An opencast mine could come to your back yard - and there is little you can do about it

Wales is still mourning the death of the four coal miners who were killed ten days ago at the Gleision Colliery near Cilybebyll, Swansea Valley. It's another reminder of just how dangerous this energy source is.

Welsh people puzzled over why the next Saturday's English newspapers led with the story of English rugby centre Mike Tindall, his wife Zara Phillips, and a certain blonde, rather than this tragedy, thinking that if the loss of four lives in a mining disaster had happened in England it would have received front page attention.

Be that as it may, the accident also served to highlight that coal has become more economic to mine in this country - and that opencast mining, while carrying more environmental risk, carries less risk to human life.

In terms of the number of people killed per unit of energy provided, coal mining certainly beats nuclear power, as this rather dissembling comparison made by pro-nuclear commentators established earlier this year.

So one might, then, welcome the fact that of 28 mines recently approved nationally, 14 are opencast; but the impetus for opencast mining has less to do with respect for life (health and safety regulations notwithstanding) and more to do with the economics of opencast vs. deep mines.

14 - the number that received planning permission in 2009, the last year for which statistics are available – is a lot when you consider that there were but 35 mines in production that year. Only six applications were refused, and they will probably be resubmitted, if they haven't been already.

In terms of area, these permitted developments total 367 hectares in England, 51 in Wales, topped by 623 in Scotland - a total of 1041 hectares - or about the same number of rugby pitches.

Coal is back. In England, production from opencast coal mining has started to increase again, following a peak in 1989 of over 12 million tonnes to a low of under one million in 2006.

Scottish production has never been below five million a year, while that in Wales has also increased over the last decade, now standing at over 1.5 million tonnes.

Residents who live near these mines experience terrible effects. Coal dust quickly dirties paintwork and washing, the noise of the huge trucks is constant and wearing, and the environment is devastated by being ripped up.

At Ffos-y-Fran, near Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales, homes lie as near as 36 metres from the pit, which is a huge scar on the countryside 200 metres deep and three kilometres wide.

Local residents are currently locked in a legal dispute, trying to obtain compensation from the pit's owner, Miller-Argent (South Wales) Ltd.

Undaunted, Miller-Argent is now planning another opencast mine at Nant Llesg next to Ffos-y-Fran.

Exploratory work began last month and will continue for six months in preparation for a potential planning application in Spring 2012. Work could start in 2014 and last for over 15 years.

Climate activists - like the Coal Action Network - argue that the best form of carbon sequestration is to leave the coal in the ground - and they have an excellent point.

With Drax, formerly the UK's largest coal-burning power station, converting increasingly to combustion of biomass, and no more coal-burning power stations in the planning pipeline, at least until or unless carbon capture and storage becomes realistic and economically feasible, demand for coal will one day tail off.

But until the UK is able to rely much more on low carbon generation, its part in the electricity generation mix is set to continue.

Wales and Scotland have laws requiring a 500-metre buffer zone between opencast mines and homes. The situation at Ffos-y-Fron (developed before this law was passed) could not be repeated in Wales.

But, astonishingly to some, English homes currently have no such protection.

However, a Private Members' Bill is slowly winding its way through Parliament that could require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on opencast mining policy in England and give residents living near proposed opencast mines the same protection as that enjoyed in Wales and Scotland.

Brought by North West Leicestershire Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, the Planning (Opencast Mining Separation Zones) Bill would bring England into line with its neighbours in this respect, "unless the circumstances are exceptional".

New, opencast mines are planned right across England - in the counties of Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Durham, Northumberland, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire. Is there one near you? You might want to check.

Bridgen's Bill passed its first reading way back in June 2010 and was due to be have its second in February this year, but only received a partial discussion. It was scheduled again for 28 October – next month - but once more has been squeezed out for lack of Parliamentary time.

This is bad news for anyone living near the sites threatened by the new pits or an expansion of existing ones, like the mother of one of Bridgen's constituents from whom he received a letter which contained the following:

“They have just started an opencast mine in the field behind my mother’s house in Shropshire" (where protestors were evicted from a camp last month). "In weeks we expect her view of fields and The Wrekin to be replaced by a 9 metre high mound of earth 6 metres from her property. She is 84 years old and until the Shropshire Star did an article on her, the opencast company had not even bothered to visit her or contact her.

"With an opencast mine and then a landfill site she will no longer be able to open her windows or sit in her garden. What a way to spend the final years of your life. She would now like to move but this is now impossible. Nobody would buy it and the opencast company is not interested even though they own the property on either side of her.”

