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