Below is a transcript of my speech to today's Planning Committee on the
Cauldhall Opencast mine application. My proposal to reject the application was
defeated by 9 votes to 5.
- - - - - -
There are a number of issues concerning this application which give me
cause for concern.
Perhaps the most worrying is the cavalier acceptance by officers that we
can ignore the Local Development Plan currently in force and override the
democratic process by which the next local plan is to be adopted. Let us be
clear; this application is contrary to the local plan currently in force, and
as we can’t be sure what may come along in the future, rejection should have
been recommended on that basis alone.
The Midlothian Economic Development Framework identifies seven key
economic sectors to support a target of 10,000 new jobs by 2020. Mining is not
one of them.
We cannot allow our policies in relation to local planning and economic
development to be drawn up on the hoof.
The arguments put forward for the application itself are questionable.
Paragraph 8.63 claims that 230 jobs will be created in Midlothian. This
does not square with experience in other open cast mines in Scotland, and the
Airfield proposal, rejected unanimously by this committee in 2010, expected to
provide only 50 jobs on a site producing half as much coal as Cauldhall, at a
time when the economics for coal were much healthier. Moreover, since Scottish
Coal went into administration, there are now several hundred skilled and
experienced people, principally in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire, with the incentive
to commute to jobs at Cauldhall. I also question how much indirect employment
will be created when Scottish Coal leased nearly all its equipment from a
wholly owned subsidiary company.
The applicant is unclear where the market is for Cauldhall coal. Much of
it has a high sulphur content – the highest in Scotland. Even when blended with
low sulphur coal from the site, large amounts of imported low sulphur coal may
still be required, and transportation to power stations in England has not been
ruled out, with no impact assessment made of these routes, contrary to Policy
MIN1 of the Local Plan.
I am concerned about the environmental impact. 20% of the site is in a
designated Area of Great Landscape Value, highly visible from the Pentlands,
Moorfoots and other viewpoints across the county. One and a half hectares of
ancient woodland will be destroyed.
Paragraph 8.69 acknowledges that the proposed restoration will “alter
the landscape to a potentially detrimental effect”. Scottish Natural
Heritage states that there could be long term and significant negative impacts
upon local landscape character.
Traffic levels along the proposed route will rise markedly, and levels
at the Mayshade roundabout on the A7 are already causing concern without an
additional lorry every three minutes.
On site restoration, paragraph 8.37 is worrying – that “the planning
authority would wish to assure itself that the restoration is the best that is
achievable ” is hardly a bold statement. What is meant by ‘achieveable’? And
what confidence can we have in a company with a track record of complying with
only its minimal obligations with respect to restoration on sites it has
acquired from Scottish Coal and ATH? Assurances were made by Scottish Coal and
councils thought restoration bonds were secure, but as we know, all legal contracts
have loopholes and I have no doubt that once planning permission is granted,
those loopholes will be exploited.
And finally, we cannot ignore the elephant in the room – climate
change. Last week, the most powerful hurricane ever to make landfall hit the
Philippines. Only yesterday, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN
Framework on Climate Change, said “most of the existing coal reserves should be
left in the ground”.
Scotland has one of the most demanding CO2 reduction targets in the
world. In 2007 this council signed up to the Climate Change Declaration. Are we
going to walk away from our responsibilities and legal duties under the Climate
Change Act? Coal extraction alone would release significant amounts of CO2 and
methane into the atmosphere and Cauldhall would become the biggest source of
greenhouse gas emissions in Midlothian.
In summary therefore, I believe the risks involved in approving this
application are too great; to our communities, to our landscape, to our economy
(not least tourism), and to both the finances and reputation of Midlothian
Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment