CAAOC Submission on MIR Airfield Farm 2013

7/30/2019 CAAOC Submission on MIR Airfield Farm 2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/caaoc-submission-on-mir-airfield-farm-2013 1/10

Communities Against Airfield Open Cast

Response

to

the

Main

Issues

Report

Midlothian Development Plan 2015



1

It was only in 2010 that Midlothian Council comprehensively rejected an application by Scottish Coal to extract coal from Airfield Farm, Cousland. It is therefore with some dismay that CAAOC has received the reappearance of the above site as a possible Area of Search (AOS) in the opencast coal

strategy of the MIR of the new Midlothian Local Development Plan (LDP). Less than three years on from the original rejection the arguments against coal extraction on Airfield Farm are even more irrefutable, and this wholly

unwelcome designation even more unacceptable. ~

Reasons for Original Rejection

The

application

by

Scottish

Coal

to

extract

coal

from

Airfield

was

unanimously

rejected

by

every council member of the Planning Committee following a recommendation to refuse by

both the Director of Corporate Resources and the Head of Planning and Development. The

decision to refuse was overwhelmingly welcomed by local residents and businesses as it

removed the spectre of five years of pollution, noise, dust and disturbance from our

attractive rural communities, allowing local people to make positive plans for their future.

Some of the grounds for rejection were as follows:

No evidence of any environmental, social or economic benefits to the local

community but considerable evidence of detrimental impact. This imbalance is

in clear contradiction of Scottish Planning Policy

There would be adverse effect on the quality of life of local communities due to

the considerable impact of noise and dust.

Failure to comply with the 500m separation distance from the nearest

community (the cottages at Oxenfoord Mains), plus impact on other individual

dwellinghouses, as required by Scottish Planning Policy.

The Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) would be compromised by adverse

visual impact and detriment to the integrity of the landscape character

Negative impact on leisure and tourism interests by adversely effecting the

enjoyment of recreational activities and visitors to the area, including the use of

paths and roads within the proposed site.

The proposed development was in contravention of a wide range of

environmental policies in the Edinburgh and Lothian Structure Plan and

Midlothian Local Plan

All of the above objections still apply, and we refer below to several factors which have

since arisen, relating to both strategic and local issues, which confirm the soundness of the

original decision.



2

The publication of the MIR in March 2013 has been overtaken by events to such an extent

that serious questions have to be raised about the implications, in financial, environmental

and social terms of the inclusion of any AOS in the new LDP.

Strategic Planning Issues ‐ Developments Since 2010

Scottish Coal

It is made clear in the MIR that Midlothian’s Planning Officers have given renewed

consideration to Airfield Farm as a potential coal site, despite the 2010 refusal, at the

specific instigation of Scottish Coal, notably in the submission of the company's “Forward

Strategy” document to the Council. Para 3.5 of the MIR's Minerals and Waste Technical

Note refers to Scottish Coal’s “detailed survey work” and “appreciation of market

conditions” which make the operator’s suggested areas of search the starting point for

defining areas of search in the new LDP.

Clearly the approach outlined in para 3.5 of the Technical Note no longer applies.

Falling coal prices and a declining demand for coal mean that Scottish Coal has now entered

administration and that there is absolutely no prospect of the company maintaining any

interest in the Airfield Farm site or in ever meeting its ambitions to extract coal there. The

Minerals and Waste Technical note of the MIR confirms (para 3.5) that no other coal

operator has expressed any interest in Midlothian not only in the new LDP but also

throughout the life of the previous plan.

Against this background any endorsement of Airfield Farm as an AOS in the MIR is now

outdated and irrelevant. Previous and current experience indicates there is little prospect

of developer interest in extracting coal at Airfield Farm for the foreseeable future.

We presume SCs Forward Strategy must now be considered withdrawn. It would be illogical

for the Council to continue to base its LDP policy for coal on a strategy document produced

by a company which can no longer promote that strategy. Furthermore as it appears

Scottish Coal’s demise has been caused by a significant over‐estimation of market factors,

there can be no sound basis for the Council’s continued reliance on their economic

judgement.

SESPLAN requires Councils to base their planning policies for mineral extraction on an

assessment of whether an adequate landbank of permitted reserves has been maintained.

