Planning (Opencast Mining Separation Zones) Bill
Debate between Lord Beith and Andrew Bridgen(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Bridgen
I thank my hon. Friend for his comment, which is absolutely right. I shall bring it out further in my arguments.
It has been argued that the open-cast industry has relied on what could be described as “hired gun” expert witnesses, to gain permission that mineral planning authorities have neither the expertise nor the resources—money, mostly—to contradict. Those hired guns regurgitate the same rhetoric at every application and inquiry, following Government guidance that actually tells them what to say. The fact that mineral policy will not be covered by the Localism Bill makes a buffer zone even more essential.
Since 2005, owing to extreme industry lobbying and the argument based on need—industry need, not national need—being introduced as part of the planning guidance, “independent” planning inspectors have chosen to take the word of these “experts”. That subverts the empirical evidence of communities who have seen more open-casting than the inspector, expert witnesses and most members of the contemporary open-cast industry.
Each application that is passed weakens the position of local residents through the precedent set in planning case law, despite the fact that the supposed primary guidance, MPG3 (1999), which states that local authorities and local people are in the best position to assess the acceptability of an application, remains on the books. It seldom works. Under the last Government, the last 14 appeals on open-cast sites were all passed in the face of vocal local opposition. That gives the Secretary of State, who should be the last line of defence for local people, the perfect excuse to say, “I have to go with the experts.”
The position has become so bad that most local authorities simply wave through applications in England, whereas 10 years ago they would have been fought tooth and nail after being judged utterly unacceptable by local residents.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
What local authorities often do, certainly in Northumberland, is prefer to set conditions, rather than refuse, because then they have more control of the situation. But if a buffer zone was there anyway, it would give them rather more leeway. A degree of separation is sometimes one of the conditions that they try to set while they still have some control of the situation because they are granting permission.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution.
There is an argument that open-cast mines generate local employment, but in many cases the effect has proved to be virtually zero for the affected communities. The employment is low and generally outsourced, and contributions to the affected local economies are minuscule. The social and environmental costs are borