden is also considered to be a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. • Concerns that human rights would be affected by the proposed development given the development would be so close to residential properties. • It is noted that Beckley Farm is a Grade 2 listed building which has recently undergone significant renovation work to enhance its character and as such it will suffer due to this scheme both visually as stated in the application. Concerns are raised regarding the loss of value. • Concerns are raised regarding the school in nearby Byermoor and it is queried how it would be possible for children to enjoy their lessons and outdoors time with a surface mine right on their doorstep. • People bought houses because located in a quiet village with good walks, - 42 - would be destroyed if approved • Concerns are expressed that there would be adverse effects on the value of nearby properties and the desirability of them. • Should the Birklands opencast coal mine proposal be approved then concerns are raised that residents would be surrounded by opencast mining, therefore significantly increasing the potential for poor air quality.
Noise • Concerns are raised regarding the noise impacts from the proposal and also concerns regarding WHO guidelines. • Noise as a result of the development would affect tourism, livestock and agriculture.
Dust • In association with the proposed development there would be a deterioration of air quality. • Surface mining is a loud and dirty business. Being at the top of a hill this will be exasperated by the increased wind speeds. It is considered that dust would be spread over a greater distance meaning an increase in window cleaning fees for local residents. If windows are open there is concern that dust would get into home. • Health related issues relating to dust emissions and air quality from surface mining have been raised. With specific concerns relating to children with asthma and if conditions worsened then legal opinions may be sought if the development was considered a contributing factor. • The ability of the operator to control the dust is queried.
Blasting • Safety concerns are raised regarding blasting and the effect on old tunnels running from Marley Hill to Blaydon Burn. • Concerns of blasting on the Grade 2 Listed Beckley Farm and that the application states that there may be limited effects, however it is considered that there should be none. • Concerns of blasting on the world’s oldest railway bridge (Causey Arch) and should be considered with regard to the blasting which has been proposed. • It is considered that there are no guarantees that there would be no damage due to blasting.
Traffic • Increased traffic generation and highway safety issues on the road network as a result of the proposals have been raised as concerns, on both routes. • It is considered that there are far too many wagons use Barcus Close Lane to begin with and also Crookgate Bank to Consett Road, therefore any further wagons would be intolerable. • There would be an increase in traffic, fumes, traffic jams on routes through Gateshead. • Concerns are raised that traffic emerging from Bodgins Lane onto the A6076 (which is a very busy road) would be subjected to increased risk as the views at the junction towards the proposed site entry are very poor. With the addition of approximately 42 daily wagon movements this would prove to be extremely hazardous. - 43 - • Increase traffic could disrupt emergency services accessing properties along the A6076. • It is noted that the A692 is a fairly busy main road that can become very hazardous in the winter due to the hills and an increase in lorries would cause more danger in winter conditions for other road users. The surface of the road, certainly in the Gateshead area, is in poor condition. Lorries and extra traffic would only make this problem worse. • The area is popular area for cyclists and concerns are raised that the roads would become even more dangerous for cyclists due to an increase in traffic and deteriorating conditions of the road surface being a hazard and driving visitors out of the area. There is also the increase in noise and pollution caused by the extra vehicles. • Safety concerns are raised. It is noted that there have been accidents on the main roads; A692 and A6076. • It is stated that traffic can be very busy through Sunniside and if the proposal was approved the increase in noise and pollution from the additional vehicles in these areas would be very unpleasant and have potentially negative health effects. • Concerns that proposed HGV routes would not be adhered to and vehicles would use unsuitable roads through surrounding villages and other unsuitable roads. • Concerns are raised in respect of the proposed haul route through Stanley and the passing of East Stanley Primary School and the North Durham Academy on the A693. Worries are expressed regarding the existing busy periods on the road and that extra HGVs would create a noise and vibration distraction for students. • It is considered that the road from Stanley down Station Road / North Thorn is not designed to carry constant HGVs. • Existing problems of vibration are experienced by residents living close to the main road which has caused problems in relation to being a contributory cause of the need for replacement damp proofing. • It is considered that with a high volume of children and young people in the Shield Row area, traffic calming would need to be added (perhaps near to Shield Row Post Office) as cars, vans and lorries already race up and down the road and further HGVs would increase the risk to children crossing the road. • Dust and noise pollution would increase for residents of north Durham as a result of the development.
Landscape and Visual impact • The impact upon Beckley Farm in terms of visual impact is considered to incorrect.
Ecology • There would be damage to wildlife, the habitat of number of species including protected species. • Harmful impacts on flora and fauna including kites, hawks/kestrels, owls, newts, bats badgers, deer, a rare butterfly colony would result from the proposed development. • The land is a haven for flora and fauna. This includes a rare butterfly colony (Dingy Whites) as well as deer and badgers.
- 44 -
Hydrology • Flooding in recent years has been an issue in the UK and concerns are raised regarding possible cracks and slippages. • Concerns that a natural spring on the land and a stream running through Burdon Dene could be irrevocably polluted by the workings and fall-out from them.
Recreation • Concerns are raised that recreation would be affected and there would be a knock on effect on health.
Contamination • It is queried if the land is so dangerous why has something not been done sooner and it is noted that plants are growing on the site. • Concerns are expressed that contaminated material would be removed from another part of the site and buried directly opposite to the front of Bankwell House.
Cultural heritage • The proposed development would have an adverse impact on heritage assets. • The industrial heritage of the area is highlighted noting the Tanfield Steam Railway and that the area was used as a backdrop to the BBC TV series ‘The Victorians’ (2009) which examined the industrial heritage of the area.
Employment • It is considered that in terms of employment the jobs would be filled by an existing work force with no benefit to the community.
Impact on tourism and effect on the local economy • The proposal would have an adverse impact on local businesses and tourism. It is noted that many people holiday in the area due to the proximity of the Beamish Open Air museum and other tourist attractions. • Many businesses have invested in the area recently such as restaurants, pubs, hotels, self-catering apartments and bed and breakfast establishments, as tourism increases and concerns are raised that the proposal would affect their businesses greatly as the area becomes known for the open cast mining. • Potential tourism development could be affected by the proposal to the detriment of the local community as well as visitors to the area. • It is noted that many people holiday in the area due to the proximity of the Beamish Open Air museum and other tourist attractions. Many businesses have invested in the area recently such as restaurants, pubs, hotels, self- catering apartments and bed and breakfast establishments, as tourism increases. I am concerned that if the proposed opencast is passed this will affect their businesses greatly as the area becomes known for the open cast mining. • Visitors from all over the world come to Beamish Museum and Tanfield Railway – this development will deter tourism and income generation for County Durham.
- 45 -
The applicant and the coal industry • Concerns have been raised regarding examples of UKC sites where sites has not been restored and concern the same could occur here. • UKC attitude to its applications if granted it would be to the detriment of the local community and there is no guarantee that the company would restore the land or leave the site on the due date. • It is stated that there is no guarantee that the company will exist and has made promises in the past regarding the retention of deep mines which have not been kept. • It is queried if the land had been up for sale to pay off debts. • There have been incidents of opencast breaching conditions of licences and it would be up to the Councils to enforcement the conditions. It is queried if the Councils have the time and money to do so. • The application is not in the public interest and of no benefit to the community it is purely financial benefit to a private company. • The view is expressed that the proposal is motivated by money but residents cannot voice objections on financial grounds such as negative effect on house prices. • If approved the area would be put in the hands of a company who does not act honourably and proposes a site in Northumberland that would come within 150m of a primary school. • It is stated that people were fobbed off and patronised when concerns were raised at the public exhibitions. • UKC failed to provide information previously promised to residents. • UK Coal intends to cease trading in the near future and concerns are raised that any promises made to re-instate and improve the land after the end of the process may not be kept. It is stated that this has happened with other opencast workings elsewhere in the country. It is considered that this should be a worry to Councillors and planners responsible to the community in general for the stewardship of the land we live in as well as local residents. • Concerns are raised that the applicant was not aware of who owned Burdon Dene and that if such an elementary mistake with reference to maps and plans, it is wondered what else they have misconstrued.
Other matters • Concerns regarding the resource ability of the County Council and Gateshead Council to monitor the site should planning permission be granted. • It is stated that performa letters of support submitted in respect of another application have been from workers and contractors with no ties to the area. • The proposal would contradict Gateshead’s carbon neutral approach. • Gateshead has not advertised the application to all those that would be affected by the increased traffic and pollution such as those in Lobley Hill and Sunniside who should be informed of the application. • There is a dwindling market for coal in the UK as power stations look to move to bio fuels. Mining in this area has its place historically but should not be part of its future. • The general proposed scheme would cause significant visual impact, traffic congestion, noise pollution, machinery smells and access difficulties for the significant surrounding area as a whole, these effects would outweigh any positive impact the scheme could hope to achieve. - 46 - • It is noted that a pervious application in the vicinity of Gibside was refused and the land purchased by the National Trust. Concerns are raised that the current application is close by and it is queried if the National Trust is aware of the application as it will no doubt still have an effect on their area. • The redevelopment of the site is regarded as a good idea having previously suffer with off road motorcyclists using it as a dirt track but this is no longer a problem. However, the development may encourage petty thieves into the area and increases in crime. • Queries regarding the erection of a bungalow in the area were rejected as the land is green belt but this this apparently counts for nothing with regard to opencast mining. • Lack of consultation with residents of north Durham on a development that would very much impact on their homes.
Application submitted to Durham County Council – support
214. 435 representations of the support have been submitted to Durham County Council the majority being proforma letters. The letters fall into six groups. These being: 18 individual letters from local and national businesses (suppliers of plant, equipment, safety equipment, tyres, fencing, subcontractors); 190 proforma letters from current UKC employees at sites within County Durham (Park Wall) and Northumberland (Butterwell and Potland Burn); 11 proforma letters from those with family members working at existing UKC sites; 11 proforma letters from those with friends working at existing UKC sites; 24 proforma letters from Tanfield Railway Volunteers, and 180 proforma letters from visitors to the area. It should be noted that when acknowledgements were sent to those who made representations several people contacted the Council to state that they had not written to the Council and were not aware of the planning application. 1 individual letter of support not falling into the above groups has also been received. The grounds of support raised are summarised below.
The applicant • It is stated that UKC sites (past and present) operate as a good neighbour working in an environmentally sensitive manner with high standards to recover coal, providing affordable energy for the UK.
Employment and the economy • Employees of existing sites express the wish to remain in this line of work and granting the scheme would allow them to continue to work near home. • It is considered that UKC provides employment for people in the north east and supports apprenticeships for people who want to become skilled tradesmen and the proposed site would provide further opportunities for employment as well as continuing employment. • The scheme could also support apprenticeships for young people as well as businesses in the supply chain. • The positive economic impact that the proposal would have to the local and regional economy (directly and indirectly) including spin-off work to local businesses is highlighted as well as the negative impact if the proposal is refused. • The proposal provides an opportunity to invest and provide growth to the region.
- 47 -
Energy generation • The view is expressed that as a nation we are still dependent on coal for energy production and UKC plays an important part in supplying indigenous coal into the Country’s energy mix and the 1.1 million tonnes of coal from Marley Hill will support this. • It is considered that if the industry fails the Country would be forced to use imported fuel, possibly leading to fuel price increases. • The proposal would assist the national economy by providing high quality home produced coal in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner.
Restoration benefits • The short term environmental disruption referred to by others is unreasonable and incorrect and there are benefits upon restoration. • Visitors to the area state that they would like to see the restoration of the land and would appreciate and enjoy having better access to the surrounding land as at present due to the severe contamination of much of the soil they are restricted to where they can walk in the area. • It is stated that the proposal would clean up a derelict former colliery site and areas containing tars and other contaminated waste to provide footpaths, bridleways and cycles paths for local people and visitors to enjoy. • The restoration proposals which also include the creation of two nature reserves, including open water to encourage new bird species to the area are highlighted. • The proposed 2km extension of the Tanfield Railway upon restoration is considered a benefit for the future development of the heritage railway. • The reclamation of the site would be at no expense to the public finances. • Reference is made to successful restoration schemes in the region and that the restoration of this site would benefit tourism with specific mention to Gibside and the local people.
Other matters • If the scheme fails on traffic issues then the Metro Centre Christmas shopping would have to be stopped as would rush hours. Councils tend to be far more stricter on the wagons going and coming from the site than other firms that use wagons and vehicles. • Which is preferable fracking or the proposed scheme? No contest – opencast.
215. The North East Chamber of Commerce (NECC) – supports the application that it considers would not only make a difference to the local environment but would provide high quality jobs and investment in the area. The NECC endorses the economic benefits of the proposal. It notes that the extraction of coal continues to play a strong role in the regional economy employing large numbers of people and providing numerous benefits through training, local spend and supply chain opportunities. It is noted that the proposal would provide over 1 million tonnes of high quality coal for use in power operation markets with the added benefit of 175,000 tonnes of fireclay for the local brickmaking industry. Should the application be successful it would lead to the creation of at least 62 direct jobs for over four years with up to 73 employed at peak times. There would also be additional employment related to contamination activities. NECC consider that this would represent a significant investment in the area and furthermore a community fund would be provided providing major developments to
- 48 - local communities.
Application submitted to Gateshead Council – objections
216. Gateshead Council has received 55 representations of objection (including 2 objections from 2 local Ward Councillors). In addition a 366 and a 659 name petition objecting to the application have been received. The grounds of objection and concern raised by those objecting to the proposed development are summarised below.
Noise • Detrimental impact on health from noise pollution. • Concern over noise from blasting. • Concern over general noise levels that would be generated by the proposal and the impact on local residents. • Concern over increased noise from increased traffic and lorries • Concern over increased traffic leading to traffic congestion on roads that are already overcrowded which will lead to disruption. • Unreasonable levels of disruption would be caused to homes in Marley Hill.
Dust • Dust from contaminated materials will detrimentally affect nearby residents. • Detrimental impact on health from dust pollution. • Scheme would release pollution into the atmosphere.
Blasting • Concerns over noise from blasting. • Concern over potential impacts from blasting back-fires. • Concerns over the impact of blasting on ground stability particularly given that there are underground tunnels in the area.
Traffic • Concerns about access to properties in the vicinity of the site from increased traffic. • Extra wear and damage would be caused to roads in the area from additional traffic and lorries. • Increased traffic would lead to an increased risk of accidents on roads where accidents have previously occurred. • Concerns about increased noise and air pollution from increased traffic and heavy lorries passing through nearby settlements, including Sunniside, Streetgate and Lobley Hill and associated health problems. • Watergate Bank on the A692 is already an accident blackspot and heavy lorries will pose an additional risk on an already dangerous road. • Proposal would only be acceptable if the applicant constructed a bypass.
Landscape and visual impact • Harm to the countryside and Green Belt. • Site is in an area of high landscape value and the landscape would be damaged by the proposal. • Proposal will seriously affect beautiful Derwent Valley views. • Local countryside needs to recover from historic mining. • Lorries could be re-routed to Lamesley instead rather than through villages. - 49 -
Ecology and biodiversity • Detrimental impact on wildlife and biodiversity including on various types of birds, moths, caterpillars butterflies (Dingy Skipper and Common Blue), hares, red squirrels, rabbits, foxes, stoats, weasels, deer, hedgehogs and badgers, trees, hedges, bushes, wild plants and flowers, fungi, old grassland, lowland heath, dry grassland, SSSI’s and other designated nature sites.
Hydrology • Concerns about the discharge of pollution from the site into nearby streams and watercourses. • The proposal could cause potential drainage problems and lead to flooding in the local area.
Recreation • The proposal would result in the loss of public rights of way across the site. • Potential loss of Tanfield Cycle Path. • The proposal would spoil the area for the many walkers, families and children who enjoy it
Contamination • Treated contamination material could spread to restoration soils. • Do not consider that there is a need to remediate the site but if there was there are alternative ways of dealing with the contamination other than surface mining. • The site has regenerated naturally even with contamination in the ground so it is questionable that the contamination needs to be remediated. • Risk that contamination put back into the ground will become unstable in future years.
Geology • There are important geological features in the area that would be lost – in particular a steep sided dry valley aligned approximately north east to south west which joins with the valley of the Bobgins Burn. This valley is part of a longer valley that was produced from glacial meltwater flowing from an ice dammed lake to the north, formed towards the end of the last ice age as the ice retreated. The steep sides of this valley have meant that it has never been practicable to cultivate the land and it is likely to have never been ploughed making it an example of old grassland, an environment that is nationally scarce.
Heritage • The site is located in a conservation area where things should be preserved.
Employment • Job creation from the proposal would not benefit the local area. • No new jobs would be created and instead existing employees would move to this site from existing sites.
Tourism and local economy • Plans for an educational and eco-tourism project at a nearby property would be jeopardised. - 50 - • Proposal would detrimentally affect visitors and tourists to the area and would harm tourism businesses and accommodation. • Detrimental impact on general businesses in the area. In particular there would be a damaging effect on some small businesses.
Applicant and coal industry • Concerns over the applicant’s ability to restore the site due to their financial position and this problem has occurred on the applicant’s sites elsewhere. • The proposal is only for the profit and benefit of the applicant. • The applicant has provided misleading and inconsistent information at public consultation events and information given at these events differs to the proposals outlined in the planning application. • There are inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the submitted application. • There is a reduced market for coal in the UK due to imports from abroad and the cutting down on the use of coal by electricity generators. • The applicant has several other sites with planning permission that have not commenced so there is a question of whether there is a need for this proposal.
Restoration • The restoration scheme would take a long period of time to establish to the detriment of ecology and the landscape. • Proposed standing water and marshland in restoration scheme is not a characteristic of the area, could damage the landscape, could have a detrimental impact on newts, frogs and toads, could become a hazard for children, become stagnant if not constantly managed, become dried up and become a dumping ground. • Trees in the restoration scheme would have difficulty establishing on steep ground, would have limited value to wildlife and even on level ground would have difficulty establishing due to windy conditions and vandalism. • Replacement hedging will prove difficult to establish. • Ash should not be used in the restoration scheme due to the die back disease. • Increased public access to the site proposed on the restoration scheme could cause harm due to potential problems from litter and vandalism. • It will not be possible to replace the existing soil profile and quality in the restoration scheme as soils stored in mounds will deteriorate, lose quality and be damaged.
Other matters • The effects of the proposal will lead to stress for local residents. • The application has not been advertised to all those that would be affected by the increased traffic and pollution such as those in Lobley Hill and Sunniside who should be informed of the application. • The proposal would contradict the Council’s carbon neutral approach. • Proposal would de-value property. • There are alternative sites for coal extraction that would be less intrusive and harmful to local residents. • If the application is approved it will lead to further similar applications and extensions to coal extraction on the site. • The proposal may lead to potential subsidence in the area. There have been historic problems of subsidence in the area due to mining. • Concerns that horses and other farm animals nearby would be frightened by - 51 - noise from the site. • Rats will be displaced from the site and move into surrounding areas. • Potential cumulative impact if proposed scheme along with similar scheme at Birklands Lane (planning application ref DC/11/00687/MIN). • Potential subsidence or structural movement to nearby properties. • Increased risk of crime due to materials and equipment that would need to be stored on the site. • Monitoring equipment installed by the applicant in the area is badly sited and therefore monitoring results may not be accurate. • If the scheme went ahead there could be breaches of planning conditions and there is concern that the Council will not have resources to monitor this. • Potential safety concerns of conflict between operation of Tanfield railway and vehicles using the haul route through the site. • Proposal would not provide public benefit.
Application submitted to Gateshead Council – support
217. Gateshead Council has received 447 representations supporting the application (including representations from the North East Chamber of Commerce and the Unite Union). The majority of these representations from employees of UK Coal and their families are duplications of representations sent to Durham County Council. The issues raised in support of the application are summarised below.
• The site will provide employment. • Coal provides an affordable energy source for the UK. • The development will clean up a derelict site. • The restoration of the site will provide better public access to the site. • Open cast mining supports many local businesses and it is important to the north east economy. • Opencast has created many leisure and tourist areas. • The development will create woodland and improve agricultural fields and wildlife. • The disruption claimed to be caused by the open casting is incorrect and there are benefits of restoration to the local community. • The scheme would secure local jobs. • The development would provide employment and economic benefits to sub- contractors who carry out work for the applicant. • Traffic generated will not be as bad as in other locations.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT:
218. The purpose of the scheme is to remediate contaminated land, a legacy from the mining, coking works and other industrial uses on the site, and make the land safe for the public to use in the future. A surface mining operation on the site will enable the burial of stabilised contaminants within the backfill in line with Environment Agency advice and enable the cost of these remediation works to be met by UK Coal rather than the public purse.
219. The UK Coal team has worked with the Councils’ landscape and ecology officers and made significant changes to the scheme to minimise visual effects and provide - 52 - significant ecological mitigation. UK Coal has a long proud record of the successful translocation of hedgerows, trees, grassland and other habitats and previously restored sites in Durham have received awards for the standard of restoration.
220. Once the site has been made safe, the public can be encouraged to use the site for walking, riding and ultimately travel on a steam train along the line of the old Tanfield Railway. The Tanfield Railway enthusiasts are fully behind the mining scheme.
221. This scheme brings benefits to the local economy, the provision of apprenticeships, well-paid skilled local jobs and the provision of nationally important minerals, and most importantly the scheme brings the major local and environmental benefit of the reclamation and remediation of dereliction and contaminated materials within the site. The proposed restoration strategy and land uses will be of positive benefit to the local community through improved recreational networks and biodiversity. The reclamation of this site is wholly in compliance with the County Durham Minerals Local Plan Policy M7, emerging Durham Local Plan Policy and Gateshead UDP Policy ENV56.
222. In terms of the future of UK Coal, the background is that following the catastrophic fire at Daw Mill Colliery in February 2013 the majority of the group’s business and assets were restructured into a new company. Since that time the profitability of the group’s Deep Mines has been compromised by a fall in the international price of coal and an unfavourable $/£ exchange rate. The company has therefore embarked upon a soft closure programme of the remaining two deep mines. It is a condition of Government support for this plan that the surface mining business is sold to independent ownership in summer 2014. Over 200 UK Coal staff and around 80 contractors currently work on UKC sites in the north east region.
223. The Marley Hill site will be guaranteed by restoration bonds reflecting the full value of restoration at any point in the operation. These bonds do not take into account the value of the coal so that the risk for the Councils is fully covered. Similarly the reclamation operation will be bonded and the aftercare will be bonded to ensure the benefits of the proposal are fully achieved.
224. It is essential for all of us to work in partnership with Gateshead and Durham Councils and local communities to ensure surface mining supports the region’s economic success and enables the continued success of the business under new ownership to continue employment, fulfil our promises and restore working sites.
225. The ongoing support of the Councils is invited by the approval of the Marley Hill scheme, which we believe is essential to achieve the solvent sale of UK Coal Surface Mines Ltd. We believe this outcome is in the best interests of all parties concerned and the local workforce.
The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at the Durham County Area Planning Office, County Hall, Durham and on the Council’s website at: http://spatial.durham.gov.uk/dcs/DetailMain.asp?appid=2707&AppRef=cma%2F1%2F78&Category=All&Status=All&Appeal= All&District=All&Month=All&Year=All
Application made to Gateshead Council (DC/12/01349/MIN) can be found at: http://public.gateshead.gov.uk/online- applications/simpleSearchResults.do;jsessionid=0B42B1C593E8F35FF078E3910052FE74?action=firstPage
- 53 - PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
226. Having regard to the requirements of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004, the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of the development, the effects of the development on residential amenity (including noise, air quality and dust and blasting), landscape and visual impact, biodiversity interests, cultural heritage, recreational amenity, agricultural quality and use, hydrology and hydrogeology, access and traffic, other minerals, dereliction and contamination, stability, mine gas, cumulative impact, alternatives, piecemeal working and future development, legal agreements, restoration guarantee, national, local and community benefits. Other issues raised are also considered.
227. The applications cannot be considered in isolation and must be considered as a whole. The application is therefore assessed against both Authorities’ relevant Development Plan Policies and the NPPF.
Principle of the development
Coal extraction
228. MLP Policy M7 contains a presumption against proposals for the opencast mining of coal and/or fireclay unless they are environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations, or they provide national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the adverse impacts of the proposal. In assessing such benefits, particular regard is to be had to the contribution of the proposal towards the comprehensive reclamation of areas of derelict or contaminated land, and the avoidance of sterilisation of mineral resources in advance of development which is either subject to a planning permission or allocated in an adopted development plan. Regard is also to be given to the contribution (or otherwise) to the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment and the need for supplies of fireclay to serve local brickworks. All proposals should avoid the unnecessary sterilisation of other minerals, particularly fireclays and brickclays.
229. Paragraph 149 of the NPPF states that permission should not be given for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so through conditions or obligations, or if not, it provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission. Submitted County Durham Local Plan Policy 57 which sets out matters to be considered when assessing national, local and community benefits is consistent with the NPPF. Policy M7 is similar to that in the NPPF. Although rather than stating that there is a ‘presumption against proposals’ , the NPPF states that ‘permission should not be given unless’ and there is also a requirement to consider national rather than just local and community benefits. Nevertheless, it is considered that the Policy remains consistent with the NPPF.
230. For the presumption against in MLP Policy M7 to be set aside, and for paragraph 149 and Submitted County Durham Local Plan Policy 57 to be met the proposal has to be environmentally acceptable or, if not, provide national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the adverse impacts of the proposal with regard to environmental effects. Surface mining is an operation which involves the movement of heavy vehicles over open terrain and removes established features in the landscape. It is noisy, likely to generate
- 54 - airborne dust and cause disruption over a number of years.
231. Gateshead Council does not have a specific policy in relation to coal extraction given the UDP policy repeated the approach contained in MPG3, and was therefore not saved. The Council therefore relies on Paragraph 149 of the NPPF for the broad policy approach to proposals for coal extraction. Given the extent of the shallow coalfield in Gateshead the intention is to not identify any specific sites, particularly as none were submitted for consideration in response to a survey of mineral operators, but to test the environmental acceptability etc. of proposals as and when they arise in line with the NPPF and other relevant policies. The background evidence and approach to minerals is set out in the form of a technical and background paper supporting the LDF documents. UDP Policy DC1(q) states that planning permission will be granted for new development where it contributes to the provision of mineral, energy or other resources at local, regional and national levels.
232. Consideration of the proposal’s environmental effects and national, local or community benefits in relation to MLP Policy M7, the NPPF and Submitted Plan Policy 57 are assessed in the following paragraphs of this report including the scope for control by condition or legal agreement.
Government Energy policy
233. In the July 2011 Energy White Paper ‘Planning our Electric commitment Future: a White Paper for Secure, Affordable and Low Carbon Electricity’, the Government sets out its intention to transform the UK’s electricity system to ensure that our future electricity supply is secure, low- carbon and affordable. The White Paper notes, that traditional fossil fuels leave the Country open to volatile prices, deepens our dependence on imported energy and lead to the emission of too much carbon. Also in July 2011, six energy National Policy Statements for Energy were approved. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) re-affirms the Government’s commitment to meet EU and prevailing national targets. EN-1 states the UK economy is reliant on fossil fuels, and they are likely to play a significant role for some time to come. However, the UK needs to wean itself off such a high carbon energy mix: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to improve the security, availability and affordability of energy through diversification.
234. The Government sees an important continuing role for coal through the transition to a low carbon energy mix. Consistent with its decarbonisation objectives, Government policy is “no new coal without Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)” and it has a programme to seek to ensure the successful deployment of CCS technology. The UK’s coal-fired generation is regarded as an important part of our energy mix, currently providing a third of the country’s electricity needs. In 2013 coal fired power stations provided 36% of our electricity generation . In Great Britain there are currently 12 coal-fired power stations totalling around 20 GW of generating capacity currently operational. The Government considers that coal is a source of flexible and reliable generation and in winter periods of peak demand can provide as much as half of our generating needs and that indigenous coal production has an important role in the UK energy mix. UK coal output was around 16 million tonnes in 2013, almost all of this used within the UK, mainly as power station fuel. Around 25% of coal used in GB power stations was from indigenous sources.
235. Although there is a use for coal, the Government recognise that coal-fired generation is a relatively high-carbon source of electricity, with carbon emissions around twice that of gas per unit of electricity generated. The Government has therefore committed to preventing new unabated coal generating stations being built in the UK and this is set out in the National - 55 - Policy Statements that require any new coal plant to be equipped with at least 300MW (net) of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and the Emissions Performance Standard limits carbon emissions to around half that produced by unabated coal. In addition the Government has also taken measures to limit coal plant emissions of oxides of sulphur and nitrogen under the requirements of EU air quality Directives.
236. In recent years it is recognised that there has been a shift from gas generation to coal as a result of a change in the relative price of gas and coal and a fall in the cost of EU ETS emissions allowances. There have been strong coal export levels from global producers such as the US, Columbia and South Africa that have kept European coal prices relatively low. European gas prices have not fallen in the same way, owing to tight markets, encouraging a shift to coal in generation. EU emissions trading system (EU ETS) prices have also remained low during 2013 minimising the penalty for the increased carbon dioxide emissions associated with coal burn.
237. The Government considers that this increase in coal generation is expected to be a relatively short-term phenomenon and this is consistent with its decarbonisation policy, and will be driven by a number of domestic and EU policies. There is the view that coal will maintain its price advantage over gas in the near term. However, there are constraints which are coming into force which will affect the use of coal. These being the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive that sets an emissions limit for sulphur dioxide. An initial exemption from this requirement will end in 2015 or sooner for plant that have used up their allowance, and they will cease generating electricity. There is also the domestic Carbon Price Floor that acts as a tax on carbon and alters the price of coal compared to gas, as coal has higher carbon emissions than gas for each unit of electricity generated.
238. In January 2016 the Industrial Emissions Directive will come into effect which tightens emissions limits on fossil fuel power stations. The Directive sets a number of options for coal fired power stations. They can opt-out of the Directive and instead run for up to 17,500 hours between January 2016 and the end of 2023 and then close, or enter the Transitional National Plant (TNP), which gives time, between 2016 and 2020, to fit equipment needed to meet the IED limits. If operators do not do so they must either close or operate for a maximum of 1,500- hours per year. As a result it is expected that there will be very few coal power stations to be operational beyond the early 2020s. Any longer-term role for coal will be dependent on the successful deployment of cost-competitive carbon capture and storage which the Government is investing in.
