Communities and Local Government Committee: Inquiry into the operation of the National Planning Policy

Framework
1) This is a short submission from the Loose Anti Opencast Network (LAON), which brings together some 28
community campaigns from across the !, 1" of which are in #ng$an%, who oppose opencast coa$ p$anning
app$ications an% operations because of their en&ironmenta$ an% socia$ impact' (ecause p$anning issues (as they
re$ate to opencast) are %e&o$&e% matters in both )cot$an% an% *a$es this note re$ates to the situation in #ng$an% an%
to its N++,'
*e appreciate that the in-uiry appears principa$$y to be concerne% with such matters as housing %e$i&ery an% the
achie&ement of p$anning app$ication targets' .owe&er in his website &i%eo, the /hair of the /ommittee referre% to
two re$ate% energy sources (fracking an% win% energy) where the issues arising are broa%$y simi$ar to those which
concern us about opencast coa$, an% aske% 0whether the p$anning framework is %e$i&ering what the community
wants1' (ecause we %o not be$ie&e that the N++, is a%e-uate to %e$i&er what we be$ie&e our communities want, we
therefore wish to %raw some matters to the committee2s attention'
2) +re&ious$y the re$e&ant p$anning gui%ance (3inera$s +$anning 4ui%ance 56 /oa$ mining an% co$$iery spoi$ %isposa$
paragraph 8) containe% a 0presumption against1 opencast %e&e$opment un$ess certain tests were met' *e be$ie&e that
this was the appropriate starting position from which opencast app$ications shou$% be consi%ere% in &iew of the
a%&erse en&ironmenta$ an% socia$ impacts fre-uent$y associate% with this type of operation' 7n N++, that
0presumption against1 is repeate% but now in a %ifferent formu$ation (paragraph 149)6 Permission should not be given
for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning
conditions or obligations; or if not, it provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the liely
impacts to !ustify the grant of planning permission"#
)o this now app$ies three tests, in se-uence6 app$ications shou$% on$y be appro&e% (i) if they are 0en&ironmenta$$y
acceptab$e18 (ii) if they are not, if they can be ma%e so by con%itioning8 an% then (iii) if they are sti$$ not
en&ironmenta$$y acceptab$e, if they pro&i%e 0nationa$, $oca$ or community benefits which c$ear$y outweigh the $ike$y
impacts1'
Our submission is that this paragraph 19: test an% 0presumption against1 is not being proper$y app$ie% in practice by
$oca$ p$anning authorities because it is too $imite% in the range of impacts it re-uires to be consi%ere%, an% then
because L+As are not app$ying an up;to;%ate assessment of 0nationa$ benefits1 (as we$$ as an unba$ance%
assessment of $oca$ an% community benefits)
1

2'1) The gui%ance on$y refers to en&ironmenta$ impacts an% not socia$ or hea$th impacts, an% is conse-uent$y too
concise to engage with the fu$$ brea%th of $oca$ impacts' As a particu$ar e<amp$e the section on 0+ro<imity of minera$
workings to communities1 in the accompanying N++, technica$ gui%ance (paragraphs $%&$$) %oes not actua$$y
estab$ish a -uantifie% minimum %istance between the boun%ary of an opencast site an% the neighbouring community'
7nstea% there are three paragraphs of genera$ise% %iscussion which reach this conc$usion6 07n such cases, it may be
=ustifie% to consi%er a%e-uate separation %istances'1 This approach is asymmetric in its app$ication6 it wi$$ suit
app$icants, an% those with professiona$ or e<pert know$e%ge8 it emphatica$$y %isa%&antages communities confronte%
with app$ication boun%aries that in some instances, are within 1> metres of houses, as at the .a$ton;$ea;4ate site,
where p$anning appro&a$ was gi&en after the first +ub$ic 7n-uiry ?ecision for an opencast site, he$% un%er the new
N++, ru$es in August 2@12'
(2'2) Opencast app$ications an% %eterminations are increasing$y out of touch with the rapi%$y changing
circumstances concerning the use of coa$ for the generation of e$ectricity' 7n the %ebate on the Lor%s Amen%ments to the
#nergy (i$$$ on 9A12A15 3ichae$ ,a$$on, the #nergy 3inister sai% this on the f$oor of the .ouse of /ommons
'"""""""" the economic outloo for coal generation is poor"
(ur analysis is consistent with that outloo and shows that unabated coal generation will mae up !ust )* of total generation by
$%$% and +* by $%$,, and probably %* by $%+%" -here is no evidence at the moment of a large number of operators planning to
upgrade their coal plants, but we should not rule out the possibility that one or two might do so".
2'5) 3ore recent$y, on the 5A9A19, %uring Ora$ Answers to Buestions on #nergy an% /$imate /hange again in the .ouse of
/ommons, this e<change occurre%6
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): /oes the 0ecretary of 0tate agree that security of supply will not be enhanced by the closure of
two of the last three deep mines, 1ellingley and -horesby, and open&cast mines2 3earing in mind the fact that the 4overnment have
taen 54", billion from the mineworers# pension scheme, including 5)%% million this year, surely it is not beyond their imagination to
use the miners# own money to support what is left of the industry"
Mr Davey: 6e do not see a security of supply problem here, but the 4overnment need to engage with all parties to determine
what we can do, and we have been incredibly active in doing so""""".
2
2'9)The effect of this substantia$ change in #nergy +o$icy institute% by the 4o&ernment wi$$ resu$t in a %rastic
re%uction in the future %eman% for opencast coa$' LAON argues that this constitutes a new set of circumstances
which has come into being since the N++, was %rafte%' ,irst$y that the 4o&ernment pre%icts a %ec$ine in coa$ usage for power
generation purposes an% secon%$y, that not e<p$oiting %omestic coa$ reser&es is no $onger a threat to ! #nergy )ecurity'
*e are therefore suggesting that if the N++, is re&iewe%, that this change in the use an% importance of /oa$ in #nergy +o$icy
be ref$ecte% in +$anning +o$icy'
7n a%%ition we wou$% suggest that the N++, approach ; which in any case is most$y not re$ate% to the particu$ar
circumstances of opencast coa$ ; is insufficient$y specific to protect $oca$ communities against a%&erse socia$ an% hea$th
impacts'

