North York Moors National Park Authority. Director of Planning s Recommendation

Transcription

1 23 August 2012 List Number 2 Scarborough Borough Council (North) Parish: Barnby, Ellerby, Hinderwell and Mickleby App Num. NYM/2012/0303/CVC Proposal: Location: Applicant: Verification check of condition 4(b) of planning approval NYMR/003/0043B for underground mining of Potash under 160 hectares of land Land to the east of Ellerby and south of Runswick Bay village Cleveland Potash Limited, c/o D McLuckie, Boulby Mine, Loftus, Saltburn, Cleveland, TS13 4UZ Date for Decision: 29 June 2012 Grid Ref: NZ Director of Planning s Recommendation Approval of the submitted information. Borough - Barnby Parish - Ellerby Parish - Hinderwell Parish - No objections. Mickleby Parish - Consultations Highways - No objections on the understanding that all operations are carried out from the Boulby base. Building Control - North Yorkshire Moors Association - Yorkshire Dales National Park - Environment Agency - No objections. Natural England - No comments. Advertisement Expiry Date - 6 July 2012.

2 Runswick Bay Site Location Crown copyright and database rights You are not permitted to copy, sub-license, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form. Ordnance Survey The Old Vicarage Bondgate Helmsley York YO62 5BP Tel: Application No: NYM/2012/0303/CVC Scale: 1:12157

3 Page 2 List Number 2 Background In 1968 following the calling in by the Minister of the planning applications and subsequent Public Inquiry to establish Boulby Potash Mine, planning permission was granted subject to a number of planning conditions for the minehead/offices/processing plant/new rail link and 8,200 hectares area for mineral extraction some one mile below the surface. Some of the conditions required further schemes of working to be approved to minimise the risk of subsidence. In 1995 the Environment Act brought in a requirement to review old mineral permissions. Cleveland Potash, the owners of Boulby mine applied in 1996 for a new permission to retain the mine and extend the Potash mineral field to the east from Ellerby across to the western edge of Whitby and to the A171 in the south, thus reviewing the old permission. Whilst the planning application spanned both the National Park and what is now Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, the District had delegated straddling applications and planning matters within the National Park part of the borough to the National Park Officer. It was approved in May 1998 subject to a number of planning conditions and a Section 106 Agreement. Whilst permission had been granted for the mining of Potash under the settlements of Loftus/Skinningrove/Brotton/Easington and underneath the coastal cliffs, condition 4 required that no mining could take place in those areas without the prior written permission of the local Planning Authority, the reason given for the condition was to take into account concerns about coastal erosion, coastal processes and possible sea level rises. The Section 106 Agreement required, amongst things, Cleveland Potash Limited to implement, maintain and review various monitoring programmes, one of which was a subsidence monitoring programme. The Authority s records indicate there have been two previous requests under condition 4 to mine within the 1.5km buffer along the coast line, these were in 2001 and The latter was simply for a pair of tunnels through the salt deposit to investigate offshore Polyhalite reserves whereas the 2001 request involved three areas of extraction off the Skinningrove coast (pre-establishment of the Marine Management Organisation - MMO). That request was the subject of extensive consultation culminating in a report to the December 2001 Planning Committee which was approved. This application covers an area of approximately one square mile and is bounded by Ellerby to the west, Runswick bank top to the north, 250 metres back from the cliff near the isolated sailing clubhouse and Northfield Farm to the south. The deposits which the company believe to be high quality, following previous seismic testing, would be accessed from the existing mine workings to the west of Ellerby village. The application has been referred to Members due to the significant and specific nature of the proposed and its potential implications. The application documentation includes; plans, justification for the development and an update to the Environmental Statement supplied with the 1996 new permission to retain the mine and extend the mineral deposit working area with a particular focus on subsidence issues which were quoted as the reason for the condition in the first place. In the justification the applicants note that Cleveland Potash Limited have been supplying customers in the UK and around the world with refined Potash products and Boulby provides approximately half the rock salt needed to keep the nation s roads safe during freezing winter weather conditions. They also point out they operate an environmental management system to ISO 14001:2004 and are EMAS certified. Since potash production began in 1973 they have hoisted 95 million tonnes of Potash ore and salt out of the mine and further advise there has been no visible signs of any subsidence on the surface to any properties, structures, land, coast line, watercourse or wildlife habitat. In brief, the detailed subsidence information supplied shows a subsidence trough has been identified, it varies from 0 534mm as a result of the depth and nature of the geology, the subsidence is spread across agricultural lands and is not discernible.