239. Coal from the site would be sent to power stations for electricity generation. In this respect, it is envisaged that the market for the coal from the site would be the energy supply industry market.
240. It is clear that at this time and in the short term there is a continuing requirement for coal, and coal from the proposed development would assist in meeting current demand from an indigenous source and reducing the reliance on imports in line with the Government’s energy policy.
Fireclay
241. Some 175,000 tonnes of fireclay is proposed to be removed concurrently with the coal and within the proposed working timescale. The avoidance of sterilisation of mineral resources and the contribution (or otherwise) to the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment and the need for supplies of fireclay to serve local brickworks would - 56 - be met if the fireclay is put to beneficial use. MLP Policy M7 indicates that all proposals should avoid the unnecessary sterilisation of other minerals, particularly fireclays and brickclays. The economic benefits of fireclay are also highlighted within the Policy. There is no relevant Policy in the Gateshead UDP regarding the extraction of fireclay.
242. It is understood that the site has a low potential for fireclay compared to many other surface mine sites in the North East. Of the three seams that would be worked only one is underlain by fireclay. The quality and marketability of the fireclay would not be known until sampling took place. It is expected that potential markets would be in the north east region or further afield. However, it has been the case with previous surface mines that the concurrent working of fireclay was regarded as beneficial but the material was found not to be marketable and was used as backfill as no other suitable use was identified. Nevertheless, the potential benefits of concurrent working of both important minerals is encouraged and would avoid the unnecessary sterilisation of a valuable resource and allow the concurrent working of two minerals, in accordance with MLP Policies M7 and M19.
Development in the Green Belt
243. The part of the application site within Gateshead is located within the Green Belt, the prime characteristic of which is openness. Gateshead UDP Policy ENV36 seeks to check unrestricted sprawl, including around Gateshead and Whickham; prevent the merging, including of Gateshead and Whickham and Whickham and Sunniside; assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, including around Sunniside, and assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Policy CS19 of the emerging Tyne and Wear Core Strategy has little difference to UDP Policy ENV36 and sets out that the Green Belt will be protected in accordance with national policy. The part of the site lying within Durham is identified in the emerging County Durham Local Plan (Policy 14) as proposed Green Belt.
244. Paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF seek to protect Green Belts from inappropriate development unless there are ‘very special circumstances’. These ‘very special circumstances’ will only exist when any harm is clearly outweighed by other consid erations. Paragraph 90 of the NPPF goes on to state that certain forms of development are not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. Amongst other forms of development this includes mineral extraction.
245. In regard to the restoration proposals it is considered that they would generally form part of the mineral extraction and therefore would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt subject to their impact on openness and the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. If certain parts of the restoration scheme, for instance the laying of the rail bed for the extension to Tanfield Railway, were considered separately to the mineral extraction it is considered that they would constitute engineering operations. Engineering operations are also listed in the exceptions at paragraph 90 of the NPPF as not being inappropriate in the Green Belt subject to them preserving the openness of the Green Belt and not conflicting with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
246. Given the above, it is considered that mineral extraction and the restoration proposals are not an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt provided that they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt (these purposes are included at Paragraph 80 of the NPPF, in Gateshead UDP
- 57 - Policy ENV36, Policy CS19 of the emerging Tyne and Wear Core Strategy and emerging Policy 14 of the County Durham Local Plan). Therefore consideration is required to be given as to the impact of the development on the openness of the Green Belt and whether or not it would conflict with the purposes of including land in it. This assessment is made within the landscape and visual impact section of this report.
247. The remediation proposals to deal with the contamination on site are not part of the mineral extraction proposals. Instead it is an additional development (involving temporary buildings, structures, material storage and mounding) which would take place at the same time as the extraction and should be considered as such. Unlike mineral extraction, ground contamination remediation is not listed at paragraph 90 of the NPPF as being not inappropriate in the Green Belt. Therefore given recent case law (Fordent Holdings Ltd v SSCLG (2013) EWHC 2844 (Admin)) which effectively concluded that the exceptions list set out at paragraph 90 of the NPPF is a closed list, it is considered that this element of the scheme constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
248. Undertaking the remediation proposals at the same time as time as the mineral extraction works would be appropriate given the disturbance that would be taking place. Remediation works could take place independently (and therefore it is acceptable to consider the appropriateness, in Green Belt terms, of that aspect of the scheme in isolation) but the extraction proposals would enable a more comprehensive scheme to take place.
249. In accordance with paragraph 87 of the NPPF, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 88 of the NPPF goes on to state that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Given the above, consideration has been given as to whether there are any very special circumstances that would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt from the ground contamination remediation aspects of the scheme. This is considered later in this report.
Consideration of the environmental acceptability of the proposals
250. To comply with MLP Policy M7(a), and to pass the first test of paragraph 149 of the NPPF, surface coal mining proposals are required to be environmentally acceptable or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations. This report will assess each identified likely environmental impact against the relevant Development Plan policy and NPPF.
Residential Amenity
251. The proposed site lies in open countryside between Marley Hill and Tanfield. Within County Durham isolated residential properties surround the site. The closest are Causey Bankwell House and Bankwell House some 167m and 294m to the south east, New House 374m to the south (adjacent to the Picnic Area) and Beckley Farm (a Grade II listed building) 440m to the south west. Tanfield Grange Farm is situated some 1.1km to the south west, Beckley View and Redland lie 380m and 324m respectively from the site boundary. The Causey Arch Public House lies 412m to the south east of the proposed site with the Beamish Park Hotel (within Gateshead) immediately to its south (465m from the site boundary). Birchwood Game Farm 725m to the west and Low Barcus Close Farm approximately 900m to the south west.
- 58 - 252. Within Gateshead, the nearest residential properties at St Cuthberts Park in Marley Hill are 230m north of the site boundary and the nearest residential properties at Byermoor are some 433m from the site boundary. Also within Gateshead the individual properties of The Bungalow, The House, Beckley View and Longfield House are located 73m, 170m, 380m and 2m respectively from the site boundary. Longfield House is owned by the applicant and would be unoccupied during site operations and the ES concludes that there would be no adverse impact on the property.
253. The closest dwellings and their proximity to the site and proposed operations are also listed below (distances in metres). The distances from certain operations would vary during the life of the site but distances from the site boundary, soil storage areas, remediation and processing areas would not alter. The nature of the proposal means that the operation of the site would be constantly evolving and therefore distances to properties would slightly alter during this although the distances from the site boundary, soil storage areas, remediation area and processing areas would not alter. The properties named are either specific or representative of groups of dwellings. The principal effects of working on residential amenity would be in respect to noise, dust, blasting and visual impact.
Approximate distance in metres from identified sensitive properties to various site operations
Property Site Excavation Overburden Soil Coal Blasting Remediation Boundary Area/void Mound Storage Processing Area The Bungalow 73 235 135 76 1400 260 1050 Beckley View 380 680 410 390 1350 705 1120 Redlands 324 389 690 327 700 415 565 St Cuthberts Park 230 290 820 256 400 315 450 Tanfield Railway Bounds 18 240 3 150 50 60 Causey Bankwell 167 414 234 205 900 466 750 House* Hedley West Farm 280 475 364 333 915 570 815 Beamish Park Hotel 465 760 506 472 1250 920 1100 New House* 374 678 412 384 1360 720 1120 Beckley Farm* 440 690 586 440 1840 770 1480 Bankwell House* 294 545 340 310 1032 597 835 Causey Arch Pub* 412 726 450 423 1222 906 1065
* Within County Durham Those not denoted within Gateshead.
254. The application site boundary is not within 250m of a group of 10 or more dwellings within County Durham. MLP Policy M37 is not therefore relevant. The closest properties to the proposed mineral development within County Durham would be the individual properties at Causey Bankwell House/Bankwell House and Beckley Farm. Causey Bankwell House/Bankwell House would be closest to areas to be stripped of soil, the locations of the proposed soil storage and overburden mound. Beckley Farm would be separated from the site by Beckley Wood and closest operations would be soil stripping and storage.
255. Within Gateshead, the closest individual properties are The Bungalow and The House. The Bungalow would be the property closest to areas of soil stripping, storage, overburden storage and blasting. Longfield House is in the control of the applicant and would remain unoccupied for the duration of the development and so is not considered in the residential amenity assessment. There is a group of over 10 houses to the south of Marley Hill (St Cuthberts
- 59 - Park) which would be within 250m of the site boundary and within 500m of blasting operations. MLP Policy M37 is not relevant to assessing the effects of the proposals as they arise in Gateshead as it is outside of County Durham’s administrative area.
256. Initial disturbance would be caused by soil stripping and subsequent creation of soil storage mounds but these mounds would seek to reduce the impact of extraction operations for the duration of the excavation works. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has considered the proximity to occupied properties when designing the site and has sought to demonstrate that residential amenity can be protected from the adverse impacts of mineral working. The principal effects of working on residential amenity would be in respect to noise, dust, blasting and visual impact. The impacts of the remediation operations have been considered in the assessments undertaken and submitted with the ES.
257. National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) advises on separation zones/buffer zones noting they may be appropriate in specific circumstances where it is clear that, based on site specific assessments and other forms of mitigation measures (such as working scheme design and landscaping) a certain distance is required between the boundary of the minerals extraction area and occupied residential property. Any proposed separation distance should be established on a site-specific basis and should be effective, properly justified, and reasonable. It should take into account: the nature of the mineral extraction activity; the need to avoid undue sterilisation of mineral resources, location and topography; the characteristics of the various environmental effects likely to arise; and the various mitigation measures that can be applied.
Noise
258. Government guidance (as contained in the NPPG, which reaffirms advice contained in the now withdrawn Technical Guidance to the NPPF) advises that during normal working hours (0700 – 1900) and subject to a maximum of 55dB(A) L Aeq 1h (free field), mineral planning authorities should aim to establish a noise limit, through a planning condition, at noise sensitive properties that does not exceed the background level by more than 10bB(A). It is recognised, however, that where this will be difficult to achieve without imposing unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator, the limit set should be as near to that level as practicable. During the evening (1900 – 2200) limits should not exceed background level by 10dB(A). During the night limits should be set to reduce to a minimum any adverse impacts, without imposing any unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator, but should not exceed 42dB(A) L Aeq 1h (free field) at noise sensitive properties.
259. The NPPG also recognises that mineral operations will have some particularly noisy short term activities that cannot meet the limits set for normal operations. These include soil stripping, the construction and removal of baffle mounds, soil storage mounds and spoil heaps, construction of new permanent landforms and aspects of site road construction and maintenance. NPPG advice is that increased temporary daytime noise limits of up to 70dB(A) LAeq 1h (free field) for periods of up to 8 weeks in a year at specified noise sensitive properties should be considered in order to facilitate essential site preparation and restoration work and construction of baffle mounds where it is clear that this will bring longer-term environmental benefits to the site or its environs. Where work is expected to take longer than 8 weeks a lower limit over a longer period should be considered and in wholly exceptional cases, where there is no viable alternative, a higher limit for a very limited period may be appropriate in order to attain the environmental benefits. Similar advice is contained in UDP Policy ENV62.
260. A noise assessment has been carried out as part of the proposals the results of which are - 60 - contained in the ES. The assessment was updated when the proposals were amended through the submission of the Addendum to the ES. Monitoring was undertaken at properties and locations around the site. Within County Durham the properties monitored were Causey Bankwell House, 23 Causey Row or New House, Beckley Farm and Birchwood Game Farm. Within Gateshead the properties monitored were The House/Bungalow, St Cuthberts Park and Hedley West Farm. Predicted noise levels (based on a ‘worst case scenario’ and including noise associated with the proposed remediation works) indicate that normal site operations would not exceed the nominal limits of 55dB(A) L Aeq 1h and would not be 10dB(A) above measured background levels.
261. The recorded background noise level for Bankwell House and 23 Causey Row was 45 dB, 36dB at Beckley Farm and 38dB at Birchwood Game Farm. The recorded background noise level for The House/Bungalow was 37 dB, 41 dB at St Cuthberts Park, 43 dB at Hedley West Farm House and 38 dB at Birchwood Game Farm. Noise generated from the development would vary as operations progress across the site. Predictions have therefore been made at five representative phases during the life of the site, these being at 12, 24, 34, 44 and 48 months. Predicted noise levels (based on a ‘worst case scenario’) indicate that normal site operations would not exceed the nominal limits of 55dB(A) L Aeq 1h and would not be 10dB(A) above measured background levels.
262. The predicted level for normal operations at Bankwell House ranges between 41 and 49dB, and between 38 and 45 dB at 23 Causey Row. For Bankwell House there would be a potential increase of 4dB(A) against background levels with no increase expected at 23 Causey Row. For Beckley Farm the predicted levels for normal operations range between 40 and 45 dB (an expected increase of 9dB). At Birchwood Game Farm the levels range between 35 and 39 dB (an expected increase of 1dB). For The House/Bungalow the predicted levels for normal operations range between 39 and 47 dB (an expected increase of 10dB). For St Cuthberts Park, the predicted levels for normal operations range between 44 and 45 dB (an expected increase of 1dB) and at Hedley West Farm the predicted levels for normal operations range between 43 and 49 dB (an expected increase of 6dB). Activities associated with the proposed remediation works and treatment of contaminated land would take place within Phase 1 and the activities have been included in the predictions.
263. The assessment concludes that all temporary operations could be carried out within the nominal limit of 70dB(A) in any one hour L Aeq 1h over an 8 week period as specified in the Planning Practice Guidance. Predicted levels for temporary operations would range between 44 and 54dB at properties in County Durham and between 54 and 66dB for Gateshead properties but the Planning Practice Guidance level of 70dB(A) L Aeq 1h (free field) is proposed as a limit. The greatest predicted increase would be 16dB at Beckley Farm in County Durham and 29dB at The House and The Bungalow in Gateshead.
264. As well as the construction of earth mounds, proposed noise mitigation measures also include the use of low noise versions of excavators and dump trucks. The applicant has developed an Environmental Management System to cover all potential environmental impacts of their business and as part of this a noise management and action plan is developed for each surface mine to provide a co-ordinated approach to the effective management and control of noise. This provides a scheme for noise monitoring at key sensitive locations to be agreed with the mineral planning authority prior to commencement of works. In addition soil handling operations would not take place within 200m of any occupied residential property prior to 08:00 Monday to Saturday (these being The Bungalow, The House, Causey Bank Well House and Longfield House).
- 61 - 265. Screening of pumps or generators at semi-permanent or permanent locations, steps to minimise the noise from vehicles and machinery, including the fitting of efficient silencers and regular monitoring of all site plant and machinery to ensure that silencer performance is not diminished are also proposed. Pumps required to control water levels on the site would be required to operate on a 24 hours basis. Any such pumps would be located in the void at depth. It is proposed that a noise level of 42 dBLeq (the noise limit for night time operations as specified in the NPPG) would be imposed through condition should planning permission be granted.
266. Those objecting to the application have raised concerns regarding the possibility of sleep deprivation as well as querying how children attending the school at Byermoor would be able to enjoy their lessons and outdoor time as a result of the proposed development. The predicted noise levels for the site would be within level specified in the NPPG and such levels would be controlled through condition with the adoption of suitable mitigation measures. Such measures would also be in place to reduce dust emissions from the site.
267. Concerns are also raised regarding World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines for noise. The noise levels within the Planning Practice Guidance Notes that cover the control of noise emissions from surface mineral extraction activities are derived from the World Health Organisation Guideline Values for Community Noise for outdoor living areas. The WHO Guideline values recommend a daytime and evening noise level of 55 LAeq dB(A) 16 Hr to avoid serious annoyance and a level of 50 LAeq dB(A) 16 Hr to avoid moderate annoyance. The 55 LAeq dB(A) 1 Hr has been included as a recommended maximum daytime and evening limit within the Government Guidance on surface mineral extraction activities. The recommended noise levels put forward by the World Health Organisation include a level of 70 LAeq 24 Hr as a level that will prevent hearing impairment. Thus implying that this is identified as a critical level above which there are possible harmful impacts on hearing. This emphasises that this is a high permitted noise level and therefore is only allowed for temporary operations that would be beneficial for controlling noise on the site when the main operational works commence. Therefore the noise limits at noise sensitive properties have been set in accordance with the latest Government Guidance on surface mineral activities and are based on the WHO Guideline Values for Community Noise.
268. The NPPG does not provide guidance on appropriate noise levels for recreation areas. Previous Government Guidance (MPG11) recommended a noise level of 65dB Leq,1hr during the working day. The submitted noise assessment has not compared noise levels on the footpaths and bridleway around the site to this limit. However, given there is no limit specified in the NPPG and measures would be put in place to mitigate noise levels from the site, it has not therefore considered necessary for such an assessment to be undertaken. It is therefore considered that the impact of noise from the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the recreational value of the countryside, and the proposal would not conflict with MLP Policy M35 and UDP Policies DC1 and MWR2 in this respect.
269. Road traffic calculations have also been undertaken and it is predicted that the change in ‘basic noise level’ as a result of the traffic associated with the proposal would be no more than 1 dBLA10 for the A6076, 0.5 dBLA10 for the A692 and 0.3 dBLA10 for the A693.
270. The submitted assessment concludes that with the implementation of mitigation measures as proposed (which include the use of low noise versions of excavators and dump trucks), noise associated with the proposed site would be within the criteria contained within Government guidance at all times and would not cause adverse noise impact at the nearest residential properties. It is also concluded that coal HGV traffic would not cause a perceptible increase in - 62 - road traffic noise levels on public highways. It is therefore considered that the amenity of roadside communities is protected and the impact of traffic generated by the development is acceptable in accordance with UDP Policies DC1, DC2, DC4, ENV62 and MWR2 and MLP Policy M42 in this respect.
271. Having regard to the nature and location of operations it is accepted that there would be notable changes in some local noise levels during the life of the site especially during temporary operations which could h ave the potential to cause nuisance to local residents. However, the predictions are based on worst case scenarios and the higher levels from temporary works would be limited to 8 weeks in any one year and within acceptable levels as specified in the NPPF. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection Officers in County Durham and Gateshead officers raise no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. In view of this and given suitable controls would be put in place to ensure that these limits are adhered to, it is considered that the proposal would accord with MLP Policies M36 and M42, UDP Policies ENV62, MWR2, DC1, DC2 and DC4 and with paragraph 123 of the NPPF.
Dust and air quality
272. Mineral sites give rise to dust issues and it is recognised that the large amounts of overburden to be moved as part of opencast operations and intensity of activity associated with that movement can contribute significantly to the increased potential for dust emissions. It is also accepted that the generation of dust can only be minimised and controlled rather than eradicated.
273. A Department of Health and Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions research study ‘The Impact of Particulate Matter from Opencast Coal Sites on Public Health’ was published in December 1999. The Planning Practice Guidance reflects the good practice recommendations made in the report. The key assessment criteria are the proximity of residential communities to a site and background levels of small particles (PM10) in relation to the National Air Quality Standard. The proximity distance to settlements for assessment purposes is 1km.
274. The background levels for the site are quoted as being between 10.01 – 11.27 µg/m 3 and the predicted increase from open casting (typically opencast site operations can produce 2.1 µg/m 3 of PM10s) would still maintain levels that are below National Air Quality Standard of 40 µg/m 3 annually and 50 µg/m3 (24 hours mean). Environmental Health and Consumer Protection Officers in County Durham do not consider that there would be breach of current air quality standards as a result of the proposal and Gateshead officers have not raised concerns in this regard.
275. As well as considering PM10s the assessment also considers PM2.5s as the annual mean PM2.5 objective, of 25 µg/m 3 has to be met in January 2015. The background PM10 levels for the site are quoted as ranging between 8.00 – 8.41 µg/m 3. Using the same predicted increase for PM10s of 2.1 µg/m 3 the overall concentration would be marginal and the annual mean objection would not be exceeded.
276. The applicant has agreed to undertake air quality monitoring over a 12 month period prior to the commencement of operations on the site and continue during the life of the site. It would be necessary that the control measures consisting of the Dust Action Plan (DAP) and the requirements of the conditions of the Environmental Permit (regulated by the Environment Agency) that would be required for the operations on the site will ensure dust emissions do not - 63 - consequently result in levels that exceed the Air Quality Objective concentrations.
277. Whilst accepting that compliance with general air quality standards can be achieved there are individual residential properties within 1km of the site which would potentially be at risk from any fine particle dusts generated by site activities and groups of 10 or more properties within Gateshead. With regard to larger dust particles, depending on wind speed, the degree of rainfall and surface topography, these particles would generally return to the surface over a much smaller distance. There is potential for risk from dust nuisance on individual properties.
278. The operator intends to adopt a full Environmental Management System to ensure high standards of operation and mitigation would be in place as recommended in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance Notes. A Dust Action Plan has been submitted proposing the setting of trigger levels relating to wind speeds so that additional dust suppression measures would be implemented under certain conditions. Mitigation measures that include the use of water sprays/bowsers and dampening down of haul roads and stocking areas, grading and seeding of external faces of soil and overburden mounds at the earliest opportunity and subsequent maintenance, use of wheelwash facilities and sheeting of laden HGVs, and the temporary suspension of operations giving rise to fugitive dust in dry windy weather until additional equipment is provided or conditions improve. Monitoring of dust deposition levels around the site would also take place and results would be made available to the Authority upon request.
279. Those making representations have raised concerns regarding health issues associated with surface coal mining and adequacy of the submitted assessment. Environment, Health & Consumer Protection Officers recognises the health impacts associated with emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 and that there is potential for emissions of both of these air quality pollutants from surface mineral extraction activities. However, in support of this particular proposal the potential impact of emissions of air quality pollutants has been assessed and provided a Dust Action Plan can be agreed and effectively implemented on the site together with the continued monitoring of dust from the site then it is considered mitigation measures may be put in place to minimise the emissions of both nuisance dust and emissions of PM10 and 2.5. Regard has been given to the views of Public Health England and NHS North Durham Clinical Commissioning Group, the Council’s Environment, Health & Consumer Protection officer and Gateshead officers as well as Government guidance, and it is considered that the application can be determined on the basis of the information provided.
280. Public Health England and NHS North Durham Clinical Commissioning Group have raised no significant concerns regarding the risk to the health of the local population considering that the site is well managed and regulated the potential for risk to public health is considered to be low providing that conditions are imposed requiring sufficient mitigation to prevent adverse impacts off-site arising from dust and the appropriate control of any dust released from site and appropriately controlled through a dust action plan. It is also noted that the site would be operated under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. Durham County Council Environment, Health & Consumer Protection officers and Gateshead officers have no objections to the proposed development.
281. Whilst accepting that compliance with general air quality standards can be achieved there are residential properties within 1km of the site which would potentially be at risk from any fine particle dusts generated by site activities. With regard to larger dust particles, depending on wind speed, the degree of rainfall and surface topography, these particles would generally return to the surface over a much smaller distance. The ES includes an assessment of known meteorological information for an eight year period noting that dominant winds are from the - 64 - west. Using these results the assessment has calculated the potential number of hours over an average month during which winds may blow dust towards sensitive locations within 500m of working activities on the site and assessed the potential impact upon the closest sensitive receptors to the development. Larger dust particles greater than 30 µg/m 3 generally deposit within 100m of the point of release with a large proportion between 10 - 30 µg/m 3 deposit within 250m of releases and are all generally deposited by 500m.
282. During the first 12 months of operations the receptors with the highest potential to be exposed to dust emissions originating from the site during working hours are the Tanfield Railway, The House and The Bungalow and in County Durham, Causey Bankwell House due to their proximity to soil stripping and mound formation and overburden extraction and mound creation. It is likely that larger dust particles and a large proportion of medium sized particles would be deposited before reaching the receptors but mitigation measures would be employed to ensure that dust would not cause any significant adverse effects. In addition once constructed the soil mounds around the site would be grass seeded to minimise dust emissions. With the mitigation measures in place the effect magnitude for these receptors has been determined as minor to negligible with an effect significance of minor adverse to insignificant.
283. At 24 months, with excavations taking place in the central and northern parts of the site and the void being in the central part of the site and the western part of the site being restored to overburden levels. Longfield House would be the receptor that would potentially affected by dust emission but the property is under the control of the applicant and it is intended to be unoccupied during the course of the development. Properties in County Durham would be further than 500m from working activities. Within Gateshead, there would be several receptors within 500m (Tanfield Railway, The House and The Bungalow, properties at St Cuthberts Park and Woodlands and Redlands to the south of Marley Hill). With mitigation measures proposed the effect magnitude for these receptors has been determined as negligible with an effect significance of insignificant. At 34 months, excavations would be in the northern part of the site and the void being in the northern and central parts of the site and the western part of the site being restored to overburden levels. Again properties in County Durham would be further than 500m from working activities with the exception of Causey Bankwell House which would be some 465m from active operations separated by woodland. Receptors in Gateshead (The House and The Bungalow, properties at St Cuthberts Park and Woodlands and Redlands) would be between 360m and 370m from active operations. With the mitigation measures in place the effect magnitude for these receptors has been determined as minor to negligible with an effect significance of insignificant. Tanfield Railway, some 120m from operations at this stage, would have the potential for being most affected by dust at this stage of the development.
284. At 44 months the excavations would be at the north eastern part of the site with the working void in the eastern part of the site with the northern and central parts of the excavations being restored to overburden level. Again properties in County Durham would be further than 500m from working activities with the exception of Causey Bankwell House which would be some 415m from active operations. Within Gateshead, (Tanfield Railway, The House and The Bungalow, properties at St Cuthberts Park and Woodlands and Redlands) would be between 20m and 350m from active operations. Tanfield Railway and The House and The Bungalow would have the highest potential for to be exposed to dust emissions but given the dominant wind direction and the mitigation measures proposed it is considered that with mitigation measures proposed the effect magnitude for these receptors has been determined as minor to negligible with an effect significance of minor adverse to insignificant.
- 65 - 285. At 48 months the excavations would be at the eastern parts of the site with the working void in the eastern part of the site with the northern and central parts of the excavations continuing to be restored to overburden level. At this stage Causey Bankwell House, the Causey café and picnic area and the Causey Arch public house would be more than 250m from operations as would receptors within Gateshead, (properties at St Cuthberts Park and Woodlands and Redlands and Hedley West Farm). With the mitigation measures in place the effect magnitude for these receptors has been determined as negligible with an effect significance of insignificant. Those receptors with the highest potential for to be exposed to dust emissions would be Tanfield Railway and The House and The Bungalow would have the highest potential for to be exposed to dust emissions. Given the dominant wind direction, mitigation measures proposed and presence of woodland it is considered that with mitigation measures proposed the effect magnitude for these receptors has been determined as minor to negligible with an effect significance of minor adverse to insignificant.
286. The assessment also considers potential emissions from the proposed treatment of contaminated materials. It is acknowledged that the treatment would have the potential to generate dust, odour, vapours, gaseous emissions and volatiles through the storage of contaminated materials, the delivery of stabilisation additives and the mixing of materials. The closest receptors to those operations would be within Gateshead. These being Tanfield Railway (approximately 120m), properties at St Cuthberts Park (365m) and Woodlands and Redlands (440m) at Marley Hill. Given the distance of the receptors from the potential source of dust and proposed mitigation measures proposed the effect magnitude for these receptors has been determined as minor-negligible with an effect significance of insignificant. The on- site processing and treatment of contaminated soils would be regulated under an Environmental Permit (Mobile Treatment Licence) that would seek to ensure that appropriate controls and monitoring measures are in place. In addition an implementation plan and material management plan would be agreed with the Councils. Measures to mitigate any potential adverse effects would include the programming of works to ensure the minimal volume of soil stockpiled at any one time, the screening of stockpiled material by bunds, the covering of any odorous exposed materials with clean overburden, dampening down of haul roads, vapour monitoring. The remediation operations would be covered through appropriate conditions.
287. An assessment to consider the effects of pollutants from traffic emissions has also been undertaken. Having considered the proposed haulage route and vehicle numbers (which are considered negligible when compared to the current level of vehicle movements travelling along the A6076, A692 and A693), it concludes that the numbers of HGV movements associated with the proposal are considerably lower than criteria set out in relevant Government guidance. Therefore the effect of the proposed scheme can be considered to be neutral in terms of local air quality. The Council’s Environment, Health & Consumer Protection officer and Gateshead officers have raised no queries with the submitted assessment.
288. A draft Dust Action Plan has been submitted detailing the mitigation measures proposed which would be implemented at the site. Mitigation measures include proposing the setting of trigger levels relating to wind speeds so that additional dust suppression measures would be implemented under certain conditions. Typical dust suppression measures would include the use of water sprays/bowsers, fitting of dust filters on fixed plant and machinery where appropriate, dampening down of haul roads and stocking areas, seeding of soil and overburden mounds and the temporary suspension of operations giving rise to fugitive dust in dry windy weather until additional equipment is provided or conditions improve. Monitoring of dust deposition levels around the site would also take place and results would be made - 66 - available to the Authority upon request. Public Health England and NHS North Durham Clinical Commissioning Group and the Council’s Environment, Health & Consumer Protection officer and Gateshead officers have no objections to the proposal. In view of this and given suitable controls would be put in place to ensure that dust levels are minimised, it is considered that the proposal would accord with MLP Policy M36, UDP Policies MWR2 and DC1(h) and with paragraph 123 of the NPPF.
Blasting
289. Sandstone overlies certain coal seams at the site and blasting would be necessary to loosen it to enable it to be excavated. The topmost sandstone is weathered and fractured from about 10m below rockhead to almost 20m in places. The upper part of the sandstone at the western end of the site has many mudstone partings which would reduce the amount of blasting required. A geological fault runs east west through the site lies within the southern part of the excavation area.