3) Comments on particular paragraphs o main !""#
3$%) !""# paragraph %&' 03inera$s are essentia$ to support sustainab$e economic growth an% our -ua$ity of $ife' 7t is therefore
important that there is a sufficient supp$y of materia$ to pro&i%e the infrastructure, bui$%ings, energy an% goo%s that the country nee%s'
.owe&er, since minera$s are a finite natura$ resource, an% can on$y be worke% where they are foun%, it is important to make best use of
them to secure their $ong;term conser&ation'1
7omment8 This is not appropriate to the particu$ar case of coa$, an% is no $onger consistent with go&ernment po$icy as set out by the #nergy
3inister an% )ecretary of )tate for #nergy an% /$imate /hange as e<p$aine% abo&e'

3$') !""# paragraph %&3 0 L+As in preparing Loca$ +$ans 0shou$% not i%entify new sites or e<tensions to e<isting sites for peat e<traction1
7omment8 *e submit that a simi$ar statement wou$% now be appropriate in re$ation to opencast coa$'
3$3) !""# paragraph %&3 0criteria re$ating to $oca$ p$ans
7omment8 LAON notes that in re$ation to the abo&e e<amp$e of the .a$ton;$ea;4ate %ecision, no reference is ma%e to pro<imity to
communities or minimum %istances' (y contrast in *a$es an% )cot$an%, the officia$ p$anning gui%ance now in operation in%icates
that, genera$$y speaking, there shou$% be a C@@m (uffer or )eparation Done between an opencast site an% where peop$e $i&e' This
issue, the nee% for a (uffer or )eparation Done in #ng$an% was $ast %ebate% in +ar$iament when the 4o&ernment ta$ke% out An%rew
(ri%gen 3+1s 0+$anning (Opencast 3ining )eparation Eones) +ri&ate 3ember1s (i$$ on 11A2A2@11, prior to the intro%uction of the
N++,' ?espite suggestions ma%e %uring the %ebate by The +ar$iamentary n%er;)ecretary of )tate for /ommunities an% Loca$
4o&ernment, An%rew )tune$$, that 3inera$ +$anning Authorities cou$%, in their $oca$ p$ans, intro%uce such (uffer Eones, no #ng$ish
3
3+A to our know$e%ge has yet %one so' *e therefore suggest that consi%eration again be gi&en to intro%ucing such a C@@m (uffer
Eone as a re-uirement 7n the N++,