However no evidence is produced in the Technical Notes supporting the Council’s MIR, or

the Proposed Plan of SESPLAN.

This leaves a vacuum in the Council’s ability to assess the need, or demand, for coal

extraction in Midlothian and highlights the weakness of basing policy on information

provided solely by the industry. We note this is very different to the approach taken by

planning authorities in determining appropriate levels of housing land supply. Until this has

been addressed we consider the Council has no justification for identifying any areas of

search for coal in Midlothian.



3

Remediation of Open Cast Sites

Para 2.22 of the Minerals and Waste Technical note states, The established minerals policies (in terms of coal and construction minerals) appear to have worked well and the industry has a recent history of high quality restoration in Midlothian. This view is certainly not shared by

residents

and

councillors

in

Midlothian.

Indeed

at

the

Planning

Committee

meeting

in

2010

when councillors rejected S.C.’s application to mine Airfield the elected representatives

expressed alarm at the legacy of poor restoration by Scottish Coal at the former Blindwells

open cast mine in East Lothian. Although not a ground for rejection in the Planning Officer’s

report, it was certainly a factor in the Planning Committee’s decision.

Now that Scottish Coal no longer exists there has been considerable publicity regarding the

lack of funds set aside by coal extraction companies for the remediation of open cast sites.

There is now deep concern among several communities across Scotland that abandoned

coal mines will never be acceptably restored despite this having been a supposedly robust

requirement by the planning process. East Ayrshire Council may be faced with a bill for £60

million because of the failure of coal operator ATH to provide sufficient bonds for site

remediation. Coal operators seem to have cynically misled communities and Councils,

raising the question whether any undertakings on end of extraction restoration can be

believed. Nor have Councils covered themselves in glory in failing to enforce planning

conditions and take appropriate enforcement action.

CAAOC are deeply concerned there will be a grave risk that the landscape at Airfield Farm,

75% of which is designated as an SLA, will never be restored should planning consent be

granted. Midlothian Council should not allocate any AOS in the LDP until this matter is

resolved. It would be entirely unacceptable for the local community to suffer the

disturbance of coal extraction and then for remediation costs to be raised from the public

purse rather than be met if full by the developer.

The Market for Locally Produced Coal

The MIR makes a case for the inclusion of Airfield Farm as an AOS which is both inconsistent

and overstated. At times it contradicts judgements which were made in the Planning

Officer’s Report on S.C.’s original application.

A significant part of S.C.’s original case for Airfield Farm in 2010 was that Cockenzie Power

Station would provide a ready local market. SC argued that its proximity to Cockenzie made

coal extraction from Airfield sustainable in terms of transport and supply. However in March

2013 Cockenzie was decommissioned as a coal fire power station removing a significant part

of S.C.'s case.

The MIR states that continued coal production is merited by demand from Longannet Power

station which has been upgraded to meet the requirements of the EU Large Combustion

Plant Directive, thereby extending production until 2023, the lifetime of the incoming LDP.

However the Technical Note also confirms that Longannet will no longer be adapted to

comply with CCS requirements and may now be required to reduce its operating hours to

comply with the new EU Emissions Directive, the implication being that Longannet will not

be an entirely reliable market for local coal. In fact the Scottish government’s own report



4

on meeting emission targets, admits that Longannet may have to close in 2020, a view

which is supported by the Committee on Climate Change. Any coal produced at Airfield

would not have a Scottish market.

The MIR also relies on prospective demand for coal by a supposed new power station at

Grangemouth (para 9.3). However this is still far from certain as it remains to be ratified by

both the UK and Scottish governments. The proposed new power station has failed to

receive any government funding for CCS making it unlikely there will be any coal fired CCS

generation for the foreseeable future. It is worth noting that the proposed Hunterston

Power Station has now been dropped.

The above factors and the reality that the Scottish coal industry is unable to compete with

falling prices from abroad makes the MIR conclusion that if CCS can be delivered, the industry may have a long term future highly optimistic. The uncertainty in the prospective demand from Longannet and also for the Grangemouth proposal to be delivered by the end

of the new LDP, combined with cheap foreign coal makes the MIR’s judgement on the

market for local coal questionable. Although SPP states that coal extraction is necessary and important in the national interest there is no absolute requirement by SPP that a Council must identify Areas of Search.

Given this uncertainty in supply and demand and the poor economic conditions which are

expected to extend beyond 2020 the Council must take a precautionary approach,

particularly with such an inappropriate site as Airfield which was so recently emphatically

rejected by the very Council which now proposes it as a potential AOS.

Greening

Midlothian

–

Environmental

Issues

Midlothian Council is a signatory to the Climate Change Declaration in which the Council

commits itself to meeting Scottish and UK targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas

emissions. As part of this process Midlothian has undertaken to address climate change by

promoting sustainable development of local communities and to demonstrate leadership at

local level in responding to climate change. CAAOC believes that the Council’s level of

commitment can only be demonstrated by serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions and

would be seriously undermined by any decision to designate the Airfield site as an area of

search.

Section 7 of the MIR begins by lauding the county’s impressive “green infrastructure” e.g.

woodland, cycle paths and walkways, and the network of green open spaces in general.

It also commits the local authority to not only protecting but also improving this green

infrastructure. Most of the Airfield site is in a proposed SLA which might lead one to

suppose that it would enjoy this protection. It adjoins Hadfast Nature Reserve SSSI, formerly

an AGLV, which curiously has been excluded as an SLA in the new LDP.

As part of the “green network” which will connect settlements with the strategic routes and other parts of the green infrastructure, there will be a path linking Cousland to East Lothian. The juxtaposition of a path to encourage cycling, walking and wildlife, which are already an

important part of the area’s attraction for visitors, along the edges of a potential open cast



5

coal mine seems highly contradictory. The former would be a welcome amenity in the

village which is a highly popular venue for the annual Midlothian Walking Festival. The latter

of course would be wholly unwelcome and would make a mockery of the professed

aspirations in the LDP to enhance biodiversity and woodland and meet the open space

needs of our communities.

The MIR offers environmental assessment guidelines, in terms of air quality, biodiversity,

climate and cultural heritage which must guide any development proposals in the LDP.

These include:

● avoiding adverse effects on listed buildings or their settings

● avoiding adverse impact on locally important archaeological sites

● avoiding areas of great landscape value or their equivalents

● avoiding loss/adverse effects on public open space

● preservation of settlement identity

● avoiding loss of quality agricultural land

CAAOC argues that all the above criteria , among others in the guidelines, apply to the

proposed Airfield Farm site and any approval of the site as an AOS would violate the

environmental principles which are designed to guide the new LDP

Impacts on

Tourism

and

Rural

Business

A significant part of CAAOC’s objection in 2009/2010 was the impact of the proposed mine

on the large number of rural businesses in the area. In the process Scottish Coal’s economic

case was substantially discredited. Whereas S.C. identified 38 businesses within 2km of the

site CAAOC were able to identify an additional 67. We found that 87% of businesses

perceived the impact of the proposed development as negative. As Inquiry Reporters

pointed out in rejecting a previous planning appeal by I and H Brown for an opencast mine

at Harry’s Burn, a critical factor in measuring economic impact was the perception of local

businesses regarding the likely detrimental impacts of the proposal on their performance

and

in

attracting

further

investment.

The

MIR

itself

underlines

this

point

by

acknowledging

the vibrant rural economy in the area based on rural pursuits and leisure/tourism which

would be affected by the duration of any operations. It acknowledges that councillors will

need to balance these factors in reaching a decision.

CAAOC argues that all this has been considered before and is a categorical reason to refuse

any coal extraction in the area. It should also be noted that the impact on leisure/tourism

would extend for a long time after the operation ceased and until the landscape, and the

reputation of the area, was restored. The hundreds of cyclists and walkers who visit the

paths and quiet roads at weekends would not return quickly.

