OPENCAST THROUGHTOUT THE UK
Here we will be adding links and information from organisations including LAON about other sites across the UK that are suffering similar issues to ourselves. There are many present sites of Opencast Mining that are under threat of non-regeneration, lack of funds and continuing battles to preserve the remaining countryside and prevent further mining in the areas.
GREAT NEWS SO CLOSE TO HOME........ THIS COULD BE THE TURNING POINT FOR OUR SITE TOO
To all LAON members 12/06/14
A VICTORY TO CELEBRATE - HOODSCLOSE APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
I have just had this message from Kay Fitzgibbon who has led the Whittonstall Action Group in thier campaign against the Hoodsclose Application. As you can see, they all now have something to celebrate.In addition for those I've not already told because they are not directly affected by UK Coal's financial crisis, Hargreaves today withdrew from providing any loan monies or providing any services for UK Coal so we are back to square one on what is to happen. More on both of these news items in Undermining Coal NewsIn the meantime can I remind all groups who have yet to reply to my questions about LAON's future in my last two memos that I'm awaiting your replies ASAP please.
Best wishes Steve
Hi Steve
Just to let you know that today UKC (or whatever they are called now) withdrew their planning application for Hoodsclose today. We surmise this can only be because they believed permission would be refused. This should be in the press tomorrow. So - no planning committee meeting on June 19th, no appeals - can't quite believe it but it is all over! I imagine there will be more news to follow this and Hargreaves in the coming days. Kay
A VICTORY TO CELEBRATE - HOODSCLOSE APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
I have just had this message from Kay Fitzgibbon who has led the Whittonstall Action Group in thier campaign against the Hoodsclose Application. As you can see, they all now have something to celebrate.In addition for those I've not already told because they are not directly affected by UK Coal's financial crisis, Hargreaves today withdrew from providing any loan monies or providing any services for UK Coal so we are back to square one on what is to happen. More on both of these news items in Undermining Coal NewsIn the meantime can I remind all groups who have yet to reply to my questions about LAON's future in my last two memos that I'm awaiting your replies ASAP please.
Best wishes Steve
Hi Steve
Just to let you know that today UKC (or whatever they are called now) withdrew their planning application for Hoodsclose today. We surmise this can only be because they believed permission would be refused. This should be in the press tomorrow. So - no planning committee meeting on June 19th, no appeals - can't quite believe it but it is all over! I imagine there will be more news to follow this and Hargreaves in the coming days. Kay
Dear all LAON members,
I've just come across the reasons for the refusal of the Deanfield application at Sharlston by Wakefield Council.
It sets a precedent for all future opencast applications in the UK, but especially in England and I wanted to share the news with you all as soon as possible.
‘Health impact halts coal extraction’ (Mineral Planning, 18/5/14) @ http://www.mineralandwasteplanning.co.uk/Energy_Minerals/article/1294764/Health-impact-halts-coal-extraction-contrary-officer-recommendation/This application included a Health Impact Assessment, which was inconclusive but its contents have affected the decision: “ Officers recommended approval of the scheme but the council considered that residents’ fears of health risks were also a consideration given their proximity to recent opencast activity and also considered that dust from the development would have an adverse effect on the environment. In addition, the council considered that a previous appeal decision for Banks’ opencast site at Old Sharlston was relevant.....”“......Proposal: Winning and working of coal and fireclay
Site: Deanfield surface mine, Warmfield
Authority: Wakefield
Applicant: UK Coal Surface Mine.
Decision: Refused 27 March 2014
Reference: 13/00006/MIN
WAKEFIELD PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FOR:
Thursday, 27 March 2014 @
http://mg.wakefield.gov.uk/documents/g11332/Printed%20minutes%20Thursday%2027-Mar-2014%2013.00%20Planning%20and%20Highways%20Committee.pdf?T=1
“.....Members felt that the operations associated with this development constituted an unacceptable risk to the health and future health of residents and their children. They felt that residents’ fear of future health risks should also be a consideration given their close proximity for many years to the previous Colliery site and recent opencast coal reclamation of the site. It was felt that the development would have an adverse impact on the local environment by reason of dust and particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) and stress to the local community. In addition, they felt that credence should be given to the reasons given in the previous Inspector’s report relating to the adjacent Banks’ opencast appeal site at Old Sharlston.”
Best wishes
Steve
I've just come across the reasons for the refusal of the Deanfield application at Sharlston by Wakefield Council.
It sets a precedent for all future opencast applications in the UK, but especially in England and I wanted to share the news with you all as soon as possible.
‘Health impact halts coal extraction’ (Mineral Planning, 18/5/14) @ http://www.mineralandwasteplanning.co.uk/Energy_Minerals/article/1294764/Health-impact-halts-coal-extraction-contrary-officer-recommendation/This application included a Health Impact Assessment, which was inconclusive but its contents have affected the decision: “ Officers recommended approval of the scheme but the council considered that residents’ fears of health risks were also a consideration given their proximity to recent opencast activity and also considered that dust from the development would have an adverse effect on the environment. In addition, the council considered that a previous appeal decision for Banks’ opencast site at Old Sharlston was relevant.....”“......Proposal: Winning and working of coal and fireclay
Site: Deanfield surface mine, Warmfield
Authority: Wakefield
Applicant: UK Coal Surface Mine.