4 Page 3 List Number 2 Background (continued) Based on evidence and experience to date, the applicants envisage future subsidence to be no different from the past subsidence. Members will be aware that there is modest budgetary provision for the engagement of consultants to provide specialist advice where it is not available in-house or from a statutory consultee. Specialist advice has been sought to appraise the information submitted to justify the applicant s assertions that there would not be significant impacts likely to arise as a result of predicted subsidence levels. Policy Context Main Issues The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) sets out to safeguard the landscape of important Yorkshire Landscapes such as this National Park (ENV10). Policy ENV4 seeks to provide for an adequate and steady supply of minerals including Potash. The weight that can be given to RSS policies is diminishing as we get nearer to its abolition. The adopted (November 2008) NYM Local Development Framework contains a number of particularly relevant policies. Core Policy E, amongst things notes that the continued extraction of Potash at Boulby will be permitted provided that any detrimental effect on the environment, landscape or residential or visitor amenity is not unacceptable in the context of any overriding need for the development and the national need for Potash is recognised in the justification text. Development Policy 1, amongst things seeks to conserve the special qualities of the Park by only permitting development which would not have an unacceptable impact on surface and groundwater. Development Policy 2 seeks to ensure development will not lead to an increase in flood risk elsewhere and Core Policy D seeks to facilitate necessary coastal and flood protection works and Core Policy A seeks to maintain the natural environment and to strengthen the rural economy. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains twelve principles these include recognising the intrinsic beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities and proactively driving sustainable economic development. The principle of underground mining of Potash reserves within the application site from the existing mine tunnel network is considered to have already been established by the 1998 planning permission which granted a temporary permission until 6 May At that time, such was the extent of the approved reserves (13,740 hectares) it was not clear whether the reserves within 1.5km of the coast line would ever be needed and a precautionary approach was agreed with Cleveland Potash Ltd which translated into condition 4. Accordingly, if it was required they would submit a written request with appropriate subsidence information to deal with the request. As such, the key issue is considered to be whether it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that mining within the one square mile application site within 1.5 kilometres of the coast will not cause unacceptable subsidence impacts. Subsidence Issues The applicants acknowledge that any underground working of minerals has the potential for subsidence. However they point out that deep Potash mining is very different from say Coal mining and the damaging subsidence that can go alongside Coal mining. The company note that subsidence could result in water ingress from water aquifers lying above the Potash which are crucial to the mines future operation that they need to take subsidence very seriously and note there has never been a subsidence claim against them in nearly 40 years of production. Page 4 List Number 2

5 Subsidence Issues (continued) In brief the applicants explain that the nature of subsidence needs to be considered by the three main types, total, differential and lateral strain. Total subsidence is where the whole area sinks and there are areas where upto 534mm have been recorded, because the whole surface is affected no single building or land feature is unduly affected. Differential subsidence between two points can affect tall buildings or tall structures or delicate machinery, maximum levels of 1 in 3000 have been recorded which do not have any undue effect in the locality. Lateral strains can be both tensile and compressive and result in cracks in brickwork or gaps/tilting of door/window frames. Those recorded are too insignificant to produce any undue impacts. The applicants also draw attention to the influence of other engineering factors such as angle of draw barrier pillars, trough nature of subsidence, difference between salt versus potash and former ironstone extraction. Consultation Responses The application has been the subject of consultation with statutory consultees, none of whom have raised any objections. Independent consultant advice from specialists involved with Potash extraction elsewhere in the world have been engaged and their view is that from the evidence submitted and their previous experience there is unlikely to be any significant subsidence reasons for withholding approval. Justification The applicants explain that any mining operation needs investment in new machinery to maintain efficient operations and to justify investment sufficient reserves are required to justify the investment. They have now identified a need to expand the onshore working area to maintain continuity of production. Cleveland Potash Limited provide employment for 960 people, 90% of whom live within ten miles of the mine and are the largest employer in the Park and contributes 26m into the local economy with a further 27m spent on goods and services the majority in Cleveland and North Yorkshire. Planning Balance There is planning policy support for the continued operation of Boulby Mine until its review in 2023 comes up, and the proposed area of underground mining within 1.5km of the coastal corridor is not considered to be likely to lead to unacceptable subsidence and as such the proposal is in line with Core Policies A, D and E and Development Policies 1 and 2 of the NYM Local Development Framework.