290. The three effects associated with blasting, are ground vibration, air overpressure (or air blast wave) and projected rock particles (flyrock). The extent of disturbance is dependent on a number of factors including type and quantity of explosive, degree of confinement, distance to nearest buildings, the geology and topography of the site and atmospheric conditions. For properties adjacent to the site within County Durham, the ES advises that ground vibration and air overpressure may be perceptible to the public in this case. However, it is stated that previous assessments and guidance have shown that the likely magnitude of blast induced vibration is low and can be suitably controlled by planning condition. Measures would also be taken to minimise overpressure and avoid flyrock.
291. The nearest blasts in relation to residential properties are set out in the table above. Within County Durham the closest properties to the areas to be blasted would be Causey Bankwell House (466m) and Beckley Farm (770m) and within Gateshead are The Bungalow (260m) and St Cuthberts Park (340m). The design and calculation of blasts would ensure that the vibration levels at all nearby properties are controlled and kept within permitted limits. It is proposed that ground vibration as a result of blasting would not exceed a peak particle velocity of 6mm per second in 95% of all blasts measured over a 6 month period. This would be in line with normal planning requirements on previous surface mine sites and generally at other quarries in County Durham.
292. The submitted blasting assessment considers the impact of blasting upon residential properties in the vicinity of the site. It is concluded that all vibration at residential properties would be of a relatively low order of magnitude and would be below levels recommended for blast induced vibration as being satisfactory set out in the relevant British Standard and former Government Guidance Notes (the current Planning Practice Notes do not include suggest levels). It is also highlighted that all impacts would be very short term in duration.
293. Within County Durham, Causey Bankwell Farm (466m from blasting operations) would be closest to blasting operations. However, the assessment considers that the predicted vibration level would be well below the recommended site vibration criteria and threshold of perceptibility resulting in a negligible impact being insignificant. At Beckley Farm (770m from blasting operations) the predicted levels are reported as being low and safe with regard to safeguarding such a property against the possibility of cosmetic damage, although it is considered that there may be limited perceptible effect but with negligible impact being insignificant. Vibration levels at 23 Causey Row (700m from blasting operations) again are predicted to be well below the recommended site vibration levels and is likely to result in - 67 - limited perceptible effects resulting in a negligible impact being insignificant. Birchwood Game Farm is further distant and from the site and blasting operations (1.1km from blasting operations). The worst case predicted vibration levels are likely to be imperceptible and therefore having a negligible impact being insignificant.
294. Within Gateshead, it is stated that the strata coal seams below the St Cuthberts Park (400m from blasting operations) are at a higher level than those that would worked on the site noting that the estate is founded upon piled foundations. The assessment considers that vibration levels may be perceptible but would be entirely safe and significantly below the minimum guide value as set out in the relevant British Standard to prevent cosmetic damage noting a minor adverse impact with minor significance. The Bungalow (260m from blasting operations) is closest to the site boundary and to blasting operations. It is considered that blasting would be closest to the property during the first 12 months of operations (due to the direction of working) and would be perceptible but within safe vibration levels again noting a minor adverse impact with minor significance. Predicted levels at Hedley West Farm (570m from blasting operations) would be well within the recommended site vibration criterion and a negligible impact being insignificant is predicted. Effects at the Causey Arch Inn and Beamish Park Hotel are considered to be less significant than at Hedley West Farm as they are further away in the same general direction.
295. It is proposed that blasting would occur between 09:00 – 12:00 and 14:00 – 16:00 Monday to Friday at prearranged times usually 5 minutes before or past the hour. The exact frequency of blasting cannot be determined at this stage but it is anticipated that it would normally be a maximum of 3 blasts per day. This would be set as a maximum through condition. A test blast would be used to inform the design and calculation of production blasts and these would be within defined limits set in the former MPG14 (no level is set in the NPPG) and within the relevant British Standard. Through condition a blast vibration monitoring scheme can be required identifying suitable monitoring locations as well as mitigation measures and measures to be implemented during blasting operations to minimise the effects of air overpressure, and details of the proposed monitoring frequency. The scheme would also include details of the siting of warning flags and notice boards and procedures for informing occupiers of adjacent residential properties of blasting procedures
296. Concerns have been raised by those objecting to the proposal regarding blasting and the effect on old tunnels running from Marley Hill to Blaydon Burn. It is considered that this concern relates to the main roadways that were constructed to link Marley Hill Colliery with Clockburn Drift. The proposed extraction would not extend down to such depths and it is expected that the only tunnels encountered would be those associated with early workings. Concerns of possible effects on Causey Arch are also raised. Vibration levels would be controlled so as not to lead to structural damage. Given the blasting proposals it is not considered that there would be any effect on Causey Arch. In addition it should be noted that English Heritage, the Council’s Archaeology and Design and Conservation officers and Gateshead officers have not raised similar concerns.
297. Officers have considered the submitted blasting information and consider that blasting would not lead to any unacceptable impacts subject to conditions covering monitoring and a blasting schedule which should include informing local residents of the proposed blasting regime. The blasting proposals would not conflict with MLP Policy M36, UDP Policies MWR2 and DC1(h) and (p) and with paragraph 123 of the NPPF.
- 68 - Residential amenity summary in relation to noise, dust and air quality and blasting
298. The impacts of the development, including the remediation proposals have been assessed. It is considered that there would be some disturbance to residential properties for the duration of the proposed development. For those properties closest to the extraction and associated activities Causey Bankwell/Bankwell House, Beckley Farm (in County Durham) and The Bungalow, the House and properties in St Cuthberts Park, Marley Hill (in Gateshead) the impacts would be significant especially during the temporary operations. However, having considered the impact of the proposed development on residential amenity in terms of noise it is considered that the impacts could be controlled through conditions setting limits and requirements to mitigate any adverse effects on the nearest properties thus according with MLP Policies M36 and M42, UDP Policies ENV62, MWR2 and DC1(h), paragraph 123 of the NPPF and advice contained within the NPPG.
299. In terms of air quality and dust, given the mitigation measures proposed it is also considered that the proposal would accord with MLP Policy M36, NPPF paragraph 123 and advice contained within NPPG. Blasting would be controlled through condition and the proposals would not conflict with MLP Policy M36, UDP Policies ENV62, MWR2 and DC1(h) and with paragraph 123 of the NPPF.
Landscape and Visual Impact
300. Within County Durham, the site is not covered by any national or local designations. It lies north of the Beamish and Causey Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV) and east of the Lower Derwent and Pont Valley AHLV as designated in DLP Policy EN6. The site lies within the Durham Coalfield Pennine Fringe National Character Area. The County Durham Landscape Character Assessment (2008) shows those parts of the site within County Durham as lying in an area belonging to the Coalfield Valleys Broad Landscape Type in the Beamish and Causey Valley Broad Character Area.
301. The Gateshead Landscape Character Assessment (2007) shows those parts of the site within Gateshead as forming part on the Marley Hill Upland Area character area. That part of the site within Gateshead lies within the designated Gateshead Green Belt. This previously included land designated as highest, high and other landscape quality in the Green Belt under policy ENV39 of the UDP. This policy is no longer saved but paragraph 109 of part 11 of the NPPF is still relevant in terms of the need to protect and enhance valued landscapes along with policies MWR2 and DC1 (a), (c) and (e) of the UDP.
302. Parkland at Gibside (as referred to in UDP Policy ENV14) which is on English Heritage's Register of Parks and Gardens of National Interest lies around 1.6km to the north-west. However, given the local topography, the proposal would not be visible from Gibside and would not affect the setting of the park and garden of national interest.
303. The site itself is moderately sloping, divided by the valley of the Andrews House Gill which trends south-west-north east. Low bluffs in the east connect that valley with Burdon Dene / Causey Bank Mires to the south. The natural landform has been modified in places by urban and industrial development leaving flatter development benches and occasional walls, foundations, tar pits and other relic features. It is crossed in the north by the remains of the former Pontop and Jarrow Railway Line, and in the north-east by cuttings of the Tanfield Railway Line. The site is largely made up of open agricultural land, a mixture of arable and pasture, in large fields bounded by post and wire fences or low gappy hedges with occasional hedgerow trees. The derelict remains of a farmstead at Andrews House lie in the south. - 69 - Some properties to the north of the site are in poor repair e.g. Longfield House and The House and their associated outbuildings. Other isolated properties are in good repair, but are not generally visible in the wider landscape. Small areas of ancient woodland lie in the lower and middle reaches of the Gill, modified in places by the tipping of spoil and tar. An extensive tract of acid grassland, heath and secondary semi-natural woodland largely made up birch and sallows lies on the site of the former Marley Hill colliery and cokeworks in the north and east within Gateshead. Areas of gorse scrub and rough grassland on undisturbed land lie south of this on steeper slopes connecting through to the SSSI woodlands and grasslands of Causey Bank Mires to the south. The site is crossed by a well-developed but locally fragmented network of public rights of way reflecting historic access to former housing areas and colliery workplaces.
304. Those parts of the site lying in County Durham lie largely within an area identified in the County Durham Landscape Strategy (2008) as a Landscape Improvement Priority Area where the strategy is to enhance landscape character. This reflects the fragmented character of the field boundary network in those areas. Areas bordering the site, including the wooded denes of the Wheatleys, Bobgins and Burdon burns, and a small scrub covered bluff in the east of the site, lie within a Landscape Conservation Priority Area. In Gateshead, apart from the previous landscape designations and current Development Plan Policies outlined above, the site lies within the area subject to UDP Policy ENV56 that states the derelict land will be reclaimed for recreation, nature conservation and woodland.
305. The landscape of part of the site itself is in poor to moderate condition. Field boundary networks are heavily fragmented and there are extensive areas of disturbed land containing detracting elements such as relict structures and bare ground. Much of that land has naturally re-vegetated and is attractive in wider views. It also has some diversity, visual appeal and interest in closer views. The landscape of the site and its immediate context is of moderate, sometimes moderate to high, scenic quality as open countryside with attractive variety in its landform and landcover. It is of moderate recreational value having a well development network of public rights of way and lying close to centres of population.
306. The submitted landscape and visual impact assessment, as amended as a result of the changes included in the Addendum to the ES, considers that the operational stages of working on the landscape fabric would be substantial but would be temporary and the effect limited being of moderate significance (not significant). The restoration scheme is considered to be beneficial in nature and again of moderate significance (not significant). Direct effects on the landscape character areas are considered to range from significant (from certain locations within close proximity) to minor with the majority experiencing little or no visibility. The amendments included in the Addendum to the ES (including reduced overburden mound screening are considered to have advantages and the presence of contaminated mounds and contaminated treatment areas are considered to be minor additional operational features within the discrete landscape areas where visibility is experienced. The restoration proposals are not considered to result in significant residual effects upon the character of landscapes within the study area. It is stated that the development would be visible from the northern fringes of the Beamish and Causey Arch AHLV but due to the minor extent of potential visibility and temporary duration the effects would not be significant.
307. The submitted assessment acknowledges that there would be significant temporary effects upon residential properties within 500m of the site boundary with limited visibility of the site from Marley Hill and significant temporary effects within parts of Byermoor, Crookgate Bank, a farm house near Birkland Lane and the northern fridges of Stanley. Changes included in the ES Addendum would primarily result in changes in operational views for residents of Causey - 70 - Arch Inn, Beamish Park Hotel and Bankwell House. Due to reduced screening the impact upon Bankwell house would be significant. However, upon restoration there would be no significant residual effects upon any residents. Impacts upon recreational receptors, road users are considered noting that there would be significant effects for users on those routes closest to the site. The submitted assessment concludes that having considered the potential effects upon landscape and visual amenity and with regard to the scale of the development, proposed scheme of working, visibility of the site, duration of proposed operations and the characteristics of the surrounding landscape, the potential impacts are acceptable.
Effects on landscape features
308. Officers consider that the greater part of the natural topography within the site boundary would be disturbed although the low steep bluffs in the east of the site would be retained. The site would be restored to something similar in character to its current topography with a strong central valley. It is noted that natural landforms like this are difficult to replicate and the proposed feature could look engineered unless implemented carefully. Should the proposals be approved this is a matter that could be dealt with through a condition requiring further detail and a working method involving site supervision at a later stage. The working method provides for the retention of a small area of ancient woodland in the lower Andrewshouse Gill, scrub and rough grassland on the low bluffs in the east, a number of mature hedgerow trees in the south-west, and area of grassland / secondary woodland in the north. Should the proposals be approved a detailed scheme for the protection of retained trees would need to be required by condition. The proposals would entail the removal of surface features elsewhere. Many of these features are of relatively low sensitivity; wire fences, low species-poor hedges, derelict and relict structures and small areas of young scrub. While their loss would inevitably remove the historical interest and `time -depth' of the landscape, and some localised visual interest, the effect would not be significant. The loss of small areas of ancient woodland and more extensive areas of early successional grassland and well established secondary woodland would be of greater significance.
309. The restoration proposals provide for the site to be restored to a mixture of agriculture, woodland and open habitats. The overall design, in which woodlands and conservation grasslands would follow the grain of the valley topography, would be in keeping with the existing character of the landscape. A robust corridor of woodland, wetland, and conservation grasslands would be developed along the Bobgins Burn consolidating the existing woodlands along the burn and linking with similar habitats in the Causey Bank Mires SSSI. A similar corridor would be developed along the re-created Andrewshouse Gill. A smaller corridor would run north from Causey Bank Mires along the Tanfield Railway line. The principle of seeking to create early successional brownfield habitats on restoration is considered to be sound, as is the proposal to locate those areas close to other conservation habitats in linear habitat mosaic corridors across the site connecting to existing areas. The extent to which they develop and maintain an ecological value is a matter of detailed design, implementation and long term management.
310. In respect of their visual appearance, the restoration proposals are likely to appear as rough pasture, meadow or heath which would complement adjacent woodlands and reinforce their linear grain in the landscape. Any larger areas of bare ground developed for ecological reasons would need to be located carefully to avoid adverse visual effects. In areas restored to agriculture a robust network of new hedgerows would be developed of a scale and character appropriate to the area. The existing network of footpaths and bridleways would be retained and augmented with some paths upgraded to bridleways, new footpaths and
- 71 - bridleways created, and a multi-user route developed through the centre of the site. An extension to the Tanfield Railway would be created, re-establishing a section of the historic Pontop and Jarrow line. Officers consider the proposals would be consistent with the landscape strategy for the area which is to 'restore mineral workings in a way that strengthens landscape character and enhances biodiversity, for example by creating new woodlands, heathlands, wetlands and grasslands' (County Durham Landscape Strategy 2008, Objective WD16) and the requirements of UDP Policy ENV56 to reclaim the land for recreation, woodland and nature conservation. Such afteruses would also accord with MLP Policy M47 and satisfactory restoration of the site would be secured through condition and legal agreement in accordance with MLP Policy M46. Whether the overall balance of loss and gain would be beneficial in the long term is a matter of judgement, and depends on the relative weights attached to the historical dimension of landscape and aesthetic or ecological considerations. Landscape officers consider that in respect of landscape considerations the overall balance would be broadly positive in the long term for areas within County Durham and Gateshead.
Effect on landscape character
311. The effects of the proposals on the character of the landscape would be relatively localised and significant effects would be largely restricted to the Bobgins Burn Valley which is made up the northern part of the Beamish and Causey Burn Valley character area in County Durham and the southern part of the Marley Hill Upland character area in Gateshead. Within this relatively intimate valley the effects of the proposals would be transformative during the operational period. The proposals would be visible at close quarters as large scale engineering operations in this otherwise rural landscape. Although the proposals have been designed well to reduce landscape and visual impacts, the residual effect in such views would still be substantial. The seeding of soil and overburden mounds would reduce impacts to some extent in some views, subject to the vagaries of season and climate, but they would remain conspicuously engineered features out of keeping with their surroundings.
312. The operational period would be medium term (4.5 years green to green). At the end of that period the impact on landscape character would rapidly diminish as the site returned to something close to its present character. The newly emerging landscape would be lacking in 'time-depth' and would lack the maturity and visual interest found in established features. The point at which this negative impact became neutral or positive as the restored landscape with its new hedgerows, woodland and wetlands began to mature is a matter of judgement but officers consider that point as being somewhere around 10 years although it would take longer to become fully mature. Effects on landscape character areas further removed from the site would be of a lower magnitude.
313. Further south in the Beamish and Causey Burn Valley character area the landscape is both low lying and heavily wooded and the proposals would be often screened from view by intervening topography and vegetation. The landscape is of medium to high sensitivity to development of this kind the overall adverse effect on its character would be a low magnitude and therefore not significant. Beneficial changes arising from restoration would have a negligible positive effect in views of this area. In the Kyo Burn Valley character area to the south-west the site would be screened in views from lower ground by intervening vegetation and topography. Site features and particularly overburden mounds would be visible on the northern skyline in more distance views from higher ground. They would be relatively small features in visually complex panoramas of a settled landscape and would be temporary in duration. The landscape is of medium sensitivity to development of this kind and the overall adverse effect on its character would be of a low magnitude. Beneficial changes arising from - 72 - restoration would have a negligible positive effect in views of this area.
314. From the higher ridges to the south and south-west - the Northern Coalfield Uplands character area - site features and particularly overburden mounds would be notable features on the northern skyline in some views and visually intrusive until such a time as they greened up. The landscape is of medium sensitivity to development of this kind and officers consider the overall effect on its character as being of a low or medium magnitude. Beneficial changes arising from restoration would have a negligible positive effect in views of this area. The effects on the wider landscape of the Durham Coalfield Pennine Fringe character area would be negligible.
315. Both significant adverse and positive effects of the proposals on landscape character would be localised. The extent to which longer term improvements to the landscape would outweigh short and medium term harm is a matter of judgement. Officers consider that it would take a relatively lengthy period before they did so. The extent to which the proposal would be in conflict with MLP Policy M24 on local landscape character, UDP Policies MWR2 and DC1(a) and Part 11 of the NPPF, is a matter of judgement on the issue of whether the scale of any adverse effects would be kept to an acceptable minimum. Officers observe that adverse effects on local landscape character would be high, but localised and of a temporary nature. The proposed enhancement of the landscape of the site would be consistent with the Landscape Strategy and derelict land policy for the area which is to enhance its character. The proposals would therefore be consistent with MLP Policies M24 and M47 and UDP Policies MWR2, DC1 (a) and ENV56 in that respect.
Effects on designated landscapes and heritage assets
316. The proposals would have no direct physical effects on the AHLVs within County Durham. The proposals would not be visible from the Lower Derwent and Pont Valley AHLV and would have no adverse effects on it. The proposals would be visible in some views from the Beamish and Causey AHLV and particularly in areas close to the site along the A693 around Causey. There would be some high impacts in this area but they would be localised and temporary. The proposals would be intermittently visible from elsewhere in the AHLV but would be generally screened by vegetation or topography. Given the localised and temporary nature of the operations officers consider the effect on the AHLV would not be significant. The proposal would not be in conflict with MLP Policy M23 given it relates to development within AHLVs. Nor is it considered that the proposal would conflict with DLP Policy EN6 given it relates to development within AHLVs. The Submitted County Durham Plan has not identified an AHLV instead it relies upon an assessment of impacts upon Landscape Character. The proposals would not be visible from the registered park at Gibside and would have no adverse effects on it and thus no conflict with UDP Policy ENV14.
Visual effects - Settlements and individual properties
317. The operational site would be visible from properties and public vantage points along the northern edge of Crookgate Bank at distances of around 1.2km. Views would be from ground and first floor windows, gardens, footpaths and a play area, and would include some open views and others filtered by roadside and garden vegetation or woodlands. Site features visible would include overburden and soil storage mounds and parts of the extraction area at various times, seen in relatively shallow views. It is considered the scale of change in the view as being of a medium magnitude in open views reducing to a low-medium as the overburden mounds greened up.
- 73 - 318. The operational site would be visible from a number of residential properties and public vantage points at various locations within Stanley at distances of between 2.3 and 5 km. Due to the dense urban nature of the settlement the character of views would vary considerably. Overburden mounds and parts of the extraction area would be visible on or, more typically below the northern skyline. The scale of change in the view would be of a medium magnitude in open views reducing to a low-medium as the overburden mounds greened up. The site would not be visible from most of the town which lies on land falling to the south.
319. The site would be screened from view from much of Tantobie by buildings within the village and intervening topography and vegetation. There would be some localised views of the site compound, stocking area and screening mounds at distances of around 2.6km. The scale of change in the view would be small. It is considered that there would be little or no visibility from other settlements in the area including Burnopfield, Tanfield, Tanfield Lea and Dipton.
320. Within Gateshead the development would be clearly visible from several isolated residences and businesses, such as Hedley West Farm, The House, The Bungalow and Beamish Park Hotel. The development would be visible from part of Byermoor at a greater distance. From Marley Hill, although separation distances would not be as great as from Byermoor but there would be greater screening. Tanfield Railway would experience considerable loss of amenity and possible restriction of operation during the development.
321. Officers generally agree with most of the findings of the submitted visual impact assessment in terms of the visual effects from individual properties. The proposals would have some high impacts on a small number of isolated properties (Beckley Farm, Bankwell House, The Grange, Hedley West Farm, The Bungalow and The House) and from two local hotel businesses (Causey Arch Inn and Beamish Park Hotel). The impact on their visual amenity would be highest during earlier and later phases of overburden mound construction and decommissioning. The seeding of soil and overburden mounds would reduce impacts to a considerable extent, subject to the vagaries of season and climate, but they would remain conspicuously engineered features and would in some cases obstruct otherwise attractive views.
322. Conditions to address officers’ queries regarding requirement of a tree survey and tree protection plan to British Standard quality, species to be planted and the requirement for a survey of the ancient woodland prior to translocation and monitoring thereafter to maximise chances of success and learning opportunities can be imposed should planning permission be granted.
323. Whether the proposals would conflict with Policy M36, UDP Policies DC1(a), MWR2 and part 11 of the NPPF is a matter of judgement on the issue of whether this level of effect on the visual amenity of local residents has been reduced to an acceptable level. Officers observe that the proposals would not have high impacts on residential properties and public vantage points within nearby towns and villages in County Durham. There would be some significant but temporary (medium term) effects on the visual amenity of a small number of individual properties in County Durham and Gateshead but these are not considered to be unacceptable for the duration of the proposed development.
Public rights of way and roads
324. Officers consider that the proposals would have a high impact 'in the round' on the visual environment of the network of recreational paths in the southern part of the Bobgins Burn Valley including those diverted around the site perimeter and those with open views of the site - 74 - from higher ground to the south including Footpaths 69, 71, 72, 73, 75 and 76. They would be intermittently visible from other parts of the footpath network elsewhere at greater distance but impacts would not generally be high. The proposals would have some high impacts in views from sections of the Tanfield Railway. How significant the effect would be would depend on whether individual users valued views of attractive countryside or whether they found the industrial context to be of interest. On balance the impact would be expected to be significant and adverse during the operational period.
325. Whether the proposals would conflict with MLP Policy M35, UDP Policies MWR2 and DC1 (a), (c) and (e) and Part 11 of the NPPF is a matter of judgement on the issue of whether this level of impact upon the recreational value of the countryside is acceptable. Officers observe that the proposals would have high impact on the visual environment of the footpath network locally but that those high impacts would be temporary (medium term). There would be some improvement to the functionality and visual amenity of the network in the longer term and the proposals would provide potential for a substantial extension to the Tanfield Railway.
326. Within County Durham and parts of Gateshead the proposals would have some high impacts in views from the A6076 Burdon Plain in the section between the Causey Arch Inn and the northern site boundary and particularly from visually open sections of the road between Causey Arch Inn and Hedley Lane. The extraction area would be largely screened from view by overburden and soil storage mounds although a small area would be visible between mounds on a short stretch. The effects would be at their highest during construction and decommissioning of soils and overburden mounds. The seeding of mounds would reduce their impacts to some degree but they would remain conspicuously engineered features. The site would not have significant effects elsewhere on the road, being generally screened by topography or vegetation.
327. The proposals would be visible in range of intermittent and open views from the C127 Barcusclose Lane and U12.26 Tanfield to Causey on the ridge to the south of the site. Impacts would be generally of a medium magnitude in open views from the C127 but of a high magnitude in closer open views from the U12.26. The proposals would be visible from Beamishburn Road in relatively open north-bound views from the section between the Black Horse Inn and the Causey Arch Inn. Impacts would be generally of a medium magnitude increasing to a high magnitude closer to the site. The proposals would be intermittently visible from the road network elsewhere but the effects would not be significant.
328. From the A692 the main route into Gateshead from Consett the site would be seen at a distance, set lower in the landscape and screened by perimeter mounding. Users of the Public Rights of Way that would be diverted around the site perimeter for the duration of the scheme would experience the adverse effects of mound construction and removal, and obstruction of views, but would still be able to connect to undisturbed areas. The path running north-south along Tanfield Railway would pass through the operational part of the site, as it is necessary to cross the haul road between the void and the coal stocking area. Upon restoration it is noted that the reinstated and new public right of way would connect footpaths and bridleways in a more useable network, establishing east-west links across the site and connecting with the wider network of long distance routes. The space for the new railway offers benefit for future interpretation and leisure activities.
Remediation proposals
329. The remediation compound would be within the Gateshead part of the site comprising of a bunded compound, stockpiling areas for materials, a tank (3m in height), stabilisation unit (5m - 75 - in height) and two silos (13m in height). In addition there would be associated stockpiles of untreated unscreened contaminated materials located across the site in the vicinity of the compound. With regard to the silos and other treatment plant in the contamination treatment area, Gateshead officers consider they would increase the adverse impact of the scheme, but not significantly because of its location in the centre of the works and note it is not required for the full timescale.
Illumination
330. Illumination would be required primarily during winter months. This would mostly be needed for plant working in the void area which would be generally below ground level. The coal processing and stocking areas would also have a level of directional lighting pointing into the site. Localised low level lighting may be required when removing material from the inner faces of the overburden mounds. In all cases it is proposed that lighting is not directed towards residential receptors near to the site. The submitted assessment considers that due to existing lighting, proximity to large scale urban settlements and primary transport routes the effects upon landscape and visual receptors would be limited and not significant, and officers agree.
Green Belt
331. Paragraph 79 of the NPPF sets out that The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
332. It is considered inevitable that some aspects of the mineral extraction, especially the mounds around and within the site and site offices and car park would have an impact on the openness of the Green Belt. However, this needs to be considered against the temporary nature of the proposal which would see the mounds, site offices and car park removed and the site restored to a similar landform to that what exists today. Mineral extraction is temporary and would not damage the openness of the Green Belt. In addition it is considered that due to the temporary nature and contained boundary of the proposal it would not lead to merging of settlements, unrestricted sprawl and encroachment into the countryside. The proposal would also have the benefit of removing derelict land which would overall increase Green Belt openness in the longer term.
333. A 2km length of track bed to facilitate a future extension of the Tanfield Railway to Byermoor in addition to a multi-user route and other footpaths and bridleways, is proposed through the restoration proposals. Whilst the applicant has stated in their application that the proposal would be an extension to the Tanfield Railway it is not considered that this would wholly be the case as it would be left to the operator of the railway to install the rail track at a later date and this would require planning permission in its own right. Of the 2km railway bed, 1.2km would be located within the Green Belt. As stated earlier in the report, it is considered if these aspects were constituted to be separate to the mineral extraction, they would still fall under the category of engineering operations. Paragraph 90 of the NPPF sets out that engineering operations are not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided that they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it.
334. The rail bed and multi-user route would be made up of a hard surface. This would broadly follow the line of the existing St Cuthbert’s Road. Given that the rail bed and multi-user route (and other footpaths and bridleways) would not be elevated above ground and given that there - 76 - are already clear routes of footpaths and bridleways through the site, including St Cuthbert’s Road which varies in sections between hardstanding and rough track, it is not considered that the rail bed, multi-user route and other footpaths and bridleways would have an increased openness on the Green Belt.
335. In addition it is considered that the restoration proposals would not lead to merging of settlements, unrestricted sprawl and encroachment into the countryside. The restoration scheme would also have the benefit of removing derelict land which would overall increase Green Belt openness.
336. Having regard to the overall balance of landscape effects it is considered that although there would be adverse effects upon the landscape character of the area during the life of the site and until the site matures these impacts would be largely localised and be for the duration of the minerals development. The proposed development would seek to ensure that the scale of the effects on the local landscape character is kept to an acceptable minimum in accordance with MLP Policy M24. The restoration proposals would also accord with MLP Policy M24 in that these have regard to the quality of the local landscape and seek to provide improvements to it where appropriate being consistent with the Landscape Strategy for the area which is to enhance its character. The proposals would also accord with UDP Policies MWR2, ENV56 and DC1 (a), (c) and (e).
337. In terms of visual amenity, although there would be some significant impacts on the visual amenity of local communities over the life of the site on a number of residential properties and on those using local roads and footpaths these would be for relatively short period. Consideration as to whether this level of impact is acceptable is a matter of judgement. Landscape officers raise no objection to the proposals. Mitigation measures incorporated into the scheme should reduce visual intrusion to an acceptable level in accordance with MLP Policy M36 and UDP Policies MWR2 and DC1 (a), (c) and (e). Proposals would also accord with relevant guidance in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance.
338. In terms of the Green Belt, it is considered that the proposal (apart from the contamination remediation which is considered in the Principle of the Development and Landscape and Visual Impact sections of this report) would not be inappropriate development and would overall preserve the openness of the Green Belt in the long term (although the removal of derelict land on the site would increase the openness of the Green Belt in these areas in the long term) and would not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. The proposal (apart from the contamination remediation) would therefore not conflict with the NPPF, emerging County Durham Local Plan Policy 14, UDP Policy ENV36 and in Policy CS19 of the emerging Core Strategy.
Biodiversity interests
339. The proposed site is affected by statutory nature conservation designations. Within Gateshead Part of the Tanfield Railway Sidings and Extension Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) lie within the site, with Burdon Moor (Blackburn Fell) LWS 250m to the east and Burdon Dene LWS 50m to the south east. These are designated for heathland, acid grassland and scrub with important national and local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats. Fortune Hill/Bobgins Burn Wood LWS lies immediately outside the southern boundary of the site. Bowes Railway LWS is some 700m to the east of the site boundary and Hedley Hall Wood LWS 1km to the south east of the site boundary. The Gibside SSSI lies some 2km to the north west.