Decision: Refused 27 March 2014
Reference: 13/00006/MIN
WAKEFIELD PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES FOR:
Thursday, 27 March 2014 @
http://mg.wakefield.gov.uk/documents/g11332/Printed%20minutes%20Thursday%2027-Mar-2014%2013.00%20Planning%20and%20Highways%20Committee.pdf?T=1
“.....Members felt that the operations associated with this development constituted an unacceptable risk to the health and future health of residents and their children. They felt that residents’ fear of future health risks should also be a consideration given their close proximity for many years to the previous Colliery site and recent opencast coal reclamation of the site. It was felt that the development would have an adverse impact on the local environment by reason of dust and particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) and stress to the local community. In addition, they felt that credence should be given to the reasons given in the previous Inspector’s report relating to the adjacent Banks’ opencast appeal site at Old Sharlston.”
Best wishes
Steve
Hello All, update from 4/4/14
A NOTE TO SOME MEMBERS OF LAON, MOPG AND THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE MINORCA LIAISON SURFACE MINE LIAISON COMMITTEE.
Back from a little break and all .... has broken loose again.
First bit of bad news for UK Coal - Wakefield Council rejected their Deanfield Application last week.
The second bit of bad news is that UK Coal Mine Holdings which I understand to be the parent company which owns UK Coal Surface Mining is in financial trouble again. My sources tell me it needs £10m to avert having to put Kellingly and Thorsby deep mines into administration - it may be trying to arrange another prepacked administration event. What the implications are for all current and prospective surface mines is far from clear at this stage.
There may be an item on this in tomorrow's Financial Times.
If any of you can find out more about how this might impact on UK Surface Mining please let me know.
UK Coal Mine Holdings problems stem from three things, a low world price for coal, a decline in the value of the dollar and some unspecified geological problems at both pits. Last Monday (31/3/14) the spot price for coal delivered to NW Europe was £46.72 per tonne. In Jan 2013 it was £67.75 per tonne, hence their problems. I would think that this is drop in price is also affecting the profitability of their surface mine operations, so do ask the Case Officer you know, for any operational site, whether all due payments for both Community Benefits and for Business Rates have been paid. If any are outstanding, please let me know.
Best wishes
Steve Leary, Co-ordinator, The Loose Anti Opencast Network
A NOTE TO SOME MEMBERS OF LAON, MOPG AND THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE MINORCA LIAISON SURFACE MINE LIAISON COMMITTEE.
Back from a little break and all .... has broken loose again.
First bit of bad news for UK Coal - Wakefield Council rejected their Deanfield Application last week.
The second bit of bad news is that UK Coal Mine Holdings which I understand to be the parent company which owns UK Coal Surface Mining is in financial trouble again. My sources tell me it needs £10m to avert having to put Kellingly and Thorsby deep mines into administration - it may be trying to arrange another prepacked administration event. What the implications are for all current and prospective surface mines is far from clear at this stage.
There may be an item on this in tomorrow's Financial Times.
If any of you can find out more about how this might impact on UK Surface Mining please let me know.
UK Coal Mine Holdings problems stem from three things, a low world price for coal, a decline in the value of the dollar and some unspecified geological problems at both pits. Last Monday (31/3/14) the spot price for coal delivered to NW Europe was £46.72 per tonne. In Jan 2013 it was £67.75 per tonne, hence their problems. I would think that this is drop in price is also affecting the profitability of their surface mine operations, so do ask the Case Officer you know, for any operational site, whether all due payments for both Community Benefits and for Business Rates have been paid. If any are outstanding, please let me know.
Best wishes
Steve Leary, Co-ordinator, The Loose Anti Opencast Network
Dear LAON members,
I've now had a reply from Westminster about our January request to 'Make Coal a Special Case'. The reply is attached.
This has given me the opportunity to ask Eamon about what the current situation was with regard to Restoration Bonds, since the guidance contained in the Technical Guidance document issued with the NPPF is no longer valid. This is his reply:
" I am glad you raised the issue about bonds and financial guarantees, you are right, I have double checked the guidance and there is no mention of bonds etc, because the issue is covered in the NPPF (in policy), hence guidance does not repeat policy set out in the NPPF. However, the NPPF is explicit about the use of bonds, please refer to NPPF p34, the sixth bullet point in section: 144 When determining planning applications,
local planning authorities should: · provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary. Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should be sought in exceptional circumstances So local authorities as illustrated can in “exceptional circumstances” ask an applicant to provide upfront bonds so as to cover the cost of the future restoration of minerals sites when they attach conditions to the planning applications they grant. Needless to say if an applicant thinks a condition is too onerous or disproportional they can appeal the attachment of conditions."
Best wishes
Steve
I've now had a reply from Westminster about our January request to 'Make Coal a Special Case'. The reply is attached.
This has given me the opportunity to ask Eamon about what the current situation was with regard to Restoration Bonds, since the guidance contained in the Technical Guidance document issued with the NPPF is no longer valid. This is his reply:
" I am glad you raised the issue about bonds and financial guarantees, you are right, I have double checked the guidance and there is no mention of bonds etc, because the issue is covered in the NPPF (in policy), hence guidance does not repeat policy set out in the NPPF. However, the NPPF is explicit about the use of bonds, please refer to NPPF p34, the sixth bullet point in section: 144 When determining planning applications,
local planning authorities should: · provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary. Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should be sought in exceptional circumstances So local authorities as illustrated can in “exceptional circumstances” ask an applicant to provide upfront bonds so as to cover the cost of the future restoration of minerals sites when they attach conditions to the planning applications they grant. Needless to say if an applicant thinks a condition is too onerous or disproportional they can appeal the attachment of conditions."
Best wishes
Steve