MINORCA OPENCAST PROTEST GROUP BRIEFING NOTES ON THE June 2010 500 METRE BUFFER ZONE BILL B2) ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF 500 METRE BUFFER ZONES 2nd Ed. THE MINORCA SURFACE MINE APPLICATION IS STILL LIVE ANYONE can object to this Application. For ideas about the grounds for objecting DO NOT use the fact that there is no 500m Buffer Zone around the site. This is not a valid reason under English Planning Law!! BUT on the http://mopg.co.uk/ and the http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/minorca-protest.html web pages is information about the grounds on which you can object. This link opens up a Comment Form on which you can state your objection to the Minorca Surface Application direct to Leicestershire County Council http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/environment/planning/community_services_planning/pl anning_applications/eplanning_searchform/eplanning_resultpage/eplanning_detailpage /RenderForm/eplanning_consultationform.htm?F.Name=eijgp33xoh9&appno=2009/C0 88/07 If you agree with our arguments please send in an objection. Thank you. Introduction This Briefing Note outlines arguments that can be deployed to support the introduction of 500 metre buffer zones between opencast mine sites and houses. This is very much a ‘work in progress’ document which will be added too as the arguments are developed further. MOPG is in favour of such a ban, and in 2008 it raised the issue at the time of the elections to Leicestershire County Council. These 1 arguments do not necessarily represent the views of all MOPG members on the issue. The Justice Argument: Is the Current System Fair? Unfair discrimination towards English communities exists, who do not benefit from the protection the 500 metre buffer zone offers to communities in Scotland and Wales who have already introduced such buffer zones into their planning guidance documents (1). The Health and Safety Argument: Would the introduction of such a Buffer Zone reduce the risks Members of the Public are exposed to? There can be little doubt that this would reduce the degree of risk that those living close to the site would be exposed to due to excessive noise and dust inhalation. In addition, if blasting permission is being sought it would significantly reduce the risk of ‘fly rock’ incidents affecting local people and property. This was the main reason why such a buffer zone was introduced in Scotland in the first place (1) The Economic Incentives Argument: Are Coal Operators, over time, likely to choose to apply for sites in England rather than in Scotland or Wales? The lack of such a policy in England is likely to invite an undue proportion of applications for English opencast mine sites where, because of the lack of such a ban, larger sites which can be more economically worked are likely. It will not be a level playing field. The Social Cost Argument: Does allowing opencast mining to occur less than 500 metres from peoples’ homes impose an unfair cost on those affected? Residents living near to opencast sites get no compensation from the coal operator for the either the degree of nuisance (dust, noise and increased heavy 2 traffic) that they have to contend with despite all efforts to reduce it. Working times are often 7am – 7 pm Monday to Friday + a half day on Saturdays + maintenance time. All are major intrusion into peoples’ residential peace and quiet. In addition, the value of their property is likely to decline for the duration of the time opencasting takes place and this, often with additional planning permissions for an extension to the opencast mine, can go on easily over 10 years. As a consequence, opencast coal is cheaper to produce that deep mined coal because opencast operators do not have to pay the full economic cost of their operations. An introduction of the 500 metre buffer zone would reduce the social costs falling on innocent third parties. Such a proposal may also lesson the length of time it takes to determine such applications and thereby reduce the degree of planning blight currently suffered by residents living close to the proposed site. The Climate Change Argument: How would the introduction of such a policy reduce the risk of Climate Change? The introduction of such a policy will keep significant sources of potential harmful carbon emissions locked up in the ground. This could hasten the need to develop less carbon intensive sources of energy production. (See B5 “Climate Change and the 500m Buffer Zone “for more on this issue) The Geographical Argument: Does the different densities of population between England, Wales and Scotland have any bearing on this issue? When compared to Scotland and Wales, England is a more densely populated country. The likely hood is, as a consequence, that unless such a ban is introduced in England, more people are likely to be affected by opencast mining proposals in England than would be the case especially when compared to Scotland and possibly Wales. (See B3 and B4 for more information on the location of English Current and Potential Opencast sites “ English Opencast Coal Sites 2009 -2010 Part One: Current Sites and Part Two : Potential Sites. B5 “Climate Change and the 500m Buffer Zone” also contains information on the proximity of these coal reserves to areas of settlement). 3 Legal Argument: Is this an area of policy which can impose enforceable legal obligations on governments, agents of the government and coal operators? The introduction of legislation incorporating a 500 metre buffer zone would makes clear the obligation of public authorities and coal operators to the general public with no equivocation. The current system of guidance in operation in all three countries leaves too many issues as a matter for interpretation rather than a legal fact What you can do If you agree with the arguments put forward by these Briefing Notes write to your own MP with your concerns and ask him or her to support the 2nd Reading of Andrew Bridegen’s Planning ( Opencast Mining Separations Zone) Private Member’sBill. Significance of the 500m Buffer Zone Bill for the Minorca Application If this Bill passes it’s 2nd Reading on February 11th and Leicestershire County Council (LCC) has not yet made a decision about the Application, MOPG can cite this fact as a ‘material consideration’ to be taken into account for when LCC do make a decision and it will increase the chance that the Application will be rejected. If the Bill becomes Law before a decision about the Minorca Application is made MOPG expect Leicestershire County Council to reject the Application because there is no proposal to have a 500m buffer zone around the site. However there is property just 30m away from the proposed site and the edge of Measham is 325m away. © Steve Leary 2nd edition MOPG 30/6/10 15/1/11 Please note This is very much a ‘work in progress’ document. If you have any comments to make that would strengthen the case for introducing a 500 Metre Buffer Zone 4 in England then do contact me. My thanks go to Brian Moseley for suggesting the Planning Blight issue as part of the Social Cost Argument. To follow either how the Bill progresses or the MOPG campaign develops follow Seftonchase on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Seftonchase For more information on the Minorca Opencast Protest Group go to http://mopg.co.uk/ or http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/minorca-protest.htmlefing BRIEFING NOTES ON THE 500 METER BUFFER ZONE BILL B1) 500 Metre Buffer Zones June 2010 B2) Arguments In Favour of 500 Metre Buffer Zones June 2010 B3) English Opencast Coal Sites 2009-2010, Part One Current Sites January 2011 B4) English Opencast Coal Sites 2009-2010, Part Two Potential Sites January 2011 B5) Climate Change and the 500m Buffer Zone January 2011 These and any subsequent Briefing Notes on the 500 Meter Buffer Zone Bill are free to download from; http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/andrew-bridgens-500mbuffer-zone.html CONTACTING ANDREW BRIDGEN MP for NORTH WEST LEICESTERSHIRE Constituency Office: 6 Elford Street, Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, LE65 1HH, Tel 01530 417736 Email andrew.bridgen.mp@parliament.uk Parliamentary Assistant: Andrew Woodman Email: woody662@hotmail.com References 5 1) For more information on this see MOPG’s Briefing Note 1: 500 Metre Buffer Zones, Steve Leary, MOPG June 2010 @ http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/mopg-briefing-notesseries.html 6