- 77 - 340. Within County Durham, Causey Bank Mires Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lies immediately to the south east of the site. The SSSI comprises species rich acid and neutral grassland supporting a number of locally rare species. Further afield are the Ridley Gill and Pockerley Farm Pond SSSIs. Beckley Wood LWS lies adjacent to the western and south western boundaries of the site comprising ancient and semi-natural woodland. Causey Burn Wood LWS is some 315m south of the site and is also ancient and semi-natural woodland. The ES considers the impacts of the proposed development upon statutory and non- statutory sites within 2km of the application boundary. Within the site are two areas of ancient and semi-natural woodland known as Andrews House Gill Wood.
341. In addition to the sites outlined above, the ecological surveys submitted with the Environmental Statement and Addendum to it also considered other LWS within a 2km radius of the site (no other SSSI were located within 2km) but concluded that the proposed scheme would have no impact on them due to no pathways for them to be affected. Officers agree with these findings. Natural England considers that the proposed scheme would not be likely to cause an adverse effect on the SSSIs in the area provided that the proposal is carried out in strict accordance with the proposal as submitted but advises that a report of groundwater on and around the site is submitted annually to the local authorities.
342. The designated sites within County Durham would not be directly affected by the proposals, not being within the application boundary. However, Andrews House Gill Wood (and Tinklers Wood within Gateshead) would be removed to allow the proposed development to take place. The Bobgins Burn Wildlife Corridor runs through the site connecting the River Derwent at Gibside to the River Team at Beamish.
343. A number of detailed ecological surveys were undertaken both prior to and during consideration of the application. The majority of the site is in arable use with the remainder made up of a mosaic of habitats on previously developed land/early successional brownfield land incorporating unimproved grassland and lowland heath, semi-improved grassland, tall ruderal vegetation, scrub, broadleaved semi-natural/plantation woodland, scattered trees (17 veteran trees), occasional bare patches of hard standing, partially colonised by moss species and running and standing water. The submitted assessment considers the nature conservation value of the site to be of district importance.
344. Since closure of the two collieries and coke works the brownfield site has through natural succession, succeeded to areas of species rich unimproved acid and calcareous grasslands, lowland heath, species rich neutral grassland, standing water, birch and wet woodland and scrub whilst retaining some bare areas of substrate The site currently consists of arable fields, species rich acid, neutral and calcareous grassland, hedgerows and hedgerow trees, including veteran trees, woodland including wet woodland, ancient semi natural woodland, ponds, streams and heathland as part of open mosaic habitats on previously developed land (brownfield), the latter habitat associated with the sites of the former Marley Hill and Andrews House Collieries and coke works. The resultant habitat mosaic has a very high biodiversity value and supports a very diverse range of species including a good number of biodiversity action plan and notable species of plants and animals. The habitats are a priority under Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and/or are UK and County Durham BAP habitats. Much of the brownfield habitat is designated as the Tanfield Railway Sidings and LWS and a Wildlife Corridor stretches across the site from west to east. Of note are a number of plants, birds and invertebrates including Dingy Skipper butterfly. Also present is a badger sett, brown hare, common toad, common lizard and roosting and foraging bat species and badgers.
- 78 - 345. The proposed scheme would result in the removal of brownfield successional land (as outlined above), arable fields, grassland, hedgerows and trees, woodland (including ancient semi- natural woodland). There would be localised nature conservation effects from the loss of open land, hedgerows, and ancient woodland and veteran trees. Approximately 14 ha of the Tanfield Railway Sidings LWS would be lost for the duration of the proposed development but would then be restored.
346. Of particular note, the successional brownfield land is a habitat for the Dingy Skipper Butterfly. Surveys undertaken for invertebrates indicate that the site (the former Marley Hill Colliery within Gateshead, 68 recorded), and land adjacent (the former Byermoor Colliery site within County Durham, 24 recorded), supports Dingy Skipper. The ES considers the site to be of regional value and not of national value given the absence of how the site compares to other large dingy skipper populations. The Natural History Society of Northumbria, Butterfly Conservation and the Durham Wildlife Trust have objected to the application due to the loss of butterfly habitat from the removal of successional brownfield land.
347. The scheme proposes the management of retained habitat areas through an ecological management plan as well as recreation of brownfield mosaic habitat and the longer term management following restoration. Heathland and Dingy Skipper habitat would be translocated to land adjacent to Burdon Moor LWS and on land to the north of the site to provide a link with Sunniside Wood LWS in Gateshead. An area of ancient woodland within the site would be lost but it is proposed to translocate the ancient woodland topsoil and features (including a number of veteran trees and mature trees as dead wood) to land at the western part of the site, adjacent to Wheatley’s Gill Wood, and be planted with broad leafed woodland. It is expected that that 13 veteran/ancient trees would be retained and 5 would be translocated. The applicant accepts that Ancient Woodland cannot be effectively translocated but soils and other material may be beneficially salvaged as partial compensation.
348. The ES states that the site is of local interest for breeding birds and contains a number of DBAP and NERC priority species birds (including skylark, song thrush and linnet) on the red and amber lists but no Schedule 1 (of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) breeding species. Other DBAP and NERC (Natural Environment Research Council) priority species were recorded as breeding within 500m of the site. Several species of principal importance for conservation were also identified as being on site (including dunnock, willow tit, cuckoo and yellowhammer). Winter surveys recorded a number of Schedule 1 listed species including red-kite, short-eared owls, peregrine and golden plover. No nationally scheduled or regionally significant populations of birds were recorded but the site is considered to be of local District significance in terms of bird value. Officers consider the assemblage of bird species present is of Regional importance.
349. A number of operations would have potential short term effects on nesting or breeding birds (such as initial ground works and vegetation clearance) but conditions can be imposed restricting the timing of vegetation clearance (outside of the bird breeding season of March to August unless supervised by a qualified ornithologist), re-creation of existing habitat types upon restoration and creation of new habitats in the form of hedgerows, scrub, heath vegetation and wetlands to provide enhanced foraging and nesting opportunities for many of the priority farmland bird species recorded as being on site. In addition, although not recorded within the site, it is proposed to provide nesting baskets for long-eared owls outside of the site boundary. Bi-annual bird surveys are proposed over the proposed 10 year management programme following restoration of habitats. Overall, it is considered that there would be no significant e ffects on bird populations from working and restoring the site over the long term. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed restoration scheme so as to - 79 - enhance habitats in the long term. In addition mitigation for the loss of habitat for breeding birds would be provided in the form of nest boxes located on the site periphery and within retained habitats.
350. In terms of protected species, the presence of some trees and buildings suitable for roosting bats within the site were noted. However, no existing roasts were identified. One tree was noted as being used as an occasional, non-maternity roost. Outside of the site boundary at Longfield House, buildings were noted as being used as an occasional, non-maternity roost. Low numbers of bats were recorded foraging and commuting along field boundaries and woodland edges.
351. Surveys were also undertaken for otter, watervole, white-clawed crayfish, freshwater pearl- mussel and salmonids given the presence of watercourses in the vicinity of the site. No signs indicating their presence were found. No reptiles were recorded during the surveys but given that grass snake and common lizard have been recorded within 2km of the site and suitable habitat is present within the site, it is considered that there is a possibility of reptile presence within the site. No great crested newts were recorded within the site.
352. Other protected species were found to be using the site for foraging. In addition a main and adjacent annexe badger sett were present eit her within or immediately adjacent to the site. Original proposals were to lose the setts and translocate the badgers. More recent surveys identified that the two setts have merged; this along with a lack of suitable translocation sites has resulted in a revision to the working method that excludes the sett from the working area. Mitigation measures in the form of excluding the sett from the working area; measures to exclude working from site operations, maintaining unobstructed access to sufficient contiguous territory for the social group including habitat for foraging and watering for the lifetime of the aftercare and management period (10 years), and the use of appropriate fencing during restoration are proposed. Durham County Badger Group has provided comments on the application and has stated that although it acknowledges that the merged sett is to be retained, almost all the Badger foraging surrounding them the sett would be lost and this would threaten the viability of the sett.
353. The additional ecological surveys carried out which are included in the Addendum to the ES have found that an area of 54ha would remain off site for foraging within 1km of the merged sett and a further area of 2.8ha of habitat on site would be protected throughout the site operations and during the proposed ecological management plan. Therefore subject to the implementation of this management plan through legal agreement it is not considered that the proposals would have an adverse effect upon Badgers. The site is regarded as being of less than local importance for badgers and with the mitigation measures proposed it is not considered that the proposals would have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the species.
354. Natural England has confirmed that it has not assessed the application for impacts on protected species but would expect the local planning authorities to assess the impact on local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity), local landscape character and local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species.
355. There would be localised nature conservation effects from the loss of open land, hedgerows, and ancient woodland and veteran trees. However, the restoration proposals would provide a similar varied and sustainable habitat for wildlife.
356. It is considered that the proposal would have a significantly harmful impact on the biodiversity and ecology of the area, without any compensation or mitigation measures, a view which is - 80 - endorsed by both Council’s ecologists and the nature conservation consultees. Regard is then required to be given to proposed mitigation and compensation measures.
357. Natural England welcomes the proposed restoration scheme, in particular the areas of woodland, grassland scrub and hedgerows to be planted and areas of standing water to be created. Natural England recommends that such areas are managed for wildlife as well as for their aesthetic value. Further recommendations are made for a variety of native shrub and tree species of different ages and heights, bat and bird boxes, and that the proposed areas of standing water are designed and managed for Great Crested Newts, are kept free of fish and have gradually sloping sides and “hummocky” margins in order to provide habitats for amphibians and to prevent wildlife from becoming trapped.
358. A number of mitigation measures are proposed which seek to compensate the adverse effects upon nature conservation are proposed during the working of the site including translocation where appropriate and upon restoration. These include: • 10.97 ha of new native species core woodland planting (2.07 ha outside of the site boundary) and a further 6.75ha of scrub/woodland edge (1.10 ha outside of the site boundary). • A 12.5 ha mosaic of scrub and bare ground habitats with the development of wildlife corridors in the east and across the site. • 0.69 ha of open water and a further 1.84 ha of marshy grassland habitat. • 9.09 ha to be restored to acid grassland (2.13 ha outside of the site). • Five areas to be managed for nature conservation outside the site boundary, 1.04ha in the north near Marley Hill, 15.3ha in the west at Byermoor, a 3.19 receptor site to the east of the A6076, a 0.41ha receptor strip to the east of the Tanfield Railway line and 9ha to the south of the site near Bobgins Burn. • The planting of 9.18km of new hedgerows (576m outside the site). • The provision of a temporary butterfly corridor in the northern part of site during site operations to maintain the link between the former Byermoor Colliery and the Tanfield Railway sidings LWS.
359. In addition an ecological management plan is proposed for the management of the site before, during and following the period of mining, to ensure that its conservation value is maintained and enhanced. This would be secured through legal agreement under Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Although the habitat management plan is primarily intended to enhance the nature conservation value of the site, it takes account of other actual and intended land uses, so that both conflicts of interest and opportunities may be identified and addressed. It is proposed to extend the aftercare period by an additional 5 years (additional 5 years following completion of the statutory 5 year aftercare period) for those areas of the site to be restored to nature conservation that include the new woodland and wetland areas and mosaic scrub/bare ground habitat areas.
360. Through the habitat management plan, there would be no disturbance (other than for access) within proposed brownfield mosaic areas for an additional 10 years; no felling of woodland would take place for 40 years in total other than for normal silvicultural practice and access. Management of two undisturbed areas of ecological importance at Byermoor to the west and the Tanfield Railway Sidings LWS to the east, and of other key areas including Brownfield topsoil storage areas, would also be undertaken during the operational phase of the site. Also, pre-emptive works would include translocation of Brownfield mosaic habitat. Receptor sites would be created to the north and east of the application site.
- 81 - 361. Officers have considered the proposed mitigation and compensation measures along with concerns raised by consultees. Whilst it may not be possible to re-create existing habitat, the compensation measures would still realistically provide new areas of habitat that would be managed for 10 years and therefore would be given a considerable opportunity of establishing in their own right over this time period and which would be of long term benefit. This would include land off site being given over to nature conservation. In addition temporary mitigation measures would be provided such as the butterfly corridor.
362. Ancient woodland, as a habitat type, has no statutory protection but is mentioned in planning policy in the NPPF. Planning policy attempts to balance the value of ancient woodland with the need for development. If damage to ancient woodland cannot be avoided or mitigated, DEFRA suggests that developers should compensate for such damage by providing the highest biodiversity benefits possible in return. However, the Woodland Trust argues that there would be a net loss of biodiversity if ancient woodland is damaged, as compensation cannot re-create ancient woodland.
363. Despite the measures proposed officers continue to have concerns over the overall impact on ecology even with the mitigation and compensation measures proposed. Firstly, the loss of ancient woodland from the site would not be capable of being replaced given its age. In addition the loss of ancient woodland would conflict with the Durham BAP target to maintain extent of ancient woodland sites in the Durham BAP area. In addition Natural England's Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees states that: "An ancient woodland ecosystem cannot be moved. " it is not possible to replicate the same conditions at another site; it will no longer be ancient woodland." However, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has suggested that partial compensation for ancient woodland loss may be provided by habitat translocation. This would not replace the full value of the original habitat as the soil, composition, structure, biodiversity and ecological processes cannot be replicated. Few long term or experimental studies exist so outcomes are uncertain.
364. Long term management and monitoring and compensation are recognised as helping to ensure that a high biodiversity gain is achieved. Given the expense of translocation and the risk of failure, Natural England at a national level has suggested that in addition to translocation, undertaking conservation activities to enhance the value of remaining ancient woodland sites would be a more appropriate form of compensation.
365. It is not certain that the translocation of habitats would be fully successful. The translocation of habitats is fraught with difficulty and very rarely successful as set out in a publication by the Joint Nature Conservancy Council Committee on behalf of the statutory nature conservation agencies for England, Wales and Scotland and in standing advice from Natural England and the Woodland Trust.
366. Officers consider that the application site contains a large area of varied and linked habitats with a high biodiversity value and given this situation it would be very difficult to recreate this. In addition, the proposed translocation is the attempt to retain all valuable species and habitats within the small areas of retained land. These areas will have their own ecological carrying capacity with species adapted to the quality and quantity of habitats present; attempting to over manage and over stock them to support species with differing ecological requirements will also reduce the chances of a fully successful scheme of replacement habitat.
367. A large part of the site is successional brownfield land and therefore the habitats in these areas are in various stages of natural succession. At some time in the future the earliest stages of the open mosaic habitat and its associated species will be lost through this process. - 82 - However, as the rate of succession on the site has taken several years it is likely that early successional habitats and species would persist on site for longer than the proposed aftercare period and additional management period. Despite the mitigation and compensation measures proposed, there would still be an overall detrimental impact on the Tanfield Railway Sidings and Extension LWS and the wildlife corridor by the loss of brownfield mosaic land with difficulties in recreating this and the loss of ancient woodland which cannot be re-created.
368. Whilst it is considered that there would be no adverse impact on birds and other statutorily protected species and SSSIs (and in this respect the proposal would not conflict with part (d) of UDP Policy DC1), with regard to other ecological and biodiversity impacts, most notably Durham BAP species and habitats, including the impact on the Tanfield Railway Sidings and Extension LWS, the difficulties in creating the existing brownfield mosaic habitat and the loss of ancient woodland which cannot be created. It is considered that the proposal would have a negative impact on these, albeit the proposed restoration scheme, aftercare and management plan would lessen the impact.
369. The proposal would therefore conflict with MLP Policies M27 and M29, part (s) of UDP Policy DC1 and Policies ENV46 and ENV51, and part of paragraph 118 of the NPPF (if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused) and Policy CS18 of the emerging Core Strategy as it is considered that the proposal would overall have a detrimental impact on BAP targets and it is not considered that overall there would be suitable replacement land to retain the integrity of the wildlife corridor given that the development would firstly overall impair the integrity of the wildlife corridor.
370. With regard to UDP Policies ENV47 and ENV49, it is not strictly considered that the proposal would breach these Policies. This is because each Policy has a caveat which seeks wildlife habitats and LWS to be protected wherever possible (author’s emphasis). Due to the nature of the proposal – i.e. the need to use areas of wildlife habitat and the Tanfield Railway Sidings and Extension LWS for the extraction of materials unfortunately it is not possible to protect these designations.
371. In terms of MLP Policy M27 it is stated that minerals development which may have an adverse effect will not be permitted unless the Mineral Planning Authority is satisfied that the developer has demonstrated there are reasons for the proposal which clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the intrinsic qualities of the site. Such reasons are considered in the national, local and community benefits section of this report. MLP Policy M29 requires the incorporation of measures to ensure any adverse impact on nature conservation interest is minimised but also requires that regard is given to opportunities for the creation of new areas of conservation interest as well as the need to conserve local features of nature conservation value.
372. Given the overall detrimental impact on ecology and biodiversity interests, a balancing exercise is required to be undertaken in terms of any factors which would outweigh this impact, in particular paragraph 118 of the NPPF which states that planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. In addition, a balancing exercise is also required under paragraph 149 of the NPPF is also required if any environmental harm would result.
- 83 - Cultural Heritage
373. Although there are no listed buildings, scheduled monuments or conservation area designations on site, there are designations close by. Within County Durham there is Bob Gins Engine House Scheduled Monument (500m to the south), Tanfield Waggonway embankment including Culvert of 1717 a Grade I listed building (500m to the south), Causey Arch Scheduled Monument and Grade I listed building, (600m to the south) and Beckley Farm House Grade II (approximately 500m to the south west). Burnopfield Conservation Area is some 1.2km to the west, Tanfield Conservation area and a number of listed buildings within that settlement are some 1.4km to the south west, Beamish Burn Conservation Area lies 1.1km to the south east.
374. Within Gateshead there are Conservation Areas at Marley Hill (200m to the north), Gibside (also a Registered Historic Park and Garden) 1.7km to the north west and Ravensworth Castle and Park (a locally important Historic Park and Garden 1.5km to the north east. The former Bowes Railway line which is a Scheduled Monument in parts is situated approximately 1.5km to the east at its closest point.
375. A heritage assessment has been submitted with the application which was updated through the ES Addendum to incorporate geophysical surveys and trial trenching results. The assessment considers the impact on the designated and non-designated heritage assets located within 5km of the application site including visual impact and noise. The assessment considers that there would no impacts upon the large majority of the designated assets due to local topography providing a shielding effect as demonstrated through the visual impact assessments that have been undertaken. It is stated that in the case of Beckley Farm there would be a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building. The harm is identified as being moderate during the life of the site with the setting being notably affected in the view from the south west but it is noted that with the landscape bunding during site operations followed by the restoration the impact would be short term and limited. Aside from Beckley Farm it is considered that there would be no other significant impacts on the setting of designated assets.
376. The Council’s Design and Conservation officer has no objections to the proposal. Officers note that the heritage impact assessment highlights a potential adverse impact on the setting of Beckley Farmhouse and outbuildings which are Grade II listed, but judges this to be less than substantial harm. Officers understand that the occupiers have raised an objection to the application, however having visited the building the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer does not share their concerns regarding the potential impact on the listed building. The principal elevation of the listed building is south facing, with an inward looking orientation to the outbuildings rather than them actively addressing the wider landscape to the north. It is stated that there may indeed be an adverse impact on the amenity of occupiers of the property (covered elsewhere in this report) but the way in which the asset is appreciated and its historic relationship with the surrounding landscape will not be adversely affected by the proposed development.
377. In regards to the impact on Gibside, Ravensworth Conservation Area, the former Bowes Railway and the locally listed Ravensworth park and garden, it is considered that the proposal would not be visible from these given the distances from the site and therefore would not have any impact on their setting and significance. The proposal would therefore not conflict with UDP Policies DC1(a), ENV9, ENV14 and ENV19 and the NPPF.
- 84 - 378. With regard to the impact on the Whickham Conservation Area, it is considered by Gateshead officers that views of the proposal are likely to be imperceptible given the large distance in between and therefore any impact would be negligible and the proposal would not have any detrimental impact on the setting of this conservation area. The proposal would therefore not conflict with UDP Policies ENV9 and DC1(a), and the NPPF.
379. The assessment considers the impact upon the Marley Hill Conservation Area which is 200m north and shielded from the site by rising ground and woodland. There would be limited views from the conservation area and village and the visual impact is considered within the landscape and visual impact assessment. Consideration has been given to potential increased noise levels from the proposed site and it is considered that levels would be within levels set out in NPPG. Durham County Council Design and Conservation officer considered that the adverse visual impacts on this designated asset are more definable. Gateshead officers consider that there would be little, if any, harm to the conservation area or its setting.
380. In addition there are a number of non-designated heritage assets within the application site relating to past settlement, agricultural and industrial uses. These include early coal mining remains comprising physical evidence of 18 th and 19 th Century mining remains such as shaft mounds, small spoil tips and waggonways; remains of Marley Hill Colliery and Andrews House Colliery and former colliery housing, coke ovens and chemical works remains; remains of Andrew’s Farm House. The majority of these features would be removed as part of the proposed development. The submitted heritage assessment states that these non-designated assets are largely of local interest and contain some historic assets of potential regional value and could be investigated and contribute towards regional research priorities for the historic environment. The assessment also considers that the restoration proposals would reinstate the broad character of the existing site and restore the finer grain of the historic landscape.
381. A desk based archaeological assessment submitted with the application identified the site as having the potential to include heritage assets of archaeological interest and identified the need to undertake a scheme of archaeological fieldwork. The Council’s Archaeology Officer and the Tyne and Wear Archaeologist agree that currently known heritage assets are generally of local significance and interest, albeit a few of which when taken together are of potential regional interest. Further works involving a scheme of geophysical investigation and trenching was subsequently carried out to investigate identified anomalies and other features reported to be present on the site. Nothing of archaeological significance was found. 37 trial trenches were excavated and remains of trenches, gullies, waggonways, mining related features, pits, walls and cobbled surfaces within the pre-1940’s Andrew’s House Farm area. Artefactual evidence is primarily from the 19 th Century with the remaining from 17 th and 18 th Centuries.
382. English Heritage, having considered the potential impact of the proposed development in relation to the designated heritage assets of Gibside and its estate, and Causey Arch and the Tanfield Railway system, is satisfied that the proposals would not cause substantial harm to, or loss of, these designated heritage assets in the vicinity of the application site or cause substantial harm to their setting. Design and Historic Environment officers have not objected to the proposals. Overall it is considered that there would be no substantial harm to other designated heritage assets given the proposed development is not within the setting of and would not affect the significance a designated heritage asset given the distance from the application site and intervening development.
383. It is not considered that that the loss of the non-designated heritage assets would have a significant impact upon the historic environment, and would be mitigated through appropriately - 85 - informed archaeological excavation and research. Using the results of the evaluation works, a proposed mitigation strategy has been put forward by the applicant this includes the carrying out of further archaeological work in several areas of the site and to provide access to heritage interests to local and interested communities. A written scheme of investigation is proposed that would include archaeological investigation, monitoring of several identified heritage interests and the scope of community involvement. Mitigation measures are also proposed through the restoration scheme which would involve the reinstatement of historic landscape features such as field boundaries. This along with the provision of interpretation boards explaining the history of the site and its surroundings would provide a beneficial link to the historical past.
384. Objectors to the proposals have raised concerns regarding adverse impacts on heritage assets in the vicinity of the site with specific mention of Beckley Farm House and the industrial heritage of the area.
385. Having regard to the submitted evidence there is no indication of any archaeological features of national significance that would warrant the preservation in situ of remains as per national planning guidance in the NPPF. Archaeology officers fully support the proposal to include an aspect of community involvement in the archaeological mitigation strategy should planning permission be granted. It is considered that this can be secured through the imposition of appropriate conditions requiring the submission of a written scheme of investigation to be submitted prior to development commencing and another requiring the final analysis and reporting is carried out, published if required and deposited with the two local Historic Environment Records.
386. With the exception of Beckley Farm, it is not considered that there would be harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets in the vicinity of the application site given the given the distance from the application site and intervening development. In the case of Beckley Farm there would be less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, but the public benefits of the proposal as set out in this report would outweigh any temporary short term harm. Although archaeological remains would be lost as a result of the proposed development they are not designated and are not considered to be of sufficient importance to warrant consideration or protection of designated assets. No objections have been raised by the Council’s Design and Conservation and Archaeology officers or English Heritage. Suitable mitigation can be secured through the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and as such Design and Conservation officers and Archaeological and Gateshead officers have no objections to the proposals, which would accord with MLP Policies M30, M31 and M33, UDP Policies ENV9, ENV14, ENV19, ENV20, ENV21, ENV22, DC1(a) and advice contained in Part 12 of the NPPF.
387. Under the terms of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 local planning authorities have a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving any listed building or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses in exercising their development control functions. It is considered that this duty has been complied with.
- 86 - Recreational amenity
388. The area has an established and well used public rights of way network. A number of footpaths, bridleways and byways pass through the site within the administrative boundaries of Gateshead and County Durham.
389. Footpaths, bridleways and byways along St Cuthbert’s Road going into the site from the north would be diverted (Bridleways (Whickham) Nos. 142, 132, Footpaths (Whickham) Nos. 131, 136, 180 and Byway (Whickham 133). These would be replaced by ‘alternative route 1 (bridleway)’ running along the northern boundary of the site providing bridleway access from the routes to the west of the site, temporarily replacing St Cuthbert’s Road and linking to Marley Hill. A permissive footpath that runs along the route of the Tanfield Railway would cross the proposed haul road and ramp leading from the stocking area and plant yard to the main part of the site. This would be replaced with ‘alternative route 2 (footpath)’, a footpath that would run parallel with the outer fence of the haul road to cross the haul road at the controlled crossing at Tanfield Railway and then rejoining its original route.
390. The crossing point of the haul road would be close to the crossing point of the Tanfield Railway and would be controlled by traffic lights but would also be manned. Footpath No. (Stanley) 69 and Bridleway No. (Whickham) 202 would also be diverted during the working of the site. These routes would be replaced by ‘alternative route no. 3 (bridleway)’. This route would run along the south eastern side of the site and would be fenced off within the site boundary between boundary and a subsoil and topsoil mound. An additional bridleway would be created along a farm track along the south and west of the site, the exact route to be determined. In the western part of the site are a number of further footpaths and byways which would be diverted. These being Footpath No. (Stanley) 73, Footpath No. (Whickham) 197, 200 and Byway no. (Whickham) No. 196. ‘Alternative way no. 4 (bridleway)’ would comprise Footpath Nos. (Stanley) 72 and 73 being upgraded to bridleway. ‘Alternative way no. 5 (bridleway)’ would also be located on the western boundary.
391. Regional Cycle Route 11 (Sustrans) passes through the site entering at Bodgins Lane along Durham Bridleway No.71 along Gateshead Bridleway No.202 to the entrance to Tanfield Railway and onto the A6076. This would be directly affected by the proposed development but an alternative way would be provided. There is also a local Sustran Route which follows St Cuthbert’s Road which would also be affected for the duration of the development.
392. Although lengths of footpaths would be stopped up during working (2.49km over 4.5 years along with 2.3km of Bridleway, 109m of permissive rights of way and 1.4km of restricted byway), five alternative routes would be provided around the site (both within and outside the site boundary). Upon restoration the footpath and bridleway network would be rationalised through the extinguishment, diversion and upgrading of a number of routes within County Durham and Gateshead. There would be the creation of 1.86km of new footpaths and 2.94km of new bridleways. In addition 1.65km of existing and reinstated footpaths would be upgraded to bridleway and this would include a permanent upgrade through Beckley Woods, and would be created as an alternative right of way early in the life of the site. Upon restoration a multi- user way would be created. This would start at Tanfield Railway and run parallel with the proposed extension of the Railway to Byermoor within the site boundary and continuing across and to the north of the Byermoor Heaps outside of the site boundary to the west.
393. The additional footpaths and bridleways would be ‘dedicated’ (secured through legal agreement) to ensure their use in perpetuity and would tie into the surrounding public rights of way network. It is intended that the routes would provide long and short circular routes around - 87 - the restored site linking into the wider network. They would be routed through woodland, mosaic habitat, green lanes and adjacent to hedgerows intended to provide a varied range of views.
394. The footpaths across the site provide good opportunities for countryside access and informal recreation for the nearby population. The use of the routes would be directly affected by the proposed development and there would be a reduction in the levels of amenity currently provided for the duration of the development. However, the proposed arrangements to ensure the continued use of public rights of way during and after mineral extraction and proposals to rationalise the routes are considered acceptable and there is likely to be a positive long term effect upon the recreational value of the countryside arising from increased public access. Such proposals are in line with comments made by the County Durham Local Access Forum for opportunities to be taken for the creation of new rights of way as well as rationalisation of the public rights of way network.
395. Any adverse impact on users of the routes would be for the duration which they use the route and measures would be put in place to ensure that any potential impacts would be mininised. Impacts such as noise, dust and visual impact are addressed elsewhere in the report. It is therefore not considered that the development would have an unacceptable impact upon the recreational value of the countryside. The proposals would therefore accord with MLP Policy M35 and UDP Policy DC4 (e).
Agricultural Quality and Use
396. Most of the site is currently in agricultural use (93.79 ha) (approximately 65.15 ha in cereal cropping, 23.84 ha long term pasture grassland and 4.8 ha in temporary grass leys). Land within the planning application boundary is recognised as best and most versatile under the agricultural land classification. Of the 123.22 ha application 0.3 ha is Grade 2, 60.79 ha is Grade 3a, 23.3 ha being Grade 3b, 5.9 ha is Grade 4. The remainder of the site is made up of non-agricultural land (3.2 ha), urban (17.66 ha), woodland (3.24 ha) and urban and woodland (8.65 ha).