Surely the Localism Bill will help such people? I'm afraid not; it specifically excludes mineral policy, and will give no protection for local communities against developments such as this.

I repeat: if you hear of a mine – of any type - planned near your home, there is little you can do about it.

In Scotland, despite the exclusion zone, there is plenty of opposition to opencast mining, which shows that although a buffer zone provides some protection, it does not mean that residents living near to such mines are happy about them.

Despite the Coalition Government's localism agenda, planning law, now and into the future, allows developers to bulldoze their way through the wishes of local people.

The fact that such mines are opposed by MPs of every hue when one threatens their constituency shows that no one really wants them. And yet, presumably, we want the benefits they yield.

What can we do? At the very least, communities should be able to express an opinion on the way Mineral Planning Policy for their area could impact on their local Neighbourhood Plan, and obtain information from and petition their local Mineral Planning Authority.

There is still time to inscribe this in legislation, before the Localism Bill becomes law and the National Planning Policy Framework is adopted. But those wishing to do so must act fast.

You could also contact your MP and ask them to support Bridgen's Buffer Zone Bill by finding the time to take it further.

It's not just coal, but any mineral which is affected by this policy. You never know - some may be discovered in your back yard - as it has this month in the case of shale gas to the communities between Preston and Blackpool, Lancashire.

The new, concise national planning framework puts sustainable development first. Or does it?

The government has published its draft National Planning Policy Framework - which streamlines national policy from over 1,000 pages to just 52 pages, and is inviting comments in a 12-week consultation.

This will affect not just energy and community energy infrastructure but the future of the entire UK environment. Already, battle lines are being drawn up between business and environmentalists as conservative as the National Trust.

Defra and the Communities and Local Government Department insist that the draft Framework delivers on the Government's commitment in the Natural Environment White Paper to allow communities to earmark important local green spaces for special protection - whether its value is in its natural beauty, its historical resonances, its recreational value, its tranquillity or its richness in wildlife.

Greg Clark said it affords "protections for communities to safeguard the natural and historic environment". It "maintains the Government's commitment to protecting the green belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientific Interest; facilitates a new generation of renewable energy projects; paves the way for green transport of the future - the electric car; re-affirms protections for our nation's historic and cultural heritage, and for our wildlife and bio-diversity, including new protection for peat bogs; and helps tackle the light pollution affecting the beauty of the night sky."

A presumption in favour of sustainable development means that proposals should be approved promptly unless they would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in the draft Framework.

Clark praised the conciseness of the new national planning policy and said it made "clearer the importance of planning to safeguarding our extraordinary environment and meeting the needs of communities, now and in the future."

Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said it "will give local communities the power to protect green spaces that mean so much to them, while still giving the highest protection to our treasured landscapes such as national parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty."

And Business Secretary Vince Cable's perspective is: "The new approach to planning will be a significant step forward in creating the right conditions for businesses to start up, invest, grow and create jobs" and "Strong, sustainable growth is the Government's top priority".

What is sustainable development?

It is this use of the 'S' word that worries environment groups like Friends of the Earth - who called it a "developers’ charter which puts the interests of business ahead of people and the environment", because interpretations of 'sustainable development' are going to be crucial in making planning decisions.

Critics of the Localism Bill and draft planning documents up to now have complained that the term remains undefined.

There are undeniable limits to growth and therefore many maintain that to couple 'sustainable' with 'growth' not only tends to the oxymoronic but has the propensity to become self-deceiving and confusing.

'Sustainable development' as defined by the 1987 UN Brundtland Report, and adopted by the UK government in the past, means making sure that people can satisfy their basic needs now, without preventing future generations from also having the same quality of life.

It rests on three ‘pillars’ – economics, society and the environment, known in business as the 'triple bottom line' - coupled with the concept of social justice.

Almost the same definition is on the Defra website, but with no mention of justice and equality.

However, the NPPF does offer the following: sustainable development means that "all people should be able to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, both now and in the future". The inclusion of that crucial word 'all', should imply the notion of social justice.

The presumption to say 'yes'

With this in mind, the stipulation is that local authorities will give thumbs up to developers unless there are good reasons not to. They should "look for solutions rather than problems so that applications can be approved wherever it is practical to do so".

They should also "attach significant weight to the benefits of economic and housing growth" and "enable the delivery of sustainable development proposals".