Approval has now been granted by Midlothian for a “tourist village” of shops, visitor’s

centre, hotel and cafe at Fordel View with immediate access to the A68. This is predicted to



6

provide around 250 jobs. The planned development is situated only 700 metres from the

proposed area of search and any open cast coal mine. On the basis of S.C.’s previous

application, ten 28 ton coal trucks every hour would access the A68 at the Fordel junction,

passing directly around the new attraction. In the opinion of CAAOC the impact of these

heavy lorries sharing an access with a holiday and recreation complex would have

potentially disastrous consequences for a project which promises real economic and

employment benefits for Midlothian.

The economic benefits of tourism were recently underlined by Councillor Bryant,

Midlothian Council Cabinet portfolio holder for economic development, who said

encouraging more tourism is an important part of our plans to stimulate economic recovery in Midlothian. It is significant in this context that tourism showed an 11% increase in its

contribution to the Midlothian economy between 2008 and 2011. The fact that Midlothian

has had less than 50 people employed in open cast mining for more than a decade

illustrates how derisory the industry’s contribution has been to the Midlothian Economic

Development Framework target of 10,000 new jobs by 2020 compared with the potential of

tourism and other related business, businesses that utilise the environmental potential of

Midlothian as a vibrant and attractive place to work and to visit.

It is worth noting that the removal of the spectre of an open cast mine around Cousland and

surrounding areas has encouraged many small businesses to grow and prosper. In particular

local tradesmen have seen a huge upturn in business as people are confident in the

knowledge that their homes are safe and that they and their families will remain in them for

many

years

to

come.

Three

specialist

wood

craft

businesses

which

would

have

been

at

the

centre of the Airfield Farm mine have expanded their trade, their workforce and introduced

an apprenticeship scheme. They are also running Carpentry for Kids and Sign Branding

workshops, making an important contribution to environmental education and giving

children their first experience of real tools in a safe, fun and productive environment.

The conclusion reached by the planning officials in 2010 still stands that a coal mine at

Airfield Farm would have no clearly demonstrable benefits that can be identified for the local communities.



7

Site Specific Issues

The MIR identifies a reduced site, compared with the previous application, as justification

for revisiting Airfield as an area of search. Despite this most of the previous grounds for

rejection still apply. Indeed the reduced area itself raises a number of site specific issues

which make the proposed AOS even more unacceptable.

LANDSCAPE IMPACT

The proposed AOS in the MIR has been reduced from the land area refused planning

consent in 2010 to avoid the higher ground towards Cousland and counter one of the

grounds for rejection which was unacceptable landscape impact. The Technical Note (para

3.58) refers to a positive in‐house landscape analysis of the new proposal which finds that

“any landscape problems could be overcome provided that existing mature trees and

woodland are retained”. . CAAOC reserves judgement until we have seen the full in‐house

analysis.

However

we

fail

to

understand

how

trees

and

woodland

can

be

retained

during

the

extraction process given the size and nature of the proposed site.

ACKNOWLEDGED NEED IN MIR TO FURTHER REDUCE THE SITE AREA

The Technical Note paras 3.72 and 3.77 acknowledges that reducing the site area to avoid the better quality landscape on the upper slope, necessarily concentrates the amenity

impact on the Oxenfoord Mains houses. It therefore suggests that “detailed assessment may identify an acceptable zone for working which balances these factors”. This constitutes an acceptance by the authors of the MIR that the proposed site must be

further reduced in size further to the reduction which has already been made since the 2009 application, because of the severe concerns of landscape and community impact,

The MIR therefore inherently accepts the site shown in Figure 5 of the Technical Note is too

big.

However the MIR fails to acknowledge the extent of this problem. The Officer’s report in

2010 took the view that the dwelling houses at Oxenfoord Mains and Cottages adjacent to

the application site boundary comprise a “community” which triggers a presumption

against coal extraction in terms of SPP para 242. To overcome this a 500 metre exclusion

zone is required around these houses. We calculate this would reduce the newly proposed

site by around 40%. If so there must be a high risk of the proposed site being uneconomic.

Oddly enough the matrix in para 3.73 of the Technical Note evaluating key attributes of

locations for AOS assesses Airfield as avoiding proximity to settlements within 500 metres.

This completely contradicts the Officers’ consideration in 2010 and must be rectified.

This further reduction to an “acceptable zone” should be investigated by the Council before

proceeding further. It is not appropriate, as suggested at 3.77, to identify Airfield Farm as “a

reasonable alternative” as an AOS unless this has been properly considered in advance by

the

Council.