397. Following restoration of the site the amount of land available for agricultural use would return to approximately 69.7 ha, in agricultural enclosures. Of this, it is expected that 61.09 ha would be restored to Grade 3a, and the remainder to Grade 3b and to Grade 4 given the heavier textured soils and/or gradient limitations. The remaining 37 ha being used for woodland and mosaic including ponds. The balance not having been worked or stripped. There would be a loss of some 93.79 ha of agricultural land for the duration of the proposed development and 24.09 ha overall given less agriculture is proposed upon restoration.
398. There would be a loss of agricultural land during the life of the site but this would be reinstated upon restoration, 59.3ha being ‘best and most versatile agricultural land’. Natural England, noting that 59.3ha of the site is best and most versatile, has no objections to the proposals being generally satisfied that the proposed site working and reclamation proposals meet the requirements for sustainable minerals development. A methodology for soil stripping, handling, storage, replacement and assessment of suitable soil handling conditions has been submitted with the application.
399. If the development takes place the handling and storage of soils would be carried out in line with good practice and be adequately controlled. Natural England raise not objections and has suggested conditions which would be applied should planning permission be granted. With the methodology proposed it is not considered that there would be an overall loss of - 88 - agricultural land quality following restoration of the site and it is not considered that the proposal would conflict with MLP Policy M34 and paragraph 143 of the NPPF.
Hydrology and hydrogeology
400. The site lies within the catchment of Bobgins Burn and three of its tributaries. Bobgins Burn lies at a distance ranging between 20 and 280 metres to the south and west of the site of the site and flows in a southern direction before forming a confluence with Causey Burn, then flowing towards Causey Row in a north easterly direction before becoming Beamish Burn and eventually discharging into the River Team. The tributaries of the Burn within the site are Burdon Dene on the eastern side of the A6076 which then flows beneath the road emerging adjacent to the south eastern boundary of the site and flowing in a south westerly direction before discharging into Bobgins Burn. Wheatley Gill is a tributary in the western part of the site that eventually flows along the south western boundary of the site. An unnamed tributary risings in the northern part of the site north of Marley Hill Colliery that flows southwards adjacent to Tanfield Railway and then through Tinker Wood where it is recorded as Andrew’s House Gill. This extends across the proposed excavation area and would be progressively removed as excavations advance in a north easterly and then in an east north easterly direction. The water would be pumped or drained into a temporary channel that would be formed across part of the overburden mound discharging into one of the water treatment areas. It would be reinstated following the completion of operations close to its current course.
401. The site is within Flood Zone 1 in the Environment Agency land classification (land at least likelihood of risk of fluvial and sea flooding). The hydrological (flood risk) assessment considers that the site is not at risk of flooding and the development would not increase the risk of this occurring downstream provided that the discharge of treated water is maintained at greenfield rates. Members of the public have raised concerns regarding increased flooding in recent years in the UK and worries of possible cracks and slippages at the proposed site as well as the possible pollution of watercourses. The Environment Agency has not raised any concerns regarding the submitted assessment and through condition a surface water management scheme would be required. In addition, a discharge licence (for water being discharged from the site) would be required from the Environment Agency.
402. The coal measures strata are classified as a minor aquifer as defined by the Environment Agency. During site working all water would be directed to water treatment areas (to be located on the north western part of the site) prior to discharge to ensure that no contaminated water enters watercourses. The discharges would also require Environment Agency consent. There are no licensed surface water abstractions and no private or unlicensed abstractions. Currently there is one discharge consent for Northumbrian Water at Sunniside but this is outside of the site. The proposal would therefore not affect the direct water supply of properties.
403. Groundwater monitoring has shown that very little groundwater would be encountered in the excavations as the bedrock strata is already dewatered by pumping at Kibblesworth undertaken by the Coal Authority and is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Any groundwater that is found would be managed within the excavations and it is not considered that the development would lead to measureable drawdown. It is not considered that there would be an impact upon natural vegetation or areas of ecological interest as superficial deposits are already underdrained as a consequence of existing drawndown. Nor is it considered that there would be an adverse impact upon the Causey Bank Mires SSSI. Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, would not damage or destroy the interest features - 89 - for which the site has been notified. It therefore advises that the SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining the application. The Environment Agency has requested, through condition, that a scheme for groundwater monitoring and management be required prior to the commencement of the development.
404. The submitted hydrogeological assessment identifies that surface runoff and perched groundwater would be encountered in the made ground where contaminated materials have been identified. The water found in these areas would be segregated from normal site drainage and the water pumped and or tankered to an area within the contaminated treatment area. All surface water within this area would be contained. The treated contaminated material would be deposited above groundwater level so as not to have an adverse impact on groundwater. It is reported that there is some evidence to suggest that the contaminants are polluting the groundwater in the bedrock, but the pollution is being diluted in flooded mine workings that extend from the southern part of the site.
405. Burdon Dene landfill site at Hedley West House Farm, Marley Hill was operated by Miller Waste Disposal Limited. The former landfill site accepted inert, industrial, commercial and household wastes. The EA consider that there may be a potential for landfill gas to be generated. The licence was issued on 9 February 1984. The first waste input was on 31 December 1984 and the last waste was deposited at the site on 30 November 1992. The licence was surrendered on 31 March 1994. St Cuthberts Landfill site and is located at Sandygate, Marley Hill. The site was operated by Owen Pugh and Co. Limited. The site accepted inert and commercial wastes and was licensed to accept up to 150,000 tonnes of waste. It is unknown if this site is producing landfill gas. The licence was issued on 17 February 1977. The first waste input was on 10 June 1977 and the last waste input was on the 30 April 1982. The licence was surrendered on 30 April 1994. Longfield House Farm off St Cuthberts Road, Byermoor is a closed landfill site. The site was operated and closed before 1974 when the licensing regime was introduced. The type of waste that was accepted by the site is unknown and it is not known whether the site is producing landfill gas. It is not considered that there is evidence to suggest that groundwater is being polluted from leachate from these former landfill sites.
406. In terms of the remediation proposals, there would be potential for leachate generation during the excavation of contaminated soils, during their transportation and during temporary stockpiling. Measures would be put in place to manage these risks that would include incorporating features into site design to enable the contaminated water to be pumped and tankered into a dedicate treatment plant; daily inspection of haul roads; use of an impermeable geotextile within the temporary stockpiling; pumping out of leachate or surface water to a water treatment plant for treatment before discharge and regular testing of water.
407. Based on available information the proposals would not have unacceptable adverse environmental effects in terms of hydrology and hydrogeology. No surface or ground water issues have arisen that cannot be controlled through mitigation measures and other pollution controls regulated by the Environment Agency which has no objections to the scheme, although the Agency advises that a comprehensive risk assessment may be required due to potential risks from former landfill sites in the vicinity. However, this assessment has been provided in the ES. The Council’s Contaminated Land officer considers that the necessary information formed part of the site investigation works and is satisfied that this has been addressed. The proposal would therefore accord with MLP Policy M38, DLP Policy EN27, UDP Policy DC1 (h), (i), (j), (k) and Part 10 of the NPPF.
- 90 - Access and traffic
408. It is proposed that the vehicle haulage route would be split between Durham and Gateshead with the laden vehicles leaving the site turning left onto the A6076 and on to the A692 to the A1 at Lobley Hill then right to Tyne Dock via the A1 and A194 for rail loading to market. The empty returning vehicles would access the site through County Durham from the A1 at Chester-le-Street then onto the A693 to the A6076 to the proposed site access. The coal haulage route would be secured through a S106 legal agreement and would apply to all laden and unladen HGVs. Additional site traffic would include vehicles moving excavation plant and other items for a short period during the commissioning and de-commissioning phases.
409. Approximately 7,623 tonnes of coal and up to 1,250 tonnes of fireclay per week would be produced at the site over some 140 weeks. Based on a 5 day working week it is anticipated that an average of 122 (61 in and 61 out) HGVs per working day would enter and leave the site. During the remediation period there would be additional 3 to 5 vehicles per day for 12 months within the first two years of the site. Including the remediation vehicles this would equate to an average of 132 (66 in and 66 out) HGVs per working day entering and leaving the site. At peak production (December of Year 2 for a two month period and for 1 month towards the end of Year 4) up to 11,643 tonnes of coal would be produced per week. Based on a 5 day working week and including fireclay it is anticipated that up to 178 (89 in and 89 out) HGVs per working day would enter and leave the site for a short period of time. It is thought unlikely that these maximum periods of production would coincide with both remediation and fireclay production. To achieve this, the applicant would schedule fireclay movements from the site outside of peak times for coal production to even out HGV movements. The dispatch of residual amounts of coal and fireclay following the completion of extraction would largely be completed over a further 4 week period.
410. It is proposed to create a new access off the A6076, approximately 200 metres to north of the existing access to the Tanfield Railway car park. This proposed access point would be located within the administrative area of Gateshead.
411. The submitted Assessment considers the traffic implications of the proposal. The assessment considers matters of access, highway capacity and highway safety. Baseline data was collected in respect of traffic flows and surveys undertaken at locations along the proposed haul routes. These being the A6076, A692 and A693 to their junctions with the A1 and A1(M) respectively. In addition road safety collision statistics were collected. The assessment concludes that the proposed scheme would lead to a negligible increase in traffic volumes (compared to existing traffic volumes from the surveys carried out) which would not lead to a material impact at any specific junction. It is also considered that, given the small number of additional vehicles, there would not be a material change in the risk of a collision. It is acknowledged that there are issues on the A6076 relating to collision numbers and severity but this is not at a level to trigger any mitigative work. Consideration is given to the carbon benefits of indigenous coal and it is stated that coal exported from the Marley Hill site would result in less carbon emissions than foreign imports.
412. The applicant has provided autotrack drawings and officers consider that these show that HGVs would enter and leave the site in a safe manner these details include satisfactory visibility splays at the access/egress point onto the A6097. Nevertheless, the applicant has also proposed an indicative local safety scheme adjacent to the access/egress point. The Highways Authorities consider that this is acceptable in principle with details to be submitted through condition should planning permission be granted.
- 91 - 413. For employees and visitors to the site, it is accepted that public transport in the immediate vicinity of the site is limited. However, minerals can only be worked where they are found. A Travel Plan (TP) has been submitted with the ES to reduce reliance on one person car journeys and sets out measures to promote car sharing and cycling to the site. The implementation of this travel plan can be secured through condition which would also require surveys to be provided 3 months and then 12 months following commencement of operations.
414. The submitted information has been assessed by both Highways Authorities who are in agreement with the findings. Officers consider that the simplest way to police the traffic generated from the site is to split this over two routes. Gateshead Council as Highways Authorities has recommended that a limit on vehicle numbers per hour is controlled through condition. This being 20 per hour (10 in/10 out). However, there are concerns regarding the enforceability of an hourly traffic condition and a daily average is considered the simplest way to police the traffic generated from the site. The A692 route to the A1 at Lobley Hill is a designated freight/haul route as set out in the Tyne and Wear Local Transport Plan as is the route within County Durham as set out in the Durham County Freight Map. The Highways Agency has confirmed that it has no objections to the proposed development.
415. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts on development are severe. It is considered that traffic generated by the proposal could be accommodated safely and conveniently on the highway network and the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity would be acceptable. Provision of the new access prior to any other works commencing, the provision and maintenance of a wheel wash facility, measures to ensure that the highway is kept clear of mud or debris and the sheeting of vehicles, recording vehicle movements, would also be a highways requirement but these and related matters can be covered by planning condition. Provision of warning signs would also be erected. The applicant would enter into an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 with Gateshead Council, as Highways Authority given the proposed access is within its administrative area. This would cover access arrangements. The Highways Authorities and the Highways Agency have no objections to the proposal. The proposed development would accord with MLP Policies M36, M42 and M43, UDP Policies MWR2, T1, DC4(a) and (b), DC5(b) and Part 4 of the NPPF.
416. Concerns have been raised regarding the proposed haulage routes in both County Durham and Gateshead in terms of suitability and impact on roadside communities. Stanley Town Council has raised concerns regarding the County Durham route. Nevertheless, in highway terms there are no objections to the proposed route that passes through Stanley and this is endorsed by the County Highways Authority and the Highways Agency. The proposed route for HGVs associated with the development are routes shown on the Durham County Freight Map, which shows the designated road network that the drivers of heavy goods vehicles are expected to use to access destinations within the County. The route (A693 and A6076) both appear on the freight map. These are “A” class principal roads, and the purpose of the map is to ensure as far as possible that these vehicles travel on roads that are appropriate, thereby reducing environmental impact on less suitable routes.
417. Stanley Town Council is further concerned that the open Cast Site at Marley Hill is technically not a destination in the County as it falls within Tyne and Wear and the vehicles in question are not technically H.G.V’S but tipper trucks. Highways officers note that the Department of Transport defines HGV’s as Heavy goods vehicles (HGV) as goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes maximum permissible gross vehicle weight (gvw). So far as officers are aware “Tipper Trucks” are not defined. Although the website says within the County, these routes extend beyond the - 92 - county. The A1M and the A68 (for example) serve as through routes for HGV’s passing through the county to other destinations. This is true of all such routes and in addition almost 50% of the site is in the County.
418. Gateshead officers have no concerns regarding the proposed haulage route within Gateshead, again considering that the routes proposed are “A” class principal roads on designated freight routes as identified in the Tyne and Wear Local Transport Plan, and provided that a condition requiring restriction on the number of vehicle movements from the site is imposed if planning permission is granted.
Other minerals
419. The previous planning application on this site proposed the extraction of 600,000 tonne of sand and gravel. However, it is not thought that significant quantities of commercially viable sand and gravel are present within the current reduced application area and those which are would be unlikely to be of suitable quality. It is not anticipated that any sand and gravel would be removed from the site but if any workable resources were subsequently identified they would be removed concurrently with the coal and fireclay within the working timescale. In the unlikely event that useable minerals of sufficient quality and quantity were encountered then the environmental effects (such as any increase in vehicle movements) of the removal of additional mineral would need to be considered in advance of removal from site through a planning application.
Dereliction and Contamination
420. Associated with the previous uses of the land there are areas of dereliction and contamination within and adjacent to the application site. The areas of dereliction on the site have reduced progressively in the years since the former uses of the site have ceased. Buildings have been demolished, although some foundations remain, and the land has naturally re-vegetation. There are small areas of derelict land in the north eastern part of the site alongside the Tanfield Railway but the main area of dereliction is an area of made ground immediately to the north of the existing railway buildings. Outside of the site to the west (within County Durham) is land associated with the former Byermoor Colliery. This area does not form part of the application area as it was considered by officers that the ecological value of these areas should be retained.
421. Derelict land can include contaminated land that could cause significant harm to people and protected species and significant pollution of surface waters or groundwater.
422. The main areas of contamination (1.8 ha within the Gateshead part of the site with areas within County Durham with the potential for contamination) arise from the former cokeworks area and colliery spoil and there are smaller areas of contamination expected from old pits backfilled with tars. The contaminated materials would be removed from the ground, treated in a treatment area and stabilised and buried at depth within the void. As set out elsewhere in the report, this process would occur in the early stages of the operation of the site. The ES considers the contamination on site noting that black tar, bituminous tar, oily tar and blue billy (spent oxide) were all encountered during site investigations. In addition, various polluted metals and hydrocarbons have also been encountered. The submitted assessment found that groundwater in the site is also contaminated and that soils (due to the contaminants) are posing an unacceptable risk to controlled waters. It is concluded that contamination on site that is on or near the surface poses a risk to the health of current users on the site, such as
- 93 - people using the area for recreation.
423. The assessment also considers the impacts of the remediation proposals on site users, controlled waters and the general water environment, unauthorised site users, local residents and recreational users. Without development the impact is considered to be significant given potential pollution linkages identified in the submitted ground investigation and remediation options appraisal report. During the remediation and coal extraction phase the significance of the impacts are considered not to be significant with controls in place such as use of personal protection equipment for employees, fencing off of the site and use of dust and odour controls. Upon restoration it is considered that the effect would be not significant and significant positive for the water environment. The remediation operations would be undertaken by a recognised contractor. Mitigation would be incorporated into the remediation process including measures to control noise (similar to those proposed for the surface mining operation such as the silencing of equipment), dust (storage of stabilisers in silos with use of a bag filter during delivery), protection of the water environment (use of bunding within the treatment compound and a dedicated water treatment area).
424. MLP Policy M7b identifies one of the benefits of surface coal mining as being the contribution of the proposal towards the comprehensive reclamation of areas of derelict or contaminated land. Although this would not be the case for land within County Durham, it would in terms of the site as a whole.
425. Gateshead UDP Policy ENV56 states that derelict land will be reclaimed for the most appropriate beneficial uses. In particular the major site at Marley Hill and Byermoor Collieries will be reclaimed for recreation, nature conservation and woodland. This Policy includes the land that makes up the application site. In terms of the background to this Policy, an area of land in Gateshead at Marley Hill and Byermoor totalling approximately 40 hectares was identified as a new project in Gateshead Council’s Reclamation Programme/Strategy in the 1980s and which makes up part of the proposed application site. The same area of land has been monitored as part of the Annual Derelict Land Survey undertaken by Gateshead Council. Whilst this is an annual survey not every site has been visited or surveyed every year, largely because most sites remain unchanged, and due to resource constraints. Land at Marley Hill has been subject to a site visit and survey in 2008 and again in 2013 (April). The latest survey carried out confirmed that the area of derelict land was growing smaller.
426. UDP Policy ENV54 sets out that applications for development on land affected by contamination will be permitted if; (a) the site is reclaimed to a standard which is suitable for the proposed end use; (b) there is no threat to public health or safety; (c) environmental standards are not compromised; (d) no threat is posed to controlled waters; (e) appropriate measures are taken to protect local amenity while works are carried out; and (f) any nature conservation interest, habitat, species and geological features on the land are protected. In addition, part (p) of UDP Policy DC1 sets out that planning permission will be granted for new development where it addresses the issues of potential land contamination, derelict land, hazardous substances and ground stability.
427. The proposed scheme would remove the areas of dereliction which exist on the site and through the proposed restoration scheme, would transform the site to a mixture of recreational uses (in the form of new footpaths and bridleways, multi-user route and potential expansion of the Tanfield Railway) and nature conservation. Gateshead officers have considered the details of the submitted contaminated land survey and query whether a surface mine scheme is the only way of dealing with the contamination and if the current situation proposes a
- 94 - sufficient risk to the public. In addition it is noted that remediation would not take place on all of the land affected by contamination in the applicant’s ownership.
428. In the addendum to the ES, the applicant has provided alternatives to the proposed scheme in terms of remediating the site. These alternatives being firstly to do nothing with the site . Secondly the isolation of, or limited placement of, clean cover in the areas affected by near surface contamination, and thirdly, limited near surface excavation of contaminated material, followed by treatment or disposal. In terms of doing nothing, the risk of this would be that a pollutant source would continue to remain on site. In terms of the second option it is acknowledged that this would provide a reduction in the risk to human health from the surface of the land but that a source of pollution to groundwater would still remain. Also areas of ecological habitat would be lost through these works. The third option, this would also reduce the risk to human health from the surface of the land but pollution to groundwater would still remain and areas of ecological habitat removed. In addition treated material would have to be taken off site with associated disturbance. Moreover, the applicant states that this option would cost approximately £0.5 million with no revenue stream to support the work.
429. Officers from both Authorities have considered the additional information submitted. It is clear that there are areas of contamination within the site which are accessible to the public and that the pollution on the site also provides a pathway to groundwater. The proposed surface mine scheme provides an opportunity to deal with a significant amount of the worst affected areas. The Environment Agency does not intend to pursue remediation at the current time. This is confirmed in its consultation response to the application where it is stated that the Agency does not consider the site to be a priority in terms of land contamination.
430. Other potential measures for addressing the contamination such as fencing areas of the site off, whilst likely to deter people from entering contaminated areas, would also limit recreational access for an unlimited time in comparison to the restoration scheme proposed which would provide no restriction to public access. With regard to contaminated land in the applicant’s ownership but outwith the application site, it is acknowledged that these would not be remediated but that this has been proposed deliberately by the applicant to retain some areas of ecological habitat on the site.
431. Consideration has been given to whether Gateshead Council (as the contaminated land to be remediated falls solely within Gateshead) has powers to remediate the site and the likelihood of this. Funding previously provided by DEFRA for such matters has now substantially reduced and only applies to public land. Given that the site is privately rather than publically owned, this source of grant funding would not be available to the site. This would only then leave the option of enforcement action through Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act. The DEFRA Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance sets out that enforcement action should only be taken if there are no alternatives. In this case the alternative would be to remediate the land through the proposed development.
432. If planning permission is granted it is considered that relevant planning conditions are necessary for further contaminant sampling, remediation to take place and relevant verification once this has happened. In addition a financial guarantee is required to ensure the contaminants are treated. This would be covered through the proposed Section 106 Agreement.
433. Given the above, it is considered that the comprehensive remediation of derelict and contaminated land would overall result in a substantially beneficial environmental impact and that the proposed surface mine would be the only realistic way of achieving this. The proposal - 95 - would be in compliance with part (p) of UDP Policy DC1 and UDP Policy ENV56. With regard to Policy ENV54 of the UDP it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with parts (a) to (e) but in regard to part (f), the proposal would be in conflict due to the ecological impacts considered earlier in this report. The proposal would also be in accordance with paragraphs 81, 109 and 120 of the NPPF.
434. DLP Policy GDP1 aims to ensure that all developments incorporate a high standard of design are energy efficient, protect landscape, natural and historic features, protect and manage ecology, protect valuable open land, provide adequate landscaping, incorporate crime prevention measures and improve personal safety, protect amenity and provide adequate drainage. The proposed remediation works would be temporary in nature with measures put in place to ensure safeguards are put in place to control the development. The impacts of which are considered within this report and are considered to be acceptable and would not conflict with DLP Policy GDP1.
435. Members of the public objecting to the proposal have queried if the land is so dangerous why something has not been done sooner and it is noted that plants are growing on the site. In addition concerns are expressed that contaminated material would be removed from another part of the site and buried directly opposite to the front of Bankwell House. That the treated contaminated material could spread to restoration soils the risk that contamination put back in the ground would become unstable in the future. The remediation proposals seek to remove contaminants that lie at or close to ground surface and to solidify and stabilise them so that they cannot leach chemicals into the ground water. The treated material would be placed in the surface excavations at a depth of not less than 5m below the final surface and covered by backfilled material and which trees roots would not penetrate. The process would be controlled through the necessary Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency.
Stability
436. In assessing the environmental impacts from mineral extraction the Planning Practice Guidance advises that the consideration of slope stability that is needed at the time of an application will vary between mineral workings depending on a number of factors, e.g. depth of working; the nature of materials excavated; the life of the working; the length of time interim slopes are expected to be in place; and the nature of the restoration proposals. Appraisal of slope stability for new workings should be based on existing information, which aims to identify any potential hazard to people and property and environmental assets and assess its significance, and identify any features which could adversely affect the stability of the working to enable basic quarry design to be undertaken. Part 11 of the NPPF (Paragraphs 109, 120 and 121) requires the planning system to consider remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land where appropriate. Noting that where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.
437. A geotechnical assessment report accompanies the submission. The report considers the features of the site which would represent significant hazards on the site as defined within the Quarries Regulations (1999). These include the excavation slopes as the workings would extend to a maximum depth of 63m, the overburden mound because of its size, the soil storage mounds because of their size, location close to the excavation slopes and/or site boundary, and the backfill tip and the associated loosewall slope due to their size and height. The assessment makes a number of recommendations in respect of these hazards. In addition recommendations are made regarding the frequency of inspections and quarterly review of the geotechnical assessment report for the site. There are specific requirements for - 96 - surface coal mine site operators under the Quarry Regulations 1999 including the requirement for the regular review of geotechnical assessments. All sites are subject to inspection by the Health and Safety Executive.
438. The assessment concludes that provided the development is carried out in accordance with the proposed site plan (shoeing limits of excavation and position of mounds) and in accordance with the recommendations made in the geotechnical assessment and advise of a geotechnical specialist during the course of the development in accordance with the Quarry Regulations it is not considered that the integrity of adjacent properties would be compromised. This would be in accordance with MLP Policy M36 requiring the incorporation of suitable mitigation measures to ensure potentially harmful impacts from subsidence and landslip are reduced to an acceptable level and UDP Policy DC1(p). This would also be in accordance with Planning Practice Guidance and paragraph 120 of the NPPF.
Mine gas
439. A number of gases are associated with abandoned mines. These include combustible gases (methane, hydrogen and carbon dioxide) and excess inert gases (nitrogen and carbon dioxide). Methane or firedamp, formation of which is a natural phenomenon with emission rates at their greatest during extraction, can have explosive effects. Stythe or blackdamp can be formed in former deep coal mines from the oxidation of the coal and timber left behind. This is depleted in oxygen and can cause a number of health effects, where the oxygen composition is low and where normal atmospheric air has been displaced can be dangerous. Large volumes of the gas can accumulate and can be displaced if groundwater levels recovered and workings become flooded. Gases can come to the surface through old access points to the mine, through cracks and fissures in the underlying rock.
440. A mine gas risk assessment has been submitted considering the risks associated with the proposed development. Risks posed by migrating gases are stated as being inherent of the area and in Marley Hill are a consequence of continued pumping at Kibblesworth and presence of dewatered old workings at relatively shallow depth, localised paucity of glacial cover that would otherwise inhibit gas migration and the close proximity of occupied dwellings to a number of old mine shafts. Abandoned mine workings and openings would be encountered in the excavations in which potentially harmful gases may be present.
441. The assessment concludes that the development would not have an adverse impact and nor would it increase the inherent risk posed by mine gases in the Marley Hill area. It is considered that the development may marginally reduce the risk by allowing gases to safely dissipate in the atmosphere during the development of the surface excavations and following the placement of backfill. A number of recommendations are made regarding the safety of site operatives during the propose reclamation works. Within the site boundary no specific safety measures are proposed but operatives would work in accordance with site rules that are in place at existing sites operated by the applicant (such as not entering exposed old working) and to a specification agreed with the Coal Authority. It is not considered that there would be an adverse impact on the mine gas regime outside of the site. The development would allow gases to vent when the old mine working are exposed and the replacement of backfill may provide a long term safe migration pathway.
442. Although the responsibility for any adverse effects arising from the migration of mines gases would rest with the Coal Authority, as at present, it is proposed that oxygen deficiency and carbon monoxide monitors could be installed in a number of properties around the site and in Marley Hill and Byermoor to ally public anxieties. It is suggested that these could be located at - 97 - Longfield House, Tanfield Railway engine shed and representative properties in Byermoor and St Cuthbert’s Park in Marley Hill.
Cumulative impact
443. Paragraphs 143 and 144 of the NPPF and Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Practice Guidance recognises that some areas may have been subject to successive mineral development over a number of years. It is recommended that development plans and when determining planning applications local planning authorities should take into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality. It is stated that the cumulative impact of mineral development is capable of being a material consideration when determining individual planning applications.
444. The site and surrounding area has a long industrial history dating back to the 17 th Century that includes mining, waste disposal and heavy industry. There has been some surface mining in the area in the past. Small sites at Two Crooks (east of Crookgate Bank) and Tanfield (North of Tanfield) were worked in the late 1940s. Both resulted in a localised loss of field boundaries but neither have had a big impact on the local landscape. The cumulative effect of the proposals with these operations would be negligible and would not conflict with MLP Policy M45 in that respect.
445. Since the closure of Marley Hill Colliery in 1983 the site and its surroundings have not been subject to recent mining activities with the exception of Ravensworth Grange surface coal mine. This site was located some 1.4km to the east of the application site and commenced operations in 2001 with restoration being complete in late 2003. There have been no other mineral or waste operations within the vicinity of the site within the last 5 years.
446. There is currently no surface mining in the vicinity of the site and there has not been in recent years in County Durham. Within County Durham and Gateshead it is not considered that there would be cumulative visual effects as a result of recent or current mineral activity.
447. There have been three recent planning applications for surface coal mines within 11km of the application site. These include an application at Birkland Lane (the Birkland Lane application) solely within Gateshead, which Gateshead Council’s Planning and Development Committee resolved to refuse on 2 April 2014. This application proposed the surface mining of 225,000 tonnes coal over 3 years. In terms of the Birkland Lane application, the assessment considers that there would be no cumulative effect in respect of noise, dust or vibration due to blasting given the distance between the two sites. However, it is considered that there would potentially be temporary significant cumulative effects in respect of landscape and visual impact, given the limited inter-visibility of the two sites, in respect of residents of Farmhouse on Birkland Lane, residents of Stanley and Tantobie, users of the Great North Heritage Trail, Birklands Lane east of the A6076 and users of the A693.
448. With regard to zones of influence with similar sites and UDP Policies MWR2 and MWR3, the final bullet point of paragraph 32 of the NPPF and the second bullet point of paragraph 144, the Birkland Lane site would be located within a zone of influence with the application site in regard to traffic. In terms of vehicle movements vehicles from the site, these would use the A6076 as far as Birkland Lane (approximately 700 metres to the north of the access point proposed in the Marley Hill application) then onto the A692 at Sunniside and onto the A1(M) at Lobley Hill.
- 98 - 449. The refusal reasons for the Birkland Lane application relate to: the development being unsustainable development as the proposal was not considered to be environmentally acceptable and no benefits would outweigh this; lack of up to date ecological survey information that meant the Council were unable to make a full and proper assessment of the ecological impact of the proposal; unacceptable impact on residential amenity given the proximity of the proposal to residential properties; harm to public rights of way from dust and lack of improvements to them; detrimental impact on views from Beamish Museum; insufficient information on the impact on the former Bowes Railway so that the Council were unable to assess this fully; the proposed restoration scheme was inadequate due to inaccuracies within the proposal, insufficient information, inadequate long term maintenance and protection and no opportunities provided to maximise improvements to leisure and ecology; insufficient information submitted to secure an appropriate financial bond for the restoration of the site, and unacceptable impact on highway safety from the haul route along Birkland Lane due to its inadequate width to be able to allow HGVs to safely pass and repass other HGVs. It is unknown whether the Birklands Lane decision will be appealed, and indeed the outcome of any appeal.