3$&) !""# paragraph %&& %etermination of p$anning app$ications' The criteria here re-uire that 0great weight1 shou$% be gi&en to the
benefits of the minera$ e<traction, inc$u%ing to the economy18 an% that 0in granting p$anning permission for minera$ %e&e$opment, that there
are no unacceptale a%&erse impacts on the natura$ an% historic en&ironment, human hea$th F etc1 our emphasis
7omment8 The inc$usion of those two -ua$ifying wor%s (0great1, 0unacceptab$e1) as they app$y to opencast coa$ app$ications, now pro&i%e
inappropriate support in fa&our of the app$ication, gi&en the changes status of in%igenous /oa$ pro%uction in the !1s #nergy +o$icy'
5'9'1) G''''pro&i%e for restoration an% aftercare at the ear$iest opportunity to be carrie% out to high en&ironmenta$ stan%ar%s, through the
app$ication of appropriate con%itions, where necessary' (on%s or other financia$ guarantees to un%erpin p$anning con%itions shou$% on$y be
sought in e<ceptiona$ circumstances'''''8H
7omment8 LAON consi%ers this gui%ance in the N++, who$$y ina%e-uate as far as opencast coa$ e<traction is concerne%' *e ha&e
e&i%ence from both )cot$an% an% *a$es about how ina%e-uate an% short;sighte% this $imite% gui%ance on the nee% for Iestoration (on%s
is' *ithout greater protection, #ng$an% risks e<periencing the kin% of en&ironmenta$ %amage now being witnesse% by peop$e in )cot$an%'
7n )cot$an%, two un%ercapita$ise% opencast operators went into $i-ui%ation $ast year, $ea&ing at $east 52 un;restore% surface mine sites,
which wi$$, it is estimate%, cost the ta<payer o&er J2@@m to restore' The J2@@m bi$$ that the ta<payer is e<pecte% to meet is the net cost of
restoring these 52 sites, after =ust J28m has been reco&ere% from &arious forms of Iestoration (on%s' The )cottish 4o&ernment has
recent$y carrie% out a consu$tation e<ercise on what action shou$% be taken to ensure that new sites get restore%, part$y because the
7nsurance 3arket for Iestoration (on%s has now co$$apse%' A$arme% at the )cottish recent e<perience of the en&ironmenta$ %e&astation
that can be cause% by opencast mining, the *e$sh 4o&ernment un%ertook its own in-uiry, recent$y pub$ishe% as 0Iesearch into the fai$ure to
restore opencast coa$ sites in south *a$es1 makes a conser&ati&e estimate that the shortfa$$ for fun%ing site restorations %espite the e<istence of
Iestoration (on%s, is J182m' 7n )cot$an% an% *a$es, proposa$s are being ma%e to pro&i%e a more centra$ise% metho% of ca$cu$ating the appropriate
$e&e$ of any re-uire% Iestoration (on% an% a%&ise $oca$ authorities accor%in
3eanwhi$e in #ng$an%, as this is being written, ! /oa$ 3ining .o$%ings is un%ergoing a financia$ crisis' This is a /ompany which operates si< surface
mine sites in #ng$an%' On one of its sites, 3inorca, in Leicestershire, the /ompany has been a$$owe% a 0perio% of grace1 to forgo making a substantia$
payment towar%s its Iestoration (on%, of J>@@,@@@ by Leicestershire /ounty /ounci$, whi$st at the same time the /ompany is remo&ing between
1@,@@@ an% 12,@@@ tonnes of coa$ a week, worth c JC@@,@@@' To $oca$ resi%ents, it seems unbe$ie&ab$e that the /ompany can operate in a manner that
increases the siDe of the site to be restore% at the same time as it fai$s to co&er the risk that there wi$$ not be the resources to finance site restoration'
3uch more scrutiny of the a%e-uacy of Iestoration bon%s is nee%e% in #ng$an%' On$y by such metho%s can we a&oi% the $ike$y;hoo% of a 0!eek$e
.ea% )aga1, where an un;restore% opencast site in /umbria, with Iestoration (on%s was $eft %ere$ict for years, on$y for a waste %isposa$ company to
4
offer to restore the site if they cou$% store $ow ra%io;acti&e waste there' This generous offer was refuse% by /umbria /ounty /ounci$ an% the Iefusa$
was uphe$% after a +ub$ic 7n-uiry in 2@12' .owe&er the site sti$$ $ies %ere$ict'
&) (ecommen)ations:
The Loose Anti Opencast Network re-uests the /ommittee to consi%er the fo$$owing changes necessary to make N++, 0fit for the purpose1
as it app$ies to opencast coa$6
9'1) That as a new set of circumstances about the use of coa$ has come into being since the N++, was %rafte%' ,irst$y
that the 4o&ernment pre%icts a %ec$ine in coa$ usage for power generation purposes an% secon%$y, that not
e<p$oiting %omestic coa$ reser&es is no $onger a threat to ! #nergy )ecurity' LAON therefore recommen%s that if
the N++, is re&iewe%, that this change in the use an% importance of /oa$ in #nergy +o$icy be ref$ecte% in +$anning
+o$icy in an amen%e% N++,' /oa$ shou$% sti$$ be treate% separate$y in the N++,, but its importance shou$% be
%owngra%e%'
9'2) On the 7ssue of (uffer or )eparation Dones, LAON recommen%s that consi%eration again be gi&en to intro%ucing
such a C@@m (uffer Eone as a re-uirement in the N++,, so that communities in #ng$an% en=oy the same %egree of
protection as communities %o in )cot$an% an% *a$es'
9'5) On the issue of Iestoration (on%s, LAON recommen%s that an #ng$ish Ie&iew into the a%e-uacy an% imp$ementation of
Iestoration (on%s, simi$ar to the recent *e$sh stu%y, be un%ertaken for #ng$an% in or%er to reassure $oca$ communities
affecte% by opencast mining that their interests, as far as restoring opencast sites are concerne%, are we$$ safeguar%e%' 7f this
re&iew unco&ers any cause for concern, then this shou$% resu$t in a re%rafting of N++, para 199 to ref$ect these concerns'
)te&e Leary an% Anthony Iae, for the Loose Anti Opencast Network' 8ACA19
5