Equally interesting is the mandate to "promote the vitality and viability of town centres, and meet the needs of consumers for high quality and accessible retail services"; and "raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas by promoting thriving, inclusive and locally distinctive rural economies".

On the often contentious issue of mining, the NPPF says planners should "encourage the recycling of suitable materials to minimise the requirement for new primary extraction".

The document hopes more housing will be built, and stipulates the preservation of Green Belts with certain exceptions.

Adaptation to climate change and mitigation are also supported. For example: "the planning system should aim to secure ... radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, through the appropriate location and layout of new development, and active support for energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings and the delivery of renewable and low-carbon energy infrastructure". Planners should also "avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding".

Planning authorities are also asked to "set out a strategic approach in their Local Plans, planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure".

There is also support for sustainable transport, electric charging stations for vehicles and the continuing use of Travel Plans.

The debate will continue

The Environmental Services Association (ESA) welcomed the "presumption in favour of sustainable development and on local authorities responding to the development needs of business" but criticised the document for failing to include "any meaningful reference to the role of waste management infrastructure", referring instead to the yet-to-be-published National Waste Management Plan (NWMP).

But the National Trust is not convinced by all the fine words in the document, saying the proposed reforms "could lead to unchecked and damaging development on a scale not seen since the industrial revolution".

The 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' has been welcomed by the housing sector, such as The National Housing Federation, as a boost for new affordable homes.

It's quite possible already to see where the battle lines will be drawn in planning offices up and down the land, and the courts.

No one from either the business and industry or the sustainability side of the fence will argue with this statement: "However, we remain concerned that the effectiveness of the NPPF will depend on how it is interpreted in practice by local planning authorities and others involved in planning."

But some will certainly find alarming the rest of the speaker's comment:
"There is still much scope for those opposing development to claim that proposed projects aren't sustainable and use restrictive interpretations" - "technical and academic interpretations of sustainability" - "to subvert the positive, pro-growth policy".

The speaker is Robin Shepherd, a partner with the developer Barton Willmore.

Planning permits for new generators need not take account of carbon emissions

The Government has ruled that the Infrastructure Planning Committee, which oversees all nationally strategic developments and will make the decisions on whether proposed developments should be given the green light, need not take into account the carbon impact of a particular plant before deciding whether to approve it.

The finalised Energy NPSs have been published by DECC, and, though yet to be debated in Parliament, provide a framework for planning and approving an expected £100bn of new energy infrastructure, including 33GW of new renewable energy capacity.

But in its response to the consultation on the NPSs the Government says that deciding on the impact of a development in relation to the UK's carbon budget "is a matter for wider Government intervention in energy markets, not a planning issue."

Five of the NPSs cover specific technologies: fossil fuels; renewables; gas supply and gas and oil pipelines; electricity networks; and nuclear. There is also an overarching energy NPS.

The latter sets out how the new system is compatible with the Localism Bill, retains the consultative approach (both on the NPSs and the consultation of local people in individual applications) and the transparency of the IPC system while increasing democratic accountability through returning the final decision to ministers.

The Nuclear NPS confirms eight sites across the country as suitable for new nuclear power stations by 2025 and lays out plans for how radioactive waste will be managed.

A Fossil Fuel NPS allows for carbon capture and storage to be fitted to new gas plants, as well as coal.

DECC also published yesterday new research into noise from wind turbines, and said it discussing with the Institute of Acoustics the establishment of a working group to develop best practice guidance for planners, developers and local communities.

Have your say on new nuclear power stations

A consultation on new nuclear power stations is underway.

The potential sites for these are at Bradwell, Braystones, Hartlepool, Heysham, Hinkley Point, Kirksanton, Oldbury, Sellafield, Sizewell and Wylfa. Bradwell was nominated by EDF, who are currently seeking to sell the site to a credible nuclear operator.

Under new planning laws which make it harder for people to object, large infrastructure projects (like nuclear power stations, railways, large wind farms, power stations, reservoirs, harbours, airports and sewage treatment works) are subject to generic consultation periods conducted by the new Infrastructure Planning Commission, with individual instances having restricted subjects on which it's possible for locals to comment.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change's consultation on the Energy National Policy Statements ends on the 22nd February, followed by an opportunity for Parliament to comment.

Nuclear power is a step in the wrong direction, sucking capital and engineering know-how into a short-term technology with a terrible long-term legacy of nuclear waste.

Instead support energy efficiency to reduce the demand. Support renewable energy whose fuel is harmless and free and will never run out.

A map of potential sites for new nuclear is here.

Respond to the consultation here.