450. The proposed Hoodsclose surface coal mine scheme at Whittonstall Village 11km west of Marley Hill was an application made by UKC for the extraction of 2.05 million tonnes of coal over 7.5 years. This application was withdrawn in June 2014. The submitted assessment considers that even though the sites could be operational at the same time there would be no cumulative impact in relation to noise, dust, blasting or visual impact given the distance between them. In terms of traffic, HGVs from both sites would utilise the A1 between the Lobley Hill junction and the A194 eastward resulting a possible cumulative impact but it is consider that this would be insignificant noting that vehicles to Marley Hill would be returning to the site from the A193. Notwithstanding this assessment, the Hoodsclose application was withdrawn in June 2014 and it is not known if a re-submission will be made.
451. The proposed Bradley surface coal mine scheme, within County Durham, lies 8km to the southwest of Marley Hill involving the extraction of some 550,000 tonnes over 3.5 years. The application was refused by Durham County Council, dismissed on appeal with the decision being quashed at the High Court. A new public inquiry is to be held in October 2014. The submitted assessment considers that even though the sites could be operational at the same time there would be no cumulative impact in relation to noise, dust, blasting or visual impact given the distance between them. In terms of traffic, it is considered that there would be a cumulative transport effect in a westward direction on the A194, south on the A1(M) and west on the A193 between Chester le Street and Stanley whereby there would be some 6 vehicles from Marley Hill and 3 from Bradley for some 2.5 years. It is unlikely that this would be significant.
452. Having considered the submitted assessment in relation to past surface coal mining and landfill it is not considered that they would not give rise to an unacceptable successive cumulative effect. In relation to concurrent cumulative impacts, noting that there are no operational surface mines or any with planning permission it is concluded that there would be no unacceptable adverse simultaneous cumulative impact. In terms of traffic generation, neither the Highway Authority nor the Highways Agency has raised objections in terms of concurrent working with other possible sites and nor has either Council’s Landscape officers in terms of landscape and visual impact. Should either of the three sites be ultimately approved then it is likely that there would be some cumulative effects of future mineral working on the visual amenity of the locality in the round and on traffic impacts but not significant enough to conflict with MLP Policy M45 and UDP Policies MWR2 and MWR3.
- 99 - 453. The ES considers residential and recreational amenity and other environmental matters as set out within this report. With mitigation measures and use of planning conditions the combined impacts involving visual impact, noise, dust and fine particles would not give rise to unacceptable cumulative effect in relation to residential amenity at any of the properties in the vicinity of the proposed site.
454. The combined effects of working any large-scale excavation may in itself also have some cumulative impacts on environmental and living conditions and the perceptions of the those within the vicinity of the area. Whilst these have some weight, sufficient information has been provided in this instance and considered in this report, to show that the effects can be effectively mitigated and would not raise material conflict with MLP Policy M45 and UDP Policies MWR2 and MWR3 concerning cumulative effects.
Alternatives, piecemeal working and future development
455. As mineral reserves can only be worked where they are found the consideration of alternative development options has largely involved looking at different ways of working the site rather than possible locations or sources of energy supply.
456. Consideration has been given to the previous Inspector’s decision and the extent of the coal reserve limits. The coaling limit to the east site is defined by the standoff from the preserved SNCI habitat in the north east of the site. The eastern limit is restricted by the presence of the Tanfield Railway. Coaling in the south is limited by the increasing density of old deep mine workings and working in this area would be uneconomical given the ratio of coal to overburden. There are similar issues to the south west and to the north of the application site.
457. A larger site was ruled out given the previous larger scheme had been dismissed at appeal in 1990 for a number of reasons the applicant considers a larger scheme to be uneconomic and inappropriate to reapply for a similar large scale site at this location. A larger scheme had been discussed at the pre-application stage but not pursued in order to retain the ecological value of the area. A smaller site was also considered but dismissed as uneconomic as economic reserves would remain unworked and would be incapable of generating enough revenue to pay for the remediation of the contamination. Reducing the timescales of operations was considered but dismissed as it would require an increase in the amount of operational plant and a proportional increase in the working void and in increase in the height of the overburde n mound along with possible increase in the number of vehicle movements. Extending the timescale of operations would have no benefit and would only delay restoration and increase the impact upon the rights of way network.
458. Alternative access points were another matter considered and alternatives looked at included access onto the A692 and access onto the A6076 from various other points but were discounted as being unsuitable. The design of the current site has evolved as a result of pre- application discussions and during consideration of the application. An alternative working direction from east to west was discounted as working towards Marley Hill village rather than away from it would have advantages. If the site was worked west to east as is proposed most of the plant would be hidden behind working faces in views from the village and reducing noise and dust emissions.
459. The proposed scheme is therefore regarded as a ‘once and for all’ development. In this respect the Company is prepared as part of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to undertake that no future opencast coal mining takes place on land in its control in the vicinity of the site. This Agreement would apply to any successors in title. - 100 -
460. MLP Policy M8 is intended to deter piecemeal working by proposed extensions to existing sites and the repeated return of operators to areas for a series of workings. Given the constraints to further working in the immediate vicinity the proposal would deal comprehensively with the viable coal resources and would not be contrary to MLP Policy M8 and UDP Policy MWR3Through legal agreement no working is proposed on land immediately adjacent to the site.
Legal Agreements
461. A legal agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is proposed. The agreement would cover a number of matters relating to the proposed development. This would restrict future working of adjoining land in the applicant’s control, the provision of a guarantee for the restoration of the site covering restoration and aftercare costs, requirements for a site liaison committee and provision of a community fund. It would also provide for the provision of a financial guarantee for remediation of contaminated materials . Through agreement is proposed to use reasonable endeavours to co-operate and work closely with the Council to provide up to 4 mechanical or welding apprenticeship opportunities for local people.
462. The agreement can only include land which the applicant has control, it cannot include land outside of his control as other landowners would need to be signatories to such an agreement. The coal and fireclay haulage route would be secured would apply to all laden and unladen HGVs which would also set out penalties if the approved route is not adhered to (a third warning would prohibit the haulier to access the site).
463. The proposed Section 106 agreement would also require the applicant carrying out the proposed Habitat Management Plan for those parts of the site to be restored as ecological management and habit at areas for an addition 5 years following the statutory aftercare period. The agreement would also provide for the creation and dedication of public rights of way upon restoration of the site. In addition an undertaking not to fell newly planted trees for a period of 40 years. The area to be restored to brownfield mosaic would not be disturbed for a period of 20 years from restoration other than for management or in connection with access. The agreement would also require the applicant to enter into any agreements under Section 278 and/or Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 and Section 39 of the Highways Act 1981 as required. An agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 with Gateshead Council would be required to provide for works associated with the proposed access.
464. The proposed Habitat Management Plan would be secured through an agreement under Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Through the Habitat Management Plan areas to be restored under ecological management as priority habitats would be managed for an additional 5 year period following the expiry of the statutory 5 year aftercare period.
Restoration guarantee
465. Recent surface coal mines in the County have been accompanied by restoration bonds or financial guarantees, these applications were determined pre-NPPF. The NPPG provides guidance on financial guarantees and considers that a financial guarantee to cover restoration and aftercare costs will normally only be justified in exceptional cases. These being very long- term new projects where progressive reclamation is not practicable, such as an extremely large limestone quarry; where a novel approach or technique is to be used, but the minerals
- 101 - planning authority considers it is justifiable to give permission for the development; and where there is reliable evidence of the likelihood of either financial or technical failure, but these concerns are not such as to justify refusal of permission. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that Mineral planning authorities should address any concerns about the funding of site restoration principally through appropriately worded planning conditions.
466. The applicant highlighted his experience and track record and although considering that such an undertaking is not necessary has agreed to provide a financial guarantee. Issues have arisen in Scotland regarding the restoration of sites following the collapse of operators and insufficient funds being available to complete their reinstatement. It is therefore understandable that concerns have been raised by those objecting to the proposal. In addition recent announcements regarding the applicant has further caused concern. On 10 April 2014 the Government announced a £10 million loan, alongside £10 million from the private sector, to support the "managed closure" of UK Coal’s deep mines at Kellingley, North Yorkshire and Thoresby, Nottinghamshire considering that there is no case for investment to keep the sites open in the long term. This package will help the Company avoid an immediate insolvency and allow the solvent closure of the deep mines and the repayment of the loans. However, it is a condition of Government support that the surface mining business is sold to independent ownership in Summer 2014.
467. Within County Durham there are no active surface mine sites, but Park Wall North is in the process of being restored. The majority of the site has been restored to overburden levels and awaiting the replacement of soils. Under the terms of the current planning permission soils are required to be replaced by the end of July 2014. However, the applicant has identified that this will now take place by the end of September 2014 and is to discuss the varying of the timescale with officers. The delay being due to prolonged inclement weather delaying soil placement. A financial guarantee is in place in respect of the site. Stony Heap Reclamation and Minewater Remediation Scheme was operational between 2006 and 2007, entering aftercare in October 2007 with the statutory 5 year period ending in October 2012. An additional aftercare period of ten years applies for the longer term management of the site and this is secured through agreements under S106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 and S39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
468. It is proposed that provision of a guarantee is provided for through the proposed S106 agreement to include restoration of the site and aftercare of the site over the intended 10 year period (5 years statutory and 5 years additional). An initial bond would be put in place before soil stripping commenced and would be increased to cover the worst case scenario and then reduced gradually. Through the legal agreement an annual report would be provided from a competent person (agreed in writing by the operator and the Councils) to confirm that the sums secured accurately reflect the costs to restore the site at the stage in development at that time. The applicant is unable to state at this stage what form a bond would take as that would be dependent on financial arrangements available at the time. There are a number of devices available including insurance bonds, bank bonds secured by land and various types of cash bonds and escrow accounts. It is proposed that suitable arrangements would be made, and these would be subject to approval by the Councils prior to implementation of any planning permission. It is the case that the legal agreement would apply to any successors in title and given the situation with the applicant it would be a new operator that would move forward with the development should planning permission be granted. Nevertheless, the requirement for compliance with a guarantee for restoration of the site would remain.
469. Given advice in the NPPF and NPPG as well as recognising the likely concerns of objectors it is considered that the proposals for the financial guarantee are acceptable. - 102 -
470. In accordance with MLP Policy M52 the ability and commitment of the intended operator to operate and reclaim the site in accordance with the agreed scheme have been taken into account. Given advice in the NPPF and recognising the likely concerns of members of the public and the Committee it is considered that the proposal for provision of a guarantee is acceptable.
Conclusion of the environmental acceptability of the proposals
471. The environmental impacts of the proposed development in terms of residential amenity (including noise, air quality and dust and blasting), landscape and visual impact, biodiversity interests, cultural heritage, recreational amenity, agricultural quality and use, hydrology and hydrogeology, access and traffic, dereliction and contamination, other minerals, stability, mine gas, cumulative impact, alternatives and piecemeal working and future development have been considered. It is concluded that as a whole the proposal would not be environmentally acceptable in terms of the adverse impact upon biodiversity interests even with the application of appropriate planning conditions and obligations. As a result the proposal would not accord with MLP Policy M7a and the first part of paragraph 149 of the NPPF as well as Policy 57a of the Submitted County Durham Local Plan.
Applicant claimed benefits
472. The applicant claimed benefits are substantial as set out below and relate primarily to the treatment of contaminated land no cost to the public purse, and to benefits upon restoration in the form of the creation and recreation of areas of nature conservation and management of the site for a set period. In addition benefits to the economy both national, local and community benefits. • The reclamation and management of a 23 hectare derelict colliery site. • The remediation and clean up of 1.8 hectares of contaminated land comprising tars, blue billy and heavy metals, from former coke works at no cost to the public purse. • The clean up of near surface aquifers containing contaminated water and the prevention of near surface contamination providing a source for contamination both near surface aquifers and groundwater. • The supply of 1,067,252 tonnes of high quality coal for use in power generation markets. • The supply of up to 175,000 tonnes of fireclay to the local brickmaking industry. • 10.97 ha of new native species core woodland planting (2.07 ha outside of the site boundary) and a further 6.75ha of scrub/woodland edge (1.10 ha outside of the site boundary). • A 12.5 ha mosaic of scrub and bare ground habitats with the development of wildlife corridors in the east and across the site. • 0.69 ha of open water and a further 1.84 ha of marshy grassland habitat. • 9.09 ha to be restored to acid grassland (2.13 ha outside of the site). • Five areas to be managed for nature conservation outside the site boundary, 1.04ha in the north near Marley Hill, 15.3ha in the west at Byermoor, a 3.19 receptor site to the east of the A6076, a 0.41ha receptor strip to the east of the Tanfield Railway line and 9ha to the south of the site near Bobgins Burn. • 10 years management for nature conservation for the new woodland and wetland areas and mosaic scrub/bare ground habitat areas. This would comprise a 5 year aftercare period and 5 years extended stewardship/management of the land for nature - 103 - conservation. • The planting of 9.18km of new hedgerows (576m outside the site). • The footpath and bridleway rationalised and reinstated with 1.86km of new footpaths and 2.94km of new bridleways. • 1.65km of existing and reinstated footpaths upgraded to bridleway, including a permanent bridleway upgrade through Beckley Woods outside the site boundary. This would be established early in the operations as an alternative way. • A 2.07km extension for the Tanfield Railway to Byermoor. The applicant would undertake to construct the rail bed but not install the rails or infrastructure. • A 1.65km multi-user route trail for pedestrians and cyclists running alongside the Tanfield Railway extension. • 62 full time local jobs for 4½ years, at peak times this could be as high as 73, with an additional 6 employed for the shorter period of around 1 year while the remediation of contamination is underway. • A community fund of around £100,000 (10p per tonne of coal recovered) to be managed by the liaison committee, capable of delivering major benefits to local communities.
Provision of national, local and community benefits
473. Officers consider that the proposed development does not meet the requirements of MLP Policy M7(a), the first part of paragraph 149 of the NPPF and part a of Submitted County Durham Local Plan Policy 57 and so needs to be assessed against MLP Policy M7(b), which reflects the second test of paragraph 149. The national, local and community benefits are assessed in this section of the report.
474. In terms of community benefits the site as a whole contains derelict and contaminated land and the proposal would have reclamation benefits overall. Within County Durham there are no areas of heavy contamination or dereliction that would be addressed as part of the proposed development but there are areas of potential contamination. Sterilisation in advance of other development is not applicable in this case. The community benefits proposed are long term environmental enhancements, contribution to supplying energy needs, economic benefits during the life of the site as well as a community fund of 10p per tonne of coal. Consideration of the proposal’s environmental effects and national, local or community benefits in relation to MLP Policy M7, UDP Policies PO1, PO2, JE4 and DC1(q) and the NPPF are assessed in the following paragraphs of this report including the scope for control by condition or legal agreement.
475. In terms of national, local and community benefits the site would contribute to economic growth through the supply of domestically produced coal, provide direct and indirect employment for the life of the site, generate direct and indirect expenditure. The supply of fireclay to meet the needs of brickworks is an economic benefit. The site contains derelict and contaminated land and the proposal would have significant reclamation benefits in accordance with MLP Policy M7b and emerging CDP Policy 57 and UDP Policies ENV56 and DC1(p). Sterilisation in advance of other development is not applicable in this case.
476. Community benefits proposed are long term environmental enhancements, a community fund of 10p per tonne of coal. Policy 57 of the Submitted Local Plan Policy additionally refers to environmental benefits and in particular those that can be delivered through high quality restoration and after-use of the land which would be achieved in this instance. UDP Policies DC1 (c) and (p) and ENV56 refer to the need to achieve a more beneficial after use, the need - 104 - to address the issues of potential land contamination and derelict land with specific reference to the aspiration of reclamation of derelict land which includes the application site for recreation, nature conservation and woodland.
477. Community benefits proposed are long term environmental enhancements, a community fund of 10p per tonne of coal per tonne of coal transported off site. This would provide around £100,000 during the life of the site) to help fund local projects and activities. The fund would be administered by the site liaison committee made up of local residents, Parish Councils and Councillors from both Authorities. Policy 57 of the Submitted Local Plan Policy additionally refers to environmental benefits and in particular those that can be delivered through high quality restoration and after-use of the land and Policy CS20 of the emerging Core Strategy refers to worked land being subject to high standards of restoration and aftercare to ensure that it is returned to the most appropriate and beneficial afteruse including securing biodiversity, woodland and recreational enhancement. It is considered that these aims would be achieved in this instance. The restoration and afteruse proposals would also be in accordance with MLP Policies M46 and M47.
478. A socio-economic assessment accompanies the application that considers the impact of the proposal. It predicts that for the life of the site there would be significant positive effects on the local economy. It notes benefits of the reclamation and remediation proposals as well as environmental benefits through the restoration strategy to provide significant ecological and informal recreational enhancements. It notes that as well as full time jobs, there would be indirect and induced employment benefits fell throughout the region. It is stated that the applicant makes a significant economic contribution in the north east region through direct wages, contracts and business rates. In addition an apprenticeship is proposed and the company participates in a number of training and educational activities. With the scheme restricted to 4.5 years the assessment concludes that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the local population or nearby business or tourist operations.
479. One objective of the MLP in relation to the provision of minerals is to assist in employment retention where this is consistent with resource conservation and environmental protection. Part b of Submitted County Durham Local Plan Policy 57b refers to economic benefits with reference to employment generated through the working, restoration and after-use of the site. UDP Policies JE4 and PO2 and Policy CS5 of the emerging Core Strategy seek the access for local people to job opportunities. 62 full time local jobs for the duration of the scheme are anticipated, possibility of 73 at peak times. An additional 6 jobs would be associated with the remediation works for 12 months during the first 2 years of operations. It is intended that a high percentage of the workforce would be recruited locally as is the case on the applicant’s other sites.
480. The applicant’s current surface mine in County Durham, Park Wall North, is approaching the completion of the restoration phase and it is stated that at its peak it employed 60 people half of whom lived within 5 miles of the site. More typically evidence from sites in Northumberland shows that approximately 75-80% of all employees are resident within 10 miles of the site. Should Marley Hill be approved then it would be intended that operations would commence in 2015 but this would be too late for staff to transfer directly from Park Wall North which will have been restored. However, some of the Park Wall North employees live in the north Durham area and the applicant would expect to receive applications from locally based former employees with the appropriate skills. Some employees at the Northumberland sites are residents of the Gateshead and North Durham areas and some of these may transfer to Marley Hill. It is not anticipated that there would be any shortage of applications from suitably - 105 - experienced local people. Through legal agreement it is proposed to use reasonable endeavours to co-operate and work closely with the Council to provide up to 4 mechanical or welding apprenticeship opportunities for local people. Given the above, the proposal would accord with the aims and requirements of UDP Policies JE4 and PO2, Policy CS5 of the emerging Core Strategy and the MLP and part b of Submitted County Durham Local Plan Policy 57b.
481. The coal from the site would contribute to the provision of domestically produced coal for power generation reducing the demand for imports. The NPPF and Policy 57 of the Submitted County Durham Local Plan recognise the economic benefits of such a contribution and give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction. In addition part q of UDP Policy DC1 seeks the contribution of mineral, energy or other resources at local, regional and national levels. The need for the coal is not required to be demonstrated nor is there a threshold on the amount of coal to be produced to be considered to be a national benefit.
482. There is still a requirement for coal use in the energy mix as alternative technologies to seek to ensure a secure, low carbon energy supply and to maintain high and stable levels of growth have yet to be developed. This is likely to be the case for some time to come and there would still be a requirement for the coal from application site, and other sites in the Country, for the foreseeable future. Other countries have developed alternative technologies and as a result are able to export coal at competitive prices but this in itself raises concerns over security of supply. In addition there would be a greater generation of CO 2 emissions to transport the coal over great distances.
483. Recently published DECC figures illustrate the continuing demand for coal and demand for imports due to a short fall in domestic provision. Provisional 2013 figures by DECC (March 2014) show that coal production (including an estimated for slurry) was 25% down on 2012 at 12.8 million tonnes. Deep mined production was down 34% at 4.1 million tonnes, the lowest on record. Surface mine production was down by 15% (-1.6 million tonnes) due to the closure of a number of mines and companies in 2013 and geological conditions at some of the remaining mines. Imports of coal in 2013 up 10% up on levels in 2012 at 49.4 million tonnes, the highest level since 2006, reflecting the decline in UK production and high demand for electricity generation. 38% of total coal coming from Russia. Large quantities of coal were also imported from Colombia, USA and Australia with lesser amounts from other countries. The demand for coal by electricity generators in 2013 was 8.8% (-4.8 million tonnes) lower than the demand in 2012, reflecting a fall in coal generation. Total stocks at the end of 2013 were 14.4 million tonnes, 11% higher than at the end of 2012 (13 million tonnes). The demand for coal remains at this present time.
484. The proposal would also have indirect effects on the local economy arising from the purchase of goods and services by the workforce and the Company. Although the proposal would not provide long term job opportunities it would make a contribution to the local economy for the life of the proposed development in a period of economic uncertainty and difficulty.
485. The payment of mineral rates, taxes, coal royalties and the contribution of the development to the balance of payments would also be economic benefits of the proposed development . These are matters that are common to all mineral developments, but are national benefits. Business rates would be payable and any other potential charges for services delivered such as trade refuse. It is only when the site is entered onto the rating list by the Valuation Office Agency that an indication as to what the rates liability could be calculated. Under the business rates retention arrangements introduced from 1 April 2013 the Council would now retain 50% of locally paid business rates which would, with other funding streams, be used to pay for - 106 - services provided by the Council.
Contamination remediation and very special circumstances in the Green Belt
486. The proposed development includes the remediation of contaminated material resulting from previous uses of the site. The desire to deal with this contamination is acknowledged through UDP Policy ENV56 although to date this has not occurred. Consideration has been given to whether Gateshead Council (as the contaminated land to be remediated falls solely within Gateshead) has powers to remediate the site and the likelihood of this. Funding previously provided by DEFRA for such matters has now substantially reduced and only applies to public land. Given that the site is privately rather than publically owned, this source of grant funding would not be available to the site. This would only then leave the option of enforcement action through Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act. The DEFRA Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance sets out that enforcement action should only be taken if there are no alternatives. In this case the alternative would be to remediate the land through the proposed development.
487. Whilst the Environment Agency currently does not consider the site to be a priority, this does not alter the fact that there is contamination present on the site that is a pollutant source. The proposal would provide the benefit of dealing with the contamination on the site comprehensively and within a specified timescale. The applicant notes that this would be at no public cost (as opposed to the remediation of the site by either the Environment Agency or Gateshead Council). In addition, it is considered that there is substantial doubt as to whether the Council would be able to enforce remediation under Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act.
488. There are local and community benefit of addressing the remediation of the land at the same time of undertaking the surface coal and fireclay scheme when disturbance is taking place. These being such works taking place when more significant earth works are taking place thus effectively masking the impacts of the remediation works as well as addressing a recognised prob lem with no cost to either Gateshead Council or the Government and thus tax payers. Although it can be argued that the ‘polluter pays’ principle applies the applicant has not sought to actively address the contamination on site and there is great uncertainty whether this could be enforced. The proposed remediation scheme therefore provides an opportunity to address remediation of the site once and for all. This would have the substantial benefits of ensuring that contamination near the surface or on the ground would no longer pose a potential threat to human health and contamination in general would no longer pose a pollution threat to controlled waters. In addition there would be 6 jobs directly created for the duration of remediation activities.
489. As set out previously in the report, the remediation of contamination on the site is a use that is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and the very special circumstances required to justify inappropriate development will only exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Regard must also be given to paragraph 79 of the NPPF which sets out that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts and this has been re- affirmed by the written statement to Parliament by CLG and Nick Boles MP (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Planning) dated 6 March 2014.
490. Officers have carefully considered the benefits of the proposed contamination remediation and consider that the cumulative benefits of the general remediation of the site in a comprehensive manner with significant doubt that it would be carried out in the absence of the proposed - 107 - development, the eradication of pollution and risk to human health and controlled waters, the way in which remediation activities would be masked by coal extraction and the creation of 6 additional jobs, albeit temporarily would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt caused by the inappropriate development. It is therefore considered that very special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify inappropriate development as required by the NPPF.
Biodiversity mitigation
491. Parts of the site are designated as Local Wildlife Sites but are not nationally or internationally designated. Protected species may be affected by the proposals but not directly so as to require a protected species licence form Natural England. There would be a direct impact upon butterflies on site which is considered to be of regional value but though mitigation measures it is proposed that habitats are translocated. The development could not be relocated on an alternative site with less harmful impacts given minerals can only be worked where they occur. The proposed ecological ma Gateshead report refers to both Council’s ecology officers. The submitted management plan seeks to mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposal and through the proposed restoration plan compensation for the loss of habitats is proposed.
492. There would be a loss of irreplaceable habitats, ancient woodland, and the loss of veteran trees as a result of the proposed development and paragraph 118 advises that if there is such loss that planning permission should be refused unless the need for, and the benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. Ancient woodland covering an area of 0.9ha and a number of veteran trees would be effectively be lost if translocation is unsuccessful. The mitigation and compensatory measures proposed are not considered to be adequate by the Council’s ecology officer and Gateshead officers. However, they would go some way to mitigate and compensate against the adverse effects if successful.
Extension to Tanfield Railway
493. The applicant has set out that a 2km extension of the Tanfield Railway to Byermoor is proposed through the restoration proposals. However, as discussed previously in the report it is not considered that this would be solely the case. It is proposed that upon restoration a track bed would be established. It would then be for the railway operator to undertake the laying out of tracks which would require planning permission in its own right. It is unknown whether planning permission would be granted for this as any application would have to be considered on its merits.
494. Therefore whilst the laying out of the track bed would have potential benefits in making it physically easier (and potentially less costly) for the railway operator to extend the railway overall, limited weight can be given to this benefit as a planning application would need to be submitted and it is unknown whether it would be granted and there is no guarantee that the railway operator would be able to carry out the works anyway or the timescales for this.
Conclusion of the provision of national, local and community benefits
495. Officers consider that there are national, local and community benefits associated with the proposal which would outweigh the unacceptable environmental impacts upon biodiversity interests at the site (as set out above) to justify the grant of planning permission. In coming to this conclusion regard has still been given to the limited weight that can be given to the extension to the Tanfield Railway. Furthermore should the Committee consider that other elements of the proposals are not environmentally acceptable, or cannot be made so by - 108 - planning conditions or obligations then, again officers consider that there are national, local and community benefits associated with the proposal which would outweigh the likely impacts (as set out above) to justify the grant of planning permission.
Other matters
496. The proposal has generated much public interest and comment, notably from Gateshead residents. The views received have been documented and the planning related issues considered in the relevant sections of the report.
Impact upon tourism and existing businesses
497. Some concerns have been raised regarding the detrimental impact of the development upon tourism in general and specific mention is made to Beamish Open Air Museum and Gibside. There is little basis in the NPPF, the NPPG, MLP, UDP or emerging CDP and Core Strategy to object to a proposal for opencast coal working on the basis of its impact upon tourism. Although mineral related development can have negative connotations when viewed from this perspective it is not considered that the proposal would affect the wider objective or specific initiatives to promote the tourist potential of County Durham and Gateshead. The application site is located alongside the A6076 and in close proximity to the A692 which are part of the strategic road network used by HGVs on a regular basis. Any road impacts including delays for people travelling this road are unlikely to be a deciding factor on most decisions of whether or not to visit the area or other parts of County Durham or Gateshead.
498. The NPPF seeks to support a prosperous rural economy and policies should support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. However, none of the emerging Local Plan and Core Strategy policies provide protection to existing tourism development. The principal policy to determine surface mined coal planning applications are MLP Policy M7 and emerging Policy 57 and the NPPF. There is little general support in the NPPF or development plan policy for arguments against proposed opencast coal working on the basis of the impact upon tourism. This is particularly true on the exposed coalfield in areas such as County Durham which has sustained significant levels of working over the last 60 years that have shaped its character. It is not considered that specific tourist assets would be prejudiced nor any designated landscape, heritage or nature interest designations that currently support tourism and need to be sustained in the future. In addition measures to control noise and dust and other aspects of the working could be mitigated through condition.
499. Potential conflict between the operation of Tanfield Railway and vehicles using the haul road are raised as concerns by those objecting to the proposals. Measures would be put in place to ensure that there would be no conflict between the two.
CO 2 emissions
500. Concerns have been raised by those making representations on the application regarding CO 2 emissions. Whilst there would be large amounts of CO 2 associated with both the production of the coal and then the burning of the coal, this has limited impact upon CO 2 targets for the Local Authorities. The main issue for both Councils would be an increase in diesel use from both the mechanical machinery used and the road traffic increase. It is envisaged that the principal market for the coal from the site would involve the energy supply industry market based in Yorkshire and the Midlands. Power stations, such as the one at Ferrybridge, are ‘point source’ emitters and will have an impact upon the UK’s ability to meet CO 2 targets as a - 109 - whole. The most up to date information shows that DCC is on target to meet its EU Covenant of Mayors, 20% reduction target by 2020 (currently at 17%).
Property Values and Human Rights
501. Although the majority of representations received are in support of the proposal there are a number from those opposed to it. The grounds of objection are well articulated and substantially made on material planning grounds. However, some matters such as the effect on property values are not relevant to the planning considerations. It is has also been stated in representations that the proposal would be a breach of human rights. Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be impacts associated with the development on residents living in the vicinity of the site, these have been considered and taken into account in the application of relevant development plan and national policies and Government guidance. It is for the Committee to decide whether the impacts on residents are acceptable or if the wider benefits of the proposed development outweigh any potential adverse impacts in the light of the officer assessment presented in this report.
Miscellaneous
502. Those objecting to the proposal have set out specific personal concerns. The impacts upon residential amenity and appropriateness of the proposed access arrangements and haulage routes have been assessed within this report and are considered to be acceptable.
503. Possible increases in crime is raised a concern. Security personnel would be employed at the site 24 hours per day. This should seek to deter any possible criminal behaviour.