8

CAAOC requested justification of the economic viability of the site during the 2009

application process but there was an inadequate response from Scottish Coal. We consider

the reduction in site area will fundamentally affect its economic viability and the Council

must be satisfied on this matter as part of the local plan process.

GROUND STABILITY

The council’s consideration in 2010 confirmed that the risk of the coal mine disturbing the

remains of historic underground limestone workings affecting the whole area would require

investigation before coal extraction could proceed. Scottish Coal failed to investigate this as

part of their previous application. Para 3.70 of the Technical Report accompanying the MIR

reaffirms this concern and concludes, Midlothian Council shall have to come to a judgement as to the degree to which it is reasonable for all potential effects to be fully investigated in advance of the application and EIA stage. CAAOC would argue that given a frequently demonstrated history of ground instability in the area it would be both unreasonable and

irresponsible to consider Airfield as an AOS without a detailed vibration impact assessment.

HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ISSUES

In the 2009 application the Council accepted there would be no impact on the occupants of

the Airfield Farm buildings as the landowner would keep it vacant during extraction.

However the farm buildings have now been listed by Historic Scotland due to their historic

or architectural importance. The listing is Category B. The farm buildings are located

immediately on the edge of the proposed workings and the impact on their listed character

would be such as to prejudice the proposal going ahead. At the very least there should be a

reduction in the site area to provide appropriate protection.

In addition archaeological surveys have discovered a probable Roman fortlet and extensive

pre‐historic enclosure immediately behind Oxenfoord Mains placing it either on or

immediately adjacent to the proposed area of search.

Both of these developments since 2010 underline the potential of Cousland and the

surrounding area as an attractive location for tourism and visitors and Midlothian Council

has

also

granted

permission

for

a

visitor

centre

to

be

developed

at

Cousland

Smiddy,

a

project which has already received Historic Scotland and Scottish Government support. This

is confirmed by the Technical Note to the MIR which highlights the vibrancy of the area and

the appeal it has for leisure pursuits. It concludes that this raises important issues of

judgement for our elected representatives. (para 3.71). It is the opinion of CAAOC that the

combination of environmental, recreational and economic advantages, all of which are

repeatedly highlighted in both the MIR and its Technical Note on Waste and Minerals, when

set against the environmental and economic damage of any mining in this attractive rural

environment, makes any such judgement straightforward.



9

TRANSPORT

The Technical Note of the MIR states that a haul route using the A6093 and the A68 does not seem to present significant problems, although this would be dependent on the intensity of any operation. This conclusion is surprising considering the very real concerns raised in CAAOC’s objection

to the original application on the marginal compliance of the Fordel junction with DMRB Vol

6. There was particular anxiety on the potential dangers of northbound, fully laden trucks

joining the A68 with no accelerating lane. This danger will of course be exacerbated when

the recently approved Fordel View “tourist village” opens and any mining traffic will be

sharing the junction with a large volume of tourist traffic.

Scottish Coal also tried to meet local concerns about the hazards of heavily loaded vehicles

turning right onto the A68 from the A6093 by sending them up the minor road at Fordel

Dean. CAAOC commented at the time on the unsuitability of this route by pointing out

issues raised by steepness, noise and fumes, width and the loss of trees and habitat if the

road was widened at its junction with the A6093. Since that application was rejected there

have been two collapses on this road and months of closure due to historic mine workings,

making this route even more unsuitable.

It is CAAOC’s opinion that the potential transport problems associated with any major

mining development in such a quiet rural area have increased in the last two and a half

years further eroding the credibility of any decision to designate Airfield an area of search in

the new LDP.

Conclusion

Airfield Farm was rejected as a site for open cast mining because it clearly failed both

tests required under Scottish Planning Policy. The judgement could not have been

more categorical. CAAOC (Communities Against Airfield Opencast) believes that the

future status of Airfield is a settled issue and that it must not be included in the

MDLP as an Area of Search.

CAAOC Submission on MIR Airfield Farm 2013

Documents

Transcript of CAAOC Submission on MIR Airfield Farm 2013