504. The proposed restoration scheme not considered to be appropriate by those objecting to the proposals. Concerns are raised regarding the length of time it would take to establish; that the proposed standing water and marshland are not in keeping with the area and could become a safety hazard, and that increasing public access to the area could lead to potential harm from litter and vandalism. The Councils’ advisors do not object to the proposed restoration scheme considering it to be appropriate should the development be permitted. The regularisation of existing public rights of way and additional rights of way are welcomed by the Council’s Access and Rights of Way officer and Gateshead officers. The area is already well visited given the historical attractions in the immediate vicinity of the site although additional visitors may visit as a result of the restoration scheme it is unlikely that there would be an adverse impact on the area as a result.
505. Concerns regarding rats being displaced as a result of the scheme is raised as a concern. However, there is no evidence to show that this would actually occur. In any event there would be pest control measures to deal with this through other legislation.
Monitoring of the site
506. Concerns have been raised regarding the resource ability of Durham County Council and Gateshead Council to monitor the site should planning permission be granted. There is also a statutory requirement for Councils to monitor mineral and waste sites. If planning permission were granted then it would be regularly monitored for compliance with the requirements of the planning permission. The number of scheduled (chargeable) visits per year is agreed in advance with a site operator but other non-scheduled visits do also take place. If non- compliance is identified then the Council would consider appropriate action. The Environment - 110 - Agency would visit the site to monitor permits and consents issued by the Agency and to a frequency it considered appropriate. Visits would also take place by the Inspector of Mines and Quarries in relation to its areas of control during the life of the site.
The applicant
507. It is stated by those objecting to the proposal that there are inconsistencies in the documentation and errors. In addition a lack of publicity regarding the application by Gateshead Council is raised along with the claim that the applicant provided misleading information and inconsistent information at the public exhibitions when compared to the planning application. The statutory and non-statutory consultees have assessed the application as submitted and their views are set out in this report. It is considered that there is sufficient information available to assess and determine the application. The publicity undertaken has been wide ranging and is considered to have been appropriate. The Councils are not aware of the facts of the alleged provision of misleading information provided at the public exhibitions.
Gas pipeline
508. National Gas Networks does not object to the proposals considering that the development would be unlikely to affect the pipeline. It would be for the applicant to liaise with Northern Gas Networks regarding operations in the vicinity of the gas pipeline. Prior to starting work on the site and as a condition of being issued with a Coal Authority Licence the applicant would need to submit a full Geotechnical Assessment to the Coal Authority. This would address slope stability and mound stability, one area the Authority would look at closely will be the gas main and recommendations would be made for safe working. The closest point of the excavation would be approximately 380m from the gas main. However, the application boundary and area to be used for the translocation of ancient woodland soils would be closer .
Lack of consultation
509. Publicity is not generally undertaken with all those living on the haul route of any proposed development given the distance that vehicles can travel. However, as set out within the report, publicity with regards to the application within County Durham and Gateshead has been extensive and has included press and site notices as well as publication on the Council’s weekly list and website. It is the case that the proposed haul route is recognised as being a freight route and the County Council as Highways Authority has no objection to the proposal.
CONCLUSION
510. The proposal is a modified version of a previous scheme of working and restoration that was refused planning permission and dismissed on appeal in the early 1990’s. It seeks to address concerns that were highlighted in that decision and incorporates a range of measures to overcome these. However, the current proposal must be considered on its own merits in the light of current national guidance, adopted development plan policies that reflect it, and other material planning considerations.
511. Paragraph 149 of the NPPF provides the national planning framework for opencast coal. This states that permission should not be given for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so through conditions or - 111 - obligations, or if not, it provided national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission. This guidance is similar to MLP Policy M7. To meet the first test of paragraph 149 of the NPPF and comply with MLP Policy M7(a) proposals are required to be either environmentally acceptable or in a position to be made so by planning conditions or obligations. Gateshead Council has no policy relating to coal extraction, relying upon Paragraph 149 of the NPPF.
512. Having assessed the likely impacts of the proposed development it is considered that the scheme would have significant environmental effects of an adverse nature that would be considered environmentally unacceptable or could be made so through condition. These effects relate to biodiversity interests.
513. The proposal would result in the loss of a Local Wildlife Site and an area of ancient woodland. It is considered that there would be a significant adverse effect on existing ecologically important and invertebrate habitats. Ecology officers and nature conservation groups have great concerns over the extent and suitability of proposed mitigation concerning these habitats. However, the ES and other supplementary information provides a detailed indication of measures that should be taken including best practices of working and restoration in order to seek to limit adverse effects on the Local Wildlife Site.
514. It is considered that there would not be an impact on landscape designations which are some distance from the site Within Gateshead the site is within the Green Belt. Although that part of the site within County Durham is not designated Green Belt it is proposed within the emerging County Durham Plan. Whilst it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in relation to Green Belt policy, there would be some significant effects on the character of the local landscape and upon visual amenity. It is inevitable that there would be some visual intrusion from the engineered mounds and earth works throughout the life of the site but the operations would generally be localised and the impacts would be moderated and reduced by perimeter mounding and progressive reinstatement and screening works.
515. The site is subject to nature conservation designations and it is considered that there would be an adverse impact on those designations close by, a view endorsed by the ecological consultees. It is considered that there would be an adverse impact upon flora and fauna, including protected species. Translocation is proposed but the success of which is questioned by both Council’s ecological advisors and non-statutory consultees. There are areas of ancient woodland that would be lost but it is proposed that the soils are translocated. Again, the success of which is questioned by both Council’s ecological advisors and non-statutory consultees. The site is mainly in high grade agricultural use and this would be lost for the duration of the development but would be reinstated to productive agricultural use. The restoration proposals would deliver a quality restoration and afteruse of the site with opportunities to increase biodiversity interests. Restoration of the site would be secured through condition and through the provision of a suitable guarantee secured through legal agreement. The applicant has agreed to enter into a Legal Agreement that would amongst other matters prevent the future working of land in its control and provide an extended aftercare period.
516. Having assessed the impacts upon ecology and biodiversity interests and considering the views of the Council’s ecological advisors and nature conservation interest groups, - 112 - it is not considered that the proposal is environmentally acceptable or could be made so through conditions or obligations. The proposed mitigation measures would go some way to address concerns, if successful, and the Councils should seek to secure these if planning permission is granted.
517. There would inevitably be some disturbance and disruption from temporary operations for those living close by (residents of County Durham and Gateshead). However, the site has been designed to be worked in a way that would limit the environmental effects on residents and local communities and suitable mitigation measures would be secured through site design and condition.
518. Assessments have been made of the impact upon designated and non-designated heritage assets and it has been concluded that there would be no adverse impact upon Causey Arch and Bob Gins Engine House Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Tanfield Waggonway, Conservation Areas at Marley Hill and Tanfield and Beckley Farm a listed building, with suitable mitigation. The impacts of the proposed development in terms of heritage impact would be limited and for a temporary period and therefore considered to be acceptable.
519. Although concerns have been raised relating to access and traffic, the Highways Agency and both Council’s Highways officers raise no objections subject to certain matters being secured through condition or legal agreement. Consideration has been given to the impacts of the development upon recreational amenity, hydrology and hydrogeology, contamination, stability, mine gas, cumulative impact and the impacts are considered to be acceptable with the imposition of conditions where appropriate.
520. National, local and community benefits have been considered within the report and are wide ranging including contribution to the local economy and UK markets for the coal and fireclay, employment, benefits upon restoration through an appropriate restoration scheme, the remediation of areas of dereliction and contamination of an area specifically recognised in the Gateshead UDP and a community fund that outweigh the likely impacts upon bio diversity impacts to justify the grant of planning permission. Officers consider that these national, local and community benefits clearly outweigh the likely impacts to ecology and biodiversity interests to justify the grant of planning permission.
521. On the balance of planning considerations it is considered that the proposed development meets the tests for acceptability of opencast proposals as set out in Policy M7, the NPPF and Policy 57 of the Submitted County Durham Local Plan and the proposed benefits of the scheme would outweigh the environmental damage and loss of amenity that would be caused.
522. The proposal has generated much public interest with representations reflecting the issues and concerns of local residents affected by the proposed development. Whilst there would be some impacts upon local amenity associated with noise, dust, blasting, visual impact and traffic at certain stages of the development these would be at acceptable levels and can be controlled through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and planning conditions. These representations have been weighed along with other responses including those of statutory consultees that have raised no overriding objections to the scheme based on the submitted details and assessments. Whilst mindful of the nature and weight of public concerns it is not considered that these are sufficient to outweigh the planning judgement in favour of the - 113 - proposed scheme.
523. The proposed development is considered to broadly accord with the relevant policies of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan, the Derwentside District Local Plan, the direction of the Submitted County Durham Plan, Gateshead Unitary Development Plan, the emerging Core Strategy and relevant sections of the NPPF.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of Legal Agreements under Section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 and Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to provide for the following including provision of a suitable financial guarantee in order to ensure full and proper restoration of the site and provision of all benefits as intended:
(a) Restriction of future working of adjoining land in the applicant’s control. (b) The provision of a guarantee for the restoration of the site covering restoration and aftercare costs. (c) Prescribed haulage routes. (d) Requirements for a site liaison committee. (e) Provision of a community fund. (f) Provision of a financial guarantee for remediation of contaminated materials (g) To use reasonable endeavours to co-operate and work closely with the Council to provide up to 4 mechanical or welding apprenticeship opportunities for local people. (h) The carrying out of the proposed Habitat Management Plan for those parts of the site to be restored as ecological management and habitat areas for an addition 5 years following the statutory aftercare period. (i) The creation and dedication of public rights of way upon restoration of the site. (j) An undertaking not to fell newly planted trees for a period of 40 years. (k) The area to be restored to brownfield mosaic to not be disturbed for a period of 20 years from restoration other than for management or in connection with access. (l) To require the applicant to enter into any agreements under Section 278 and/or Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 and Section 39 of the Highways Act 1981 as required including to provide for works associated with the proposed access.
524. And subject to the following conditions as set out below but that the Head of Planning & Assets be authorised to add, delete, vary and amend the planning conditions as necessary:
APPROVED DOCUMENTS
1. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the following documents (as may be amended and/or expanded upon by a listed document following afterward and subject to matters subsequently agreed under Condition 4):
a. Application form dated 14 December 2012. b. Description of working method as contained in Section 3.3 of Volume 1 of the Marley Hill Reclamation Scheme Environmental Statement (December 2012) and as amended by Part 2 of Volume 1: Environmental Statement Addendum of the Marley Hill Reclamation Scheme Environmental Statement (December 2012). - 114 - c. Description of restoration as contained in Section 3.13 of Volume 1 of the Marley Hill Reclamation Scheme Environmental Statement (December 2012) and as amended by Part 3 of Volume 1: Environmental Statement Addendum of the Marley Hill Reclamation Scheme Environmental Statement (December 2012) . d. Details contained within Response to Consultation Letter dated 15 th July 2013 e. Drawings: i. Drawing No. 197/D01a ‘Existing Features’ dated Jan 2014 ii. Drawing No. 197/D02a ‘Site Plan’ dated Jan 2014 iii. Drawing No. 197/D03a ‘Restoration Plan’ dated Jan 2014 iv. Drawing 197 Figure 3.1a ‘Indicative Phasing Plan (12 Months)’ dated Jan 2014 v. Drawing 197 Figure 3.2a ‘Indicative Phasing Plan (24 Months)’ dated Jan 2014 vi. Drawing 197 Figure 3.3a ‘Indicative Phasing Plan (34 Months)’ dated Jan 2014 vii. Drawing 197 Figure 3.4a ‘Indicative Phasing Plan (44 Months)’ dated Jan 2014 viii. Drawing 197 Figure 3.5a ‘Indicative Phasing Plan (48 Months)’ dated Jan 2014 f. Mitigation measures in relation to Brownfield Mosaic, Ancient Woodland soils, badgers, birds, reptiles and amphibians, Dingy Skipper and other invertebrates as contained in paragraph 3.1 to 3.2 of the document entitled ‘UK Coal Surface Mines Ltd Marley Hill Colliery Reclamation Scheme, Co Durham, Habitat Management Plan as contained in Appendix B3 of the ‘Marley Hill Colliery Reclamation Scheme Volume 2 Technical Appendices Addendum January 2014.
REASON - To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents.
2. From the commencement of development to the completion of soils replacement, a copy of this permission, including all documents hereby approved and any other documents subsequently approved in accordance with this permission and legal agreements, shall always be on display in the site offices and subsequently, shall be made available to all persons with responsibility for the site’s aftercare and management. (1)
MATTERS REQUIRING SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL
3. The development hereby approved shall also only be carried out in accordance with a scheme or schemes to be agreed, in writing, with the Mineral Planning Authority, which shall, amongst other matters, include provision for the matters listed below. Those details required by Condition 3(a) through to Condition 3(u) shall be submitted to and agreed, in writing, with the Mineral Planning Authority before substantive soil stripping (other than for preliminary works themselves) begins and before any of the developments specified in those conditions commence. Those details required by Condition 3(v) and Condition 3(w) shall be submitted no later than 6 months following the commencement of the development. (1)
(a) A definitive ‘Soil Handling and Management Manual’ which shall clearly describe the proposed soil stripping, handling and replacement methods to be used at the site, appropriate to the grade of soil and intended after-use. The ‘Soil Handling and Management Manual’ shall also include details of the proposed soil depths upon restoration and plant and machinery to be used. The ‘Soil Handling and Management Manual’ shall be based on the following documents (or updated versions of these):
- 115 - • The Soils Handling Strategy described by Sections 3.12 of Volume 1 of the Marley Hill Reclamation Scheme Environmental Statement (December 2012). • The “Soils and Land Use” assessment (December 2012), prepared by Elliot Environmental Surveyors Ltd (included at Chapter 17 of the document entitled ‘Marley Hill Colliery Reclamation Scheme Volume I Environmental Statement). • “Soils and Land Use” Chapter 11 Environmental Statement Addendum Volume 1, prepared by Elliot Environmental Surveyors Ltd, as a supplement to the above report. (January 2014) • The Soils Handling Strategy (Draft Dec 2013) described under Appendix G2 of the document entitled ‘‘Marley Hill Colliery Reclamation Scheme, Technical Appendices Addendum Volume 2 (January 2014) • Department of the Environment Guidance on Good Practice for the Reclamation of Mineral Working to Agriculture (1996). • Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Codes of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Air, Water and Soil (revised 1998). • DEFRA Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils Available on the Defra website at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090306103114/http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm /environment/land-use/soilguid/index.htm • Forestry Commission Bulletin 110. • Any other relevant documents or replacement documents to those listed above and any further soils information coming to light during the working of the site. (3)
(b) A noise monitoring scheme including the exact locations of noise monitoring points and proposed monitoring frequency. The locations of noise monitoring points should be chosen so as to ensure that the possibility of off-site noise affecting measurements is reduced to a minimum. (2, 5)
(c) A blast vibration monitoring scheme which shall identify suitable monitoring locations as well as mitigation measures and measures to be implemented during blasting operations to minimise the effects of air overpressure, and details of the proposed monitoring frequency. The scheme shall also include details of the siting of warning flags and notice boards and procedures for informing occupiers of adjacent residential properties of blasting procedures. (2, 5)
(d) A Dust Action Plan including the exact locations of monitoring points and proposed monitoring frequency and methodology to be used for assessing monitoring results. The Dust Action Plan shall utilise the baseline Real Time and Passive Dust Monitoring information. The background levels of PM 1Os shall be used to set appropriate agreed trigger levels for the Real Time Dust Monitoring system in operation. The Dust Action Plan should include measures to control dust emissions from the remediation of contaminated materials. (2, 5)
(e) A scheme to deal with contamination shall include the following, unless the Mineral Planning Authority is satisfied that the site is suitable for the proposed use and dispenses of any such requirements, in writing: • The findings and details of the further testing shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and the development completed in accordance with any amended specification of works. (19)
- 116 - (f) Details of an archaeological scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation. The Scheme shall provide for: i. Measures to ensure the preservation by record, of archaeological features of identified importance (see (a - e) below), and for the recording and recovery of archaeological remains including artefacts and ecofacts. a) Standing Building Record of post 1840's Andrew's House farm. b) Further investigation of select pre19th century waggonway features. c) Further investigation of select pre19th century coal mining features, both at a surface level and subsurface level during coal extraction. d) Excavation of pre1840s e) Andrew's House farm to identify any evidence of medieval to post medieval transition. (This will also provide an opportunity for community involvement). f) Targeted excavation of Andrews House colliery, and Marley Hill coke ovens (beehive and Hussenner)
ii. Post fieldwork methodologies for assessment and analyses, including final analysis and publication proposals in an updated project design where necessary. iii. Report content and arrangements for dissemination. iv. Archive preparation and deposition with recognised repositories. v. A timetable of works in relation to the proposed development, including sufficient notification and allowance of time to ensure that the site work is undertaken and completed in accordance with the strategy. vi. Monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham and Tyne and Wear Archaeologists of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works. vii. A list of all staff involved in the implementation of the strategy, including subcontractors and specialists, their responsibilities and qualifications. (12)
(g) A scheme to provide for the management of the restored ground, within any areas on site identified as feeding grounds used by badgers, to promote the maximum recolonisation with invertebrate. (13)
(h) A tree survey and tree protection plan to British Standard quality. (3)
(i) A survey of the ancient woodland prior to translocation and monitoring thereafter to maximise chances of success and learning opportunities. Details of the translocation and timing of works shall also be submitted. (13)
(j) Details of any hedgerow, tree, and shrub planting to be carried out and translocation of any hedgerows to take place prior to the commencement of the development, to be implemented within the first available planting season following the commencement of the development or other timescale to be agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority, which shall include:
i) identification of any hedgerows to be translocated, their intended location and methodology for undertaking these works; (3)
ii) the species to be planted, and the percentage of the total to be accounted for by each species; (3, 6)
- 117 - iii) the size of each plant and the spacing between them; (3)
iv) the preparations to be made to the ground before planting; (3)
v) the fencing off of planted areas; (3)
vi) a subsequent maintenance and management programme during the after-care period (including the extended after-care period) once the planting works have been carried out, which shall include the weeding of the planted area, repairing of any damaged fencing, and the replacement of any plants which die or are seriously affected by disease. (3)
(k) A scheme for surface water management during the operational phase of development and upon restoration. Such a scheme should also include details of drainage arrangements during site preparation. The scheme should confirm discharge rates and storage capabilities, outfall designs, and maintenance responsibilities. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. (7, 8, 22)
(l) A scheme for groundwater monitoring and management. The scheme shall be supported, where necessary, by detailed calculations; include a maintenance programme; and establish current and future ownership of the facilities to be provided. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or any details as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. (8, 23)
(m)Details of the water treatment systems to be installed in the ‘Water Treatment Areas’ shown on Drawing No. 197/D02a ‘Site Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing), including the positioning within the area and construction of them and their dimensions and of the pipes connecting and discharging from them, and facilities for the removal of suspended solids from surface water run-off and any other related information required by the Mineral Planning Authority. (7, 8)
(n) Details of the type and height of fencing to be provided around the site boundary, alongside alternative rights of way to be provided, and within the site. (18)
(o) Details of the design and construction of the access as shown on Drawing No. 197/D02a ‘Site Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing), a layout plan which makes adequate provision for a temporary car park within the site to accommodate operatives and construction vehicles during development of the site (thereafter the approved measures shall be implemented before any coal is taken from the site). (9)
(p) A local road safety scheme (signage/lining) to be implemented at the site access that will include the provision of warning signs to be erected. (9)
(q) Details of wheel cleaning equipment to be installed at the access as indicated on Drawing No. 197/D02a ‘Site Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing). (5, 9)
- 118 - (r) Details of the design and location of the site compound in relation to the surface mine development including buildings, fixed plant and machinery to be used on the site and of the proposed coal stocking and process area and plant yard as shown on Drawing No. 196/D02a ‘Site Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) and details of the illumination to be used on site. (2, 5)
(s) Details of the design and location of the site compound for the contamination remediation area, including buildings, fixed plant and machinery to be used on the site and of the proposed stocking and process area as shown on Drawing No. 197/D32a ‘Details of Contamination Treatment Area’ and Drawing No. 196/D02a ‘Site Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawings) (or other subsequently approved drawing) and details of the illumination to be used on site. (2, 5)
(t) Details of the notice boards required by Condition 9h. (5, 9).
(u) A travel plan containing an overview of the transport implications for the proposed development, a survey of travel patterns and a commitment to promote alternative sustainable means of transport for staff and visitors. The plan shall require surveys to be provided 3 months and then 12 months after the start of operations on site and the results shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority in writing upon request. (5, 9)
(v) Details of the restoration of the site, which shall include:
i) the final contours for the site (at 2 metre intervals), indicating how such contours tie in with the existing contours on adjacent land; (3)
ii) the replacement of soils including depths and handling and replacement methods; (3)
iii) the drainage of the restored site, including underdrainage if considered necessary by the Mineral Planning Authority; (3, 7, 8)
iv) the erection of fences; (3)
v) the planting of trees and hedges; (3, 6)
(a) the species to be planted, and the percentage of the total to be accounted for by each species; (3, 6)
(b) the size of each plant and the spacing between them; (3)
(c) the preparations to be made to the ground before planting; (3)
(d) the fencing off of planted areas; (3)
(e) a subsequent maintenance and management programme during the aftercare period once the hedgerow, tree, and shrub planting has been carried out, which shall include the weeding of the planted area, repairing of any damaged fencing, and the replacement of any plants which die or are seriously affected by disease and a detailed schedule as to when the aftercare period commences for each area. (3) - 119 -
vi) the routes of proposed public rights of way, details of the surfacing and any other works associated with them and a timetable for their provision. (1, 3)
vii) the provision of appropriate site interpretation material based on the results of the archaeological works. (3, 12)
viii)measures to ensure that the risk of erosion is minimised and the use of agricultural machinery is not unduly restricted. (3)
(w) The aftercare of the land for five years, after the replacement of topsoil in accordance with Condition 87 (for other areas refer to agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act relating to this development). (20)
COMMENCEMENT
4. Works shall start on the site no later than three years from the date of this certificate. (21)
5. No development shall take place before until the Mineral Planning Authority has been notified in writing that: a licence to extract coal from the site has been granted by the Coal Authority; consents as may be required from the Environment Agency and Natural England which are detailed in paragraph 3.2.1 of the document entitled ‘Marley Hill Colliery Reclamation Scheme Volume I Environm ental Statement’ have been obtained. (7)
6. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be notified, in writing, of the date of commencement of the following at least seven days prior to their commencement: (a) The commencement of site preparation works; (b) The commencement of the winning and working of coal or fireclay; (c) The commencement of extraction of mineral; (d) The commencement of the export of coal or fireclay from the site. (1)
COMPLETION
7. All mineral extraction shall cease by no later than 36 months from the date of commencement of extraction of minerals, as notified to the Mineral Planning Authority under Condition 6. (4)
8. The site shall be restored in terms of the replacement of all soils in accordance with the conditions hereinafter appearing: (4)
(a) within 11 months of the cessation of mineral extraction;
or
(b) if the period mentioned in (a) above extends beyond the end of September, by the end of July the following year.
- 120 - WORKS REQUIRED FOR SITE PREPARATION
9. Before substantive soil stripping (other than for preliminary works themselves) begins, the following works shall be carried out, where relevant in accordance with the relevant schemes agreed under Condition 3. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified, in writing, within two work ing days of each of the specified works being carried out. The development itself may not commence unless and until all that site preparation work has been carried out as per the approved details.
(a) the construction of the approved site drainage cut-off ditches, water treatment areas, and other drainage facilities appropriate to the area to be stripped shall be completed; (8)
(b) the formation of the site offices and compound with surface formed with tar- macadam, concrete, or consolidated clean stone, levelled to preclude ponding of water; (1, 2, 9)
(c) the formation of the site access, with surface formed with tar-macadam or concrete levelled to preclude ponding of water; (1, 9)
(d) the approved site perimeter ditches, water treatment areas and other drainage facilities appropriate to the area to be stripped, shall be completed; (1, 8)
(e) perimeter fencing and fencing alongside alternative rights of way; (1, 17)
(f) protective fencing alongside hedgerows (at a distance of not less than 2 metres) and outside the canopies of trees bounding the site and those to be retained within it; (1, 6)
(g) the installation of wheel cleaning equipment to prevent the transfer of mud to the public highway; (5, 9)
(h) the provision of notice boards of durable material and finish: (5)
i. to be placed at the site entrance, indicating the name, address, and telephone number of the company responsible for the operation of the site, and of an official who will be available to deal promptly with any complaints;
ii. to be placed so as to be clearly visible to all drivers of heavy goods vehicles exiting the site access, instructing them to use the approved traffic route; and
(i) the provision within the site of a water supply as appropriate for the agreed dust suppression measures and sufficient number of water bowsers and/or dust suppression equipment. (5)
WORKING PERIOD
10. Operations authorised by this consent shall be restricted to the following periods unless otherwise agreed, in writing, with the Mineral Planning Authority exceptions are set out in Condition 13: - 121 -
Site operations (mineral extraction and processing, overburden and soils handling) 07.00 hours to 19.00 hours Monday to Friday 07.00 hours to 12.00 hours Saturday
Coal haulage hours 08.00 hours to 18.00 hours Monday to Friday 08.00 hours to 12.00 hours Saturday
Maintenance 07.00 hours to 23:00 hours Monday to Friday 07.00 hours to 17:00 hours Saturday 08.00 hours to 17.00 hours on Sunday
Remediation of contaminated materials 08.00 hours to 18.00 hours Monday to Friday 08.00 hours to 12.00 hours Saturday
With the exception of pumping, no operations including the maintenance of vehicles and plant or working shall take place outside these hours or at any time on Bank, or other public holidays, save in cases of emergency when life, limb, or property are in danger. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as is practicable after the occurrence of any such operations or working. (5)
11. No mineral extraction, overburden and soils handling operations shall take place within 200m of any occupied third party house, namely, The House, The Bungalow, Causey Bank Well and Causey Bankwell House prior to 08.00 hours Monday to Saturday or at any time on Bank, or other public holidays, save in cases of emergency. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as is practicable after the occurrence of any such operations or working. (5)
ACCESS AND PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY
12. Vehicular access for all vehicles to and from the site shall be via the access as shown on Drawing No. 197/D02a ‘Site Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing). Vehicles shall only turn left in and left out of the site. (9)
13. No mineral or contaminated material shall be taken from the development site until the site access as shown on Drawing No. 197/D02a ‘Site Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) has been formed in accordance with the details agreed under Condition 3. (9)
14. The wheel cleaning equipment installed in accordance with Condition 9 shall be used to ensure all vehicles leaving the site access as indicated on Drawing No. 197/D02a ‘Site Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) are thoroughly cleaned of mud before entering the public highway. (9)
15. The total number of heavy goods vehicles entering and leaving the site shall average no more than 178 (89 in and 89 out) Monday to Friday when calculated over any four week working period (Mondays to Fridays) and 72 (36 in and 36 out) on Saturdays. A record of all goods vehicles leaving the site shall be maintained by the operator and a certified copy of this record shall be afforded to the Mineral Planning Authority within 2 - 122 - working days of such a request. (5, 9)
16. The loads of all laden vehicles leaving the site access as indicated on Drawing No. 197/D02a ‘Site Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) shall be fully covered by sheeting. (5, 9)
SOIL STRIPPING AND STORAGE
17. The method of soil stripping, handling and replacement within the site shall only be undertaken in accordance with the definitive ‘Soil Handling and Management Manual’ approved under Condition 3(a), and shall be appropriate to the quality of the soils and intended after-use. (3, 17)
18. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given at least two working days notice in writing (excluding Sundays and Bank or other public holidays), of any intended individual phase of topsoil or subsoil stripping. (2)
19. All topsoil shall be stripped from any areas to be excavated, or used for the stationing of plant and buildings, the storage of subsoil and overburden, haul roads, and other areas to be traversed by heavy machinery, and stored until required for restoration in accordance with the scheme submitted and approved under Condition 3(a). The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to verify that the full depth of topsoil has been satisfactorily stripped prior to the commencement of subsoil stripping. (3)
20. No plant or vehicles shall cross any areas of unstripped topsoil except for the purpose of stripping operations. (3)
21. Sufficient subsoil or similar material agreed to by the Minerals Planning Authority (as identified by the definitive ‘Soil Handling and Management Manual’ approved under Condition 3) shall be stripped from any areas to be excavated or used for the stationing of plant and buildings, the storage of overburden, haul roads, and other areas to be traversed by heavy machinery to ensure that a minimum of 0.9 metres depth of such material is available for replacement over all areas intended for agricultural or other land-based afteruses. (3)
22. In each calendar year, soil stripping shall not commence on any phase until any standing crop or excess vegetation has been removed, and the Mineral Planning Authority has been given reasonable notice (two working days), such works to proceed only subject to their approval. (3)
23. The stripping and movement of topsoil and subsoil shall only be carried out under sufficiently dry and friable conditions, to avoid soil smearing and compaction, and to ensure that all available soil resources are recovered. Appropriate methods of soil stripping shall be separately agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority for any permanently wet or waterlogged parts of the site. (17)
24. No stripping, movement, replacement or cultivation of topsoil or subsoil shall be carried out during the months of October, November, December, January, February and March inclusive without the prior written consent of, by methods and for a period agreed with, the Mineral Planning Authority. (17)
- 123 - 25. Topsoils, subsoils, and other soil making materials shall be stored according to their quality or any approved soils stripping plan, in separate heaps which do not overlap. A minimum stand-off distance of 2 metres shall be maintained between soil storage mounds and the site boundary and/or site drainage ditches. (3)
26. Once formed all topsoil, subsoil, and soil making materials heaps shall be grass seeded in accordance with a scheme agreed in writing beforehand with the Mineral Planning Authority, and kept free from weeds. (3, 6)
27. No topsoil, subsoil or soil making materials shall be removed from the site. (3)
28. Within three months of the commencement of soil stripping, and every six months thereafter, the Mineral Planning Authority shall be supplied with a plan indicating the area stripped of topsoil and subsoil, the location of each soil storage heap, and the quantity and nature of material within the mounds together with details of the type of plant used to strip/store those materials. A balance of the quantities of material stored with the proposed depth and texture of the soil profile to be replaced following restoration shall also be provided. (3)
29. An annual soils management audit report shall be submitted by 31 January each year detailing all soil movements for the previous 12 months and include calculations of soil volumes and outstanding restoration tasks. (3)
SITE WORKING
30. The development, including soil handling, storage and replacement, extraction and restoration, shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved documents in Condition 1 and schemes subsequently agreed to in accordance with condition 3. (4, 5, 6)
31. At all times works should be carried out in line with an agreed method of working to be agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority prior to works starting on site which takes into account the best available information and techniques in relation to protected species, including the protection of such species during working and the restoration of the area to benefit wildlife as works are completed in any area. This should include reinstatement and creation of habitats to encourage the biodiversity of the area. (13)
32. A strip of land at least 12 metres wide shall be maintained at existing ground levels (except where the storage of topsoil and subsoil stripped from the surface of the site is approved in accordance with Condition 1) adjacent to any highway. (11)
33. Overburden and soils shall only be stockpiled in the areas shown on Drawing No. 197/D02a ‘Site Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing), to heights not exceeding those shown on the plan. (6)
34. Checking surveys shall be carried out prior to the commencement of soil stripping and prior to each phase of working identified on ‘Indicative Phasing Plan (12 months)’ Figure 3.1a, ‘Indicative Phasing Plan (24 months)’ Figure 3.2a, ‘Indicative Phasing Plan (34 months)’ Figure 3.3a, ‘Indicative Phasing Plan (44 months)’ Figure 3.4a and ‘Indicative Phasing Plan (48 months)’ Figure 3.5a(or other subsequently approved drawings) to ensure no badger setts have been established on site. If setts have been - 124 - established or badgers are found to be foraging over the site an impact assessment and suitable mitigation strategy, which must be agreed to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority, should be devised and agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority and be adhered to in full by the developer. (14)
35. Potential bat roost trees shall be inspected immediately prior to felling and the results be given in writing to the Mineral Planning Authority within 2 working days of the inspection. (13)
36. Mitigation measures in relation to bats as contained in paragraphs 6.9.22 and 6.9.41 to 6.9.43 of the document entitled ‘Marley Hill Colliery Reclamation Scheme, Environmental Statement December 2012, shall be adhered to and details of the location and design of bat boxes shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to their placement. (13)
37. No site clearance works or development affecting trees, scrub, ground vegetation or other semi-natural vegetation shall take place between March and August inclusive unless survey work immediately prior to the start of works confirms that breeding birds are absent. This is particularly relevant to the works to remove areas used by birds such as trees and scrub. If nesting birds are found then work in that area must be avoided until the birds have fledged. (15)
38. Nest boxes as referred to in paragraph 7.7.11 of Volume 1 of the Marley Hill Reclamation Scheme Environmental Statement (December 2012) shall be provided and details of location (within the site periphery and within retained habitat) and design submitted and agreed, in writing, by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. (15)
39. Barn owl nest boxes for potential barn owl nest and roost site as detailed within section 7.7.11 of Volume 1 of the Marley Hill Reclamation Scheme Environmental Statement (December 2012) shall be provided and details of location and design submitted and agreed, in writing, by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. (15)
SITE MAINTENANCE
40. From the commencement of the development, until restoration of the site, the following site maintenance operations shall be carried out:
(a) the maintenance of fences in a stockproof and secure condition, between any areas used for development, and adjoining agricultural land; (17, 18)
(b) the retention of fencing around trees and hedgerows; (6)
(c) the care and maintenance of trees and hedgerows to be retained within the site boundary and treatment of those affected by disease, in accordance with accepted principles of good woodland management and good arboricultural practice (including the provision of protective fencing); (6)
(d) the maintenance of all the hard surfaced access roads within the site, over which licensed road vehicles operate, clean from mud; (5, 9)
- 125 - (e) the maintenance of drainage ditches, water treatment areas, and the clearance of mud and silt from water treatment areas to avoid reducing their capacity for intercepting sediment; (7, 8)
(f) All areas of the site, including undisturbed areas and all topsoil, subsoil, soil making material and overburden mounds, shall be managed to minimise erosion and shall be kept free from injurious weeds (as defined by The Weeds Act 1959). Cutting, grazing or spraying shall be undertaken, as necessary and appropriate to the approved after-use of the land where the materials in mound are to be replaced, to control plant growth and prevent the build up of a seed bank of such weeds, or their dispersal onto adjoining land. (3, 6)
CONTAMINATION
41. The remediation of contaminated materials shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details under Condition 3. If during the remediation or development works any contamination is identified that has not been considered in the Phase 3 Remediation Strategy (agreed in accordance with Condition 3), then remediation proposals for this material shall be agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority and the development completed in accordance with any amended specification of works. (19)
42. Upon completion of the remedial works, a Phase 4 Verification Report (Validation Report) confirming the objectives, methods, results and effectiveness of all remediation works detailed in the Phase 3 Remediation Strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority within 2 months of completion of the development. (19)
BUILDINGS, PLANT AND MACHINERY
43. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 20 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no buildings, fixed plant or machinery other than approved under Condition 3 above, shall be erected or placed on the site without the prior written agreement of the Mineral Planning Authority. (16)
44. Plant and machinery on the site shall not be used to process, treat, or otherwise refine materials other than those extracted from the site. (5)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NOISE
45. Except when temporary operations (as identified in National Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 22 these being activities such as soil-stripping, the construction and removal of baffle mounds, soil storage mounds and spoil heaps, construction of new permanent landforms and aspects of site road construction and maintenance) are taking place, the noise emitted from operations on the site shall not result in noise levels greater than those listed below at the properties/locations listed below and identified in the Noise Monitoring Scheme agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority under Condition 3(b), between the hours set out in Conditions 10 and 11. (5)
- 126 - The House / Bungalow 47dB LAeq, 1Hr (free field) St Cuthberts Park 51dB LAeq, 1Hr (free field) Hedley West Farm 53dB LAeq, 1Hr (free field) Bankwell House 55dB LAeq, 1Hr (free field) 23 Causey Row 55dB LAeq, 1Hr (free field) Beckley Farm 46dB LAeq, 1Hr (free field) Birchwood Game Farm 48dB LAeq, 1Hr (free field)
46. Noise emitted as a result of temporary operations (as identified in National Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 22 these being activities such as soil-stripping, the construction and removal of baffle mounds, soil storage mounds and spoil heaps, construction of new permanent landforms and aspects of site road construction and maintenance) shall not exceed 70dB LAeq, 1Hr (freefield) as measured at The House / Bungalow, St Cuthberts Park, Hedley West Farm, Bankwell House, 23 Causey Row, Beckley Farm, and Birchwood Game Farm as identified in the Noise Monitoring Scheme agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority under Condition 3(b), between the hours set out in Conditions 10 and 11, the duration of such activities shall not exceed 8 weeks in relation to each of the respective noise monitoring properties in any 12 month period. (5)
47. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given at least 2 working days notice in writing (excluding Sundays and Bank or other public holidays), prior to the commencement of temporary operations (as identified in National Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 22 these being activities such as soil-stripping, the construction and removal of baffle mounds, soil storage mounds and spoil heaps, construction of new permanent landforms and aspects of site road construction and maintenance). (1, 5)
48. Noise levels during the hours of 22:00 to 07:00 shall not exceed 42dB(A) L Aeq 1h (free field) as measured at The House / Bungalow, St Cuthberts Park, Hedley West Farm, Bankwell House, 23 Causey Row, Beckley Farm, and Birchwood Game Farm as identified in the Noise Monitoring Scheme agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority under Condition 3(b), (5)
49. Noise monitoring shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme approved under Condition 3(b). On request, the operator shall, within 2 working days furnish the Mineral Planning Authority with the particulars of the measurements recorded and the plant and equipment operating on the site at the time. (2, 5)
50. All plant and machinery used on site shall be fitted with an effective silencer and has the doors or cowls of its engine(s) in the closed position. Pumps or generators in position for more than one working week shall be screened by acoustic barriers where appropriate. Plant shall have reversing bells. (5)
51. The details of reversing warning devices to be fitted to plant and machinery shall be agreed in advance with the Mineral Planning Authority and only the approved devices shall be used. (5)
52. Advance notification of changes in the agreed working programme shall be given to the Mineral Planning Authority in writing at least one week prior to the change. (2)
- 127 - BLASTING
53. Blasting operations shall not take place at the site until a test blast has been fired to allow the vibration characteristics of the rock within it to be calculated, and the frequency and timing of blasting has been agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority beforehand. Blasting operations shall be restricted to 3 blasts per day between the following times:
Monday to Friday 09:00 hours to 09:05 09:55 hours to 10:05 10:55 hours to 11:05 11:55 hours to 12:00
14:00 hours to 14:05 14:55 hours to 15:05 15:55 hours to 16:00
No blasting shall take place outside these hours or at any time on Bank or other public holidays, save in cases of emergency when life, limb, or property are in danger. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as is practicable after the occurrence of any such emergency operations or working. (5, 7)
54. No component of the peak particle velocity of ground vibration resulting from the blasting shall exceed 12mms/second at any time during the working of the site at the nearest occupied residential property and, in each six month period of working, 95% of blasts shall not exceed 6mms/second. (5)
55. All blasts shall be monitored for peak particle velocity in three mutually perpendicular planes in accordance with the vibration monitoring scheme agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority under Condition 3(c). On request, the operator shall, within 2 working days furnish the Mineral Planning Authority with the particulars of the measurements recorded. (2, 5)
56. Each blast shall be preceded by the sounding of a siren, and notices giving details of blasting operations and warning flags shall be placed at the positions agreed in accordance with Condition 3(c) before blasting commences. The siren, notices and position at which flags are to be erected will be maintained throughout the duration of minerals extraction operations. Occupiers of adjacent residential properties shall be notified of blasting procedures on site in accordance with the scheme agreed in accordance with Condition 3(c). (5)
57. The measures to minimise the effects of overpressure agreed in accordance with Condition 3(c) shall be implemented. (5)
DUST
58. The Dust Action Plan agreed in accordance with Condition 3(d) shall be reviewed at six-monthly intervals and the latest version adhered to at all times. (5)
59. The dust control equipment installed shall be used at all times to suppress dust on the site arising during the hours set out in Conditions 10 and 11 from all operations, - 128 - including remediation of contaminated materials, vehicular movements, excavation operations, mineral, soils and overburden stockpiling arrangements and soil spreading operations. At such times when the equipment provided and the provisions in the Dust Action Plan are not sufficient to suppress dust arising from the site, operations shall cease until additional equipment is provided and found to be adequate. (5)
Dust suppression measures employed may include:
i) the provision of mobile water bowsers;
ii) the use of dust filters on all fixed plant and machinery;
iii) a speed limit of 15 mph on all internal haul roads, with no plant having exhausts pointing downwards;
iv) all haul roads and areas used for the storage of soils and overburden shall be watered during dry, windy weather conditions;
v) areas which will be untouched for more than three months shall be seeded with a quick growing cover crop. (5)
60. Monitoring of dust levels shall be carried out by the operator in accordance with the Dust Action Plan agreed in accordance with Condition 3(d). On request the operator shall, within two working days, furnish the Mineral Planning Authority with the particulars of the measurements recorded. (2, 5)
61. Real Time Dust Monitoring shall be in operation at all times and give details of total particulate levels, indicative levels of PM 1Os wind speed and wind direction. On request the operator shall, within two working days, furnish the Mineral Planning Authority with the particulars of the measurements recorded. The monitoring data and the dust suppression measures shall be reviewed at monthly intervals. (5)
SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND POLLUTION CONTROL
62. All water from the site shall be discharged into the approved water treatment area prior to discharge into any ditch, stream, watercourse, or culvert outside the site. (7, 8)
63. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank it contains plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. The bund shall be sealed with no drain for removal of contained liquids. Any bund contents shall be bailed or pumped out under manual control and disposed of safely. (7, 8)
64. There shall be no importation of waste to the site or burning at any time. (2, 5)
- 129 - ITEMS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTEREST
65. The archaeological scheme of investigation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details under Condition 3. (12)
66. Prior to the restoration phase of works commencing, a copy of any analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the mitigation strategy shall be deposited at both the County Durham and Tyne and Wear Historic Environment Records. This may include full analysis and final publication. (12)
RESTORATION
67. Restoration of the site shall be in complete accordance with the approved documents in Condition 1 and schemes subsequently agreed to in accordance with Condition 3. (1)
68. In accordance with the restoration requirements, all areas of hardstanding, including site compounds, access road and haul roads, shall be broken up and removed from the site or buried at sufficient depth not to affect the final restoration of the site. (3)
69. In accordance with the restoration requirements, all water treatment areas shall, unless to be retained in accordance with the approved plans, be emptied of slurry, filled with dry inert material, and restored to levels shown on the approved restoration plan. (3)
70. In accordance with the restoration requirements, all fixed equipment, machinery, and buildings shall be removed from the site. (3)
REPLACEMENT OF OVERBURDEN
71. The final placement of overburden into the voids of completed workings shall be graded to prevent the material becoming saturated and waterlogged. (3)
72. Overburden shall be replaced to such levels, and in such a way that, after the replacement of subsoil and topsoil, the contours of the restored land conform to the approved restoration contours. (3)
73. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified when Condition 72 has been complied with, and shall be given an opportunity to inspect the surface before further restoration works are carried out. (3)
REPLACEMENT OF SUBSOIL
74. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified, with at least two working days notice (excluding Sundays and Bank or other public holidays) prior to each phase of subsoil replacement in accordance with the scheme agreed under Condition 3. (3)
75. Prior to the replacement of subsoil, the surface onto which it is to be placed shall be scarified to alleviate compaction, and surface picked of any stones or other materials capable of impeding normal agricultural or land drainage operations. (3)
76. The material stripped and stored in accordance with Condition 21 shall only be respread when the conditions referred to in the scheme agreed under Condition 3(v) - 130 - are met. (3)
77. No movement, replacement or cultivation of subsoil shall be carried out during the months of October, November, December, January, February and March inclusive, without the prior consent of, by methods and for a period agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority. (3)
78. After Condition 72 has been complied with the material stripped and stored in accordance with Condition 21 shall be respread in accordance with the schemes submitted in accordance with Conditions 3(a) and 3(v) as appropriate to the intended after-use. Any proposal to replace uniform subsoil types in a single layer by loose- tipping methods shall only be permitted subject to a trial demonstration, to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority, during the restoration phase. (3)
79. Each layer formed in accordance with Condition 78 shall be rooted and cross rooted to its full depth by a heavy duty subsoiling implement with winged tines set no wider than 600mm apart. Any non-subsoil type material, or stones larger than 225mm in any dimension, shall be removed from the surface and not buried within the respread subsoil. (3)
80. All areas of exposed subsoil, not previously excavated, shall be rooted to 450mm depth at 600mm spacings to relieve compaction, and surface picked to remove any obstructions to cultivation as defined by Condition 79. (3)
81. Following compliance with Conditions 79 and 80, the surface shall be graded to ensure that, after replacement of topsoil in accordance with Condition 85 the contours of the landform conform to the approved restoration contours. (3)
82. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to inspect each stage of the work completed in accordance with Conditions 78, 79 and 80* prior to further restoration being carried out, and shall be kept informed as to the progress and stage of all works. A record plan of the progress of restoration shall be maintained at the site office. (2, 3)
REPLACEMENT OF TOPSOIL
83. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified, with at least 48 hours' notice (excluding Sundays and Bank or other public holidays) prior to each phase of topsoil replacement. (3)
84. The respreading of topsoil shall only be carried out when the material and the ground on which it is to be placed are in a suitably dry and friable condition, and there shall be sufficient time for subsoiling, cultivation and reseeding to take place and be completed under normal weather conditions before the end of September. (3)
85. No movement, replacement or cultivation of topsoil shall be carried out during the months of October, November, December, January, February and March inclusive, without the prior consent of, by methods and for a period agreed with, the Mineral Planning Authority. (3)
86. After Condition 81 has been complied with, topsoil shall be respread in accordance with the schemes submitted in accordance with Conditions 3(a) and (v) as appropriate - 131 - to the intended after-use to a form corresponding to the contours shown on the approved restoration plan. (3)
87. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity, with 48 hours advance notice, to inspect each stage of the work completed in accordance with Condition 86 prior to further restoration being carried out, and shall be kept informed as to the progress and stage of all works. A record plan of the progress of restoration shall be maintained at the site office. (3)
Maintenance of Site Restoration Records
88. During the whole restoration period, the developer shall maintain on site separate plans for the purpose of recording successive areas of overburden, subsoil, and topsoil replacement approved by the Mineral Planning Authority in accordance with Conditions 73, 82 and 87 above. (3)
89. Within 3 months of the restoration of the final topsoil layer, the developer shall make available to the Mineral Planning Authority a plan with contours at sufficient intervals to indicate the final restored landform of the site, together with a record of the depth and composition of the reinstated soil profiles. (3)
AFTERCARE
90. The Aftercare Period shall extend for a period of 5 years effective management from the date of final topsoil replacement for the whole of or smaller manageable blocks of those parts of the site to be restored to agriculture (for other areas refer to agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act relating to this development) as identified on Drawing No. 197/D03a ‘Restoration Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) as confirmed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. (22)
91. Effective aftercare management, following on from the completion of soils replacements on the whole site or smaller manageable blocks within it, shall take place in accordance with Conditions 92 to 114, the approved documents in Condition 1, and scheme subsequently agreed to in accordance with Condition 3(q). (22)
ANNUAL REVIEW
92. Before 30 September of every year, or such other date agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority, during the aftercare period not less than 4 weeks prior to the annual review meeting held in accordance with Condition 92, a report conforming to the requirements of the National Planning Practice Guidance (refer to paragraphs 50 – 58), shall be submitted by the developer to the Mineral Planning Authority and Natural England (or successor), recording the operations carried out on the land since the date of soil replacement operations were completed, or previous aftercare meeting, and setting out the intended operations for the next 12 months (including works to rectify failures, and identified as necessary by the Mineral Planning Authority as a consequence of preceding site meeting, held in accordance with Condition 93). (20)
93. Every year during the aftercare period the developer shall arrange to attend a site meeting to be held before 30th November, to discuss the report prepared in accordance with Condition 92, to which the following parties shall be invited: (20) - 132 -
(a) the Mineral Planning Authority; (b) Natural England (or successor); (c) all owners of land within the site; (d) all occupiers of land within the site; (e) representatives of other statutory and non-statutory bodies as appropriate.
The developer shall arrange additional aftercare meetings as required by the Mineral Planning Authority.
CULTIVATION AFTER REPLACEMENT OF TOPSOIL
94. As soon as the ground is sufficiently dry following the satisfactory replacement of topsoil and compliance with Condition 87, the land shall be subsoiled, using an agricultural winged tine subsoiler, operating at a depth and tine spacing agreed beforehand with the Mineral Planning Authority. (20)
95. At least seven days’ notice of the intention to carry out the works required by Condition 94 shall be given to the Mineral Planning Authority, such works only to proceed subject to their approval. (20)
96. Any stones lying on the surface after compliance with Condition 93, which are larger than would pass through a wire mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with other objects liable to obstruct future cultivations, shall be removed from the surface and either buried below the subsoil or removed from the site. (20)
97. Following compliance with Condition 96 the land shall be worked to prepare a seedbed suitable for the sowing of grass seeds or other approved crop. (20)
98. As soon as practicable following compliance with Condition 97, and no later than the end of September, the land shall be sown with a short-term grass seed mixture or other approved crop, the details of which shall have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority prior to the commencement of topsoil replacement. (20)
99. Where adverse weather conditions or other delays prevent compliance with Condition 98, alternative treatment of the reinstated soils, to stabilise these over the winter period shall be agreed beforehand with the Mineral Planning Authority. (20)
PROVISION OF SURFACE FEATURES
100. Once the development authorised by this planning permission has commenced, the site shall thereafter be restored in complete accordance with the Drawing No. 197/D03a ‘Restoration Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing). From the date of commencement of the aftercare period (this being five years after the replacement of topsoil in accordance with Condition 86 (for other areas refer to agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act relating to this development) on any part of the site:
i) the installation of water supplies for livestock shall be completed within 12 months; - 133 -
ii) the erection of stock-proof fences and gates shall be completed within 12 months;
iii) stone walls, access tracks and installation of field water supplies shall be completed within 24 months (and prior to the commencement of any underdrainage installation or alternative time to be agreed in advance in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority);
iv) hedgerows shall be planted within the first available season following the completion of soils replacement (which runs between 1 November and 31 March); and
v) proposed woodland areas shall be sown with an agreed grass seed mix within the first available season. Trees shall then be planted in suitably prepared ground during the next available planting season (which runs between 1 November and 31 March). (20)
101. The works referred to in Condition 100 shall be carried out in accordance with details set out in the report prepared in accordance with Condition 92. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given a minimum of 4 weeks written notice, prior to commencement of, and following completion of each of the above works. (20)
DRAINAGE AND WATER SUPPLY
102. Following the completion of each phase of restoration, surface drainage works (including watercourses, field boundary ditches, and surface grips) shall be installed as soon as practicable following soils replacement, to intercept run-off, prevent soil erosion, and avoid flooding of the land. During each calendar year, such drainage works shall be completed prior to the end of September, and maintained or improved throughout the aftercare period. (20)
103. A comprehensive underdrainage system, conforming to the normal design criteria for restored land, and in accordance with a scheme to be approved beforehand by the Mineral Planning Authority, shall be installed in the proposed agricultural land shown on Drawing No. 197/D03a‘Restoration Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) and land proposed for such after-use under the scheme subsequently agreed under Condition 3 at a time to be agreed no earlier than the first annual aftercare meeting, and no later than 24 months from the commencement of the aftercare period. (20)
104. At least 7 days notice of the intention to commence works to the installation of underdrainage approved in accordance with Condition 103 shall be given to the Mineral Planning Authority; such works to proceed only subject to their approval. (20)
105. Within three months following the installation of the approved underdrainage, two copies of both the final drainage record plan and up-to-date site survey plan (showing final restoration contours at 2 metre intervals), shall be forwarded to the Mineral Planning Authority (one of each of which shall be passed to Natural England). (20)
- 134 - CULTIVATION AFTER INSTALLATION OF FIELD DRAINAGE
106. As soon as the ground is sufficiently dry after compliance with Condition 103, the agricultural land shown on Drawing No. 197/D03a‘Restoration Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) and land proposed for such after-use under the scheme subsequently agreed under Condition 3(v) shall be subsoiled, using an agricultural winged tined subsoiler, operating at a depth, and tine spacing agreed beforehand with the Mineral Planning Authority. During the cultivation process, any exposed stones larger than 100mm in any dimension, together with other objects liable to obstruct future cultivation shall be removed from the site. (20)
107. At least seven days notice of the intention to carry out the works required by Condition 106 shall be given to the Mineral Planning Authority, such works only to proceed subject to their approval. (20)
108. Following compliance with Condition 106, the agricultural land shown on the approved Drawing No. 197/D03a ‘Restoration Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) and land proposed for such after-use under the scheme subsequently agreed under Condition 3 shall be worked to prepare a seedbed suitable for the sowing of grass seeds or other crop approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to sowing. During the cultivation process any stones lying on the surface which would not pass through a wire mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with other objects liable to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the surface and not buried within the restored soil profile. (20)
109. By no later than the end of August following compliance with Condition 108, the agricultural land shall be sown with a long-term grass seeds mixture, the basis of which shall be perennial ryegrass and white clover. Details of the mixture including species and seed rate shall be agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority before sowing commences. (20)
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF GRASS SWARD
110. During the aftercare period the following shall be carried out in respect of the agricultural land shown on the approved the approved Drawing No. 197/D03a ‘Restoration Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) and land proposed for such after-use under the scheme subsequently agreed under Condition 3:
(a) the soil shall be tested annually, and fertiliser and lime shall be applied in accordance with good agricultural practice, and a rate targeted to achieve the following nutrient levels under the Index System described in the latest version of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Leaflet RB209 "Fertiliser Recommendations" or equivalent.
Potash - Index 2 Phosphate - Index 2 pH - 6.0
(b) reseeding any areas where a grass sward fails to become well established with an approved species mixture.
(c) the grass sward to be reduced to 50 – 100mm in length by cutting or grazing - 135 - before the end of October
(d) the condition of the grass sward to be inspected annually, with appropriate measures taken to control weed infestation.
(e) no vehicles, (with the exception of low ground pressure types required for approved agricultural work), machinery or livestock shall be permitted on the land during the months of November, December, January, February and March, without the prior consent of the Mineral Planning Authority. (20)
CONSERVATION AND/OR AMENITY AREAS
111. A detailed specification including a modified programme of soil respreading, cultivation, seeding, fertilising and cutting shall be separately agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of the aftercare period, for any approved conservation and/or amenity areas. (20)
MAINTENANCE OF HEDGES AND TREES
112. Hedges and trees planted in accordance with Condition 99 shall be maintained during the aftercare period in accordance with the schemes approved under Condition 3(v) and Condition 3(w), in accordance with good woodland and/or agricultural practice, such maintenance to include the following:
(a) the early replacement of all dead, damaged or diseased plants.
(b) weeding early in each growing season, and as necessary thereafter to prevent the growth of plants being retarded.
(c) maintaining any fences around planted areas in a stock proof condition.
(d) appropriate measures to combat all pests and/or diseases which significantly reduce the viability of the planting scheme. (20)
COMPLETION AND AFTERCARE
113. No later than 6 months prior to the target date for the completion of aftercare on any part of the site, the developer shall prepare a report on the physical characteristics of the restored land, and in respect of the agricultural land shown on Drawing No. 197/D03a ‘Restoration Plan’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) and land proposed for such after-use under the scheme subsequently agreed under Condition 3(v), incorporating proposals to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority, that by the end of the aftercare period, this will be restored, so far as it is practicable to do so. (20)
114. The period of aftercare shall be deemed to have been successfully completed following a period of 5 years effective management of those parts of the site to be restored to agriculture (for other areas refer to agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act relating to this development) as identified on Drawing No. 197/D03a ‘Restoration Plan’ (or other subsequently approved revised drawing), as confirmed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. (20) - 136 -
REASONS FOR CONDITIONS
1. To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents.
2. To ensure the development is carried out in an orderly manner. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting local amenity).
3. To ensure the site is satisfactorily restored. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M46 Restoration Conditions).
4. To avoid unnecessary delay in the restoration of the site. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M46 Restoration Conditions).
5. In the interests of residential amenity. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M36 Protecting local amenity, M43 Road traffic).
6. In the interests of visual amenity. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting local amenity).
7. To protect land outside the site. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M36 Protecting local amenity, M38 Water Resources).
8. To prevent adversely affecting watercourses passing through or outside the site. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M38 Water Resources).
9. In the interests of highway safety. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M35 Recreational areas and PROW, M43 Road Traffic).
10. In the interests of visitors to the countryside. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M35 Recreational areas and PROW , M36 Protecting Local Amenity).
11. To ensure the stability of the land concerned. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting Local Amenity).
12. In the interests of archaeology. The site is of local archaeological interest. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M33 Archaeology). To comply with paragraphs, 135 and 141 of the NPPF to ensure that the developer records and advances understanding of the significance of the heritage asset to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to its importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible.
13. In the interests of nature conservation. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M29 Nature Conservation).
14. To conserve protected species and their habitat. (Requested by Natural England.) (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M29 Nature Conservation).
- 137 - 15. To avoid any impacts on nesting birds. (Requested by Natural England.) (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M29 Nature Conservation).
16. To enable the local planning authority to consider the implications of any proposal to expand the activities which take place within the site. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting Local Amenity).
17. In the interests of agriculture. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M36 Protecting Local Amenity, M46 Restoration Conditions).
18. In the interests of public safety. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M35 Recreational areas and PROW, M36 Protecting Local Amenity).
19. To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risk to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with NPPF Part 11. Further information is available under the policy document ‘Development on Land Affected by Contamination’. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting Local Amenity and Park 11 of the NPPF). 20. To ensure that the land is satisfactorily treated for an appropriate period after the initial restoration to bring it to a satisfactory standard as required by Schedule 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
21. To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which places a time limit on when any permitted development may start by as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to ensure that the development is carried out within a reasonable period of time. In this case it is considered that an additional year to commence development would be appropriate.
22. To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) refers to attenuating surface water. The applicant should be aware that the discharge rate will depend upon the capacity of the watercourse rather than based upon the greenfield runoff from the whole of the site. (Requested by the Environment Agency. Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M38 Water Resources and National Planning Policy Framework).
23. Protection of the water environment is a material planning consideration and development proposals, including mineral extraction, should ensure that new development does not harm the water environment. Groundwater monitoring around the excavation should be put in place in order to better understand the groundwater regime, and the potential affects dewatering may have on the surface water courses. (Requested by the Environment Agency. Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M38 Water Resources and National Planning Policy Framework).
- 138 -
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised, and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)
BACKGROUND PAPERS
− Submitted application form, Environmental Statement, plans and subsequent information and Addendum to the Environmental Statement provided by the applicant. − National Planning Policy Framework (2012) − National Planning Practice Guidance Notes − County Durham Minerals Local Plan (2000) − Derwentside District Local Plan (1997) − The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) − Gateshead Unitary Development Plan − Planning For the Future Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan (submission draft) Statutory, internal and public consultation responses.
- 139 -
CMA/1/78 Reclamation & surface mining scheme to extract coal & fireclay involving the remediation of contaminated & derelict land followed by restoration to agriculture, Planning Services nature conservation, woodland & recreation at Land to the south of Marley Hill and east of Crookgate Bank This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date July 2014 Scale Not to scale
- 140 -
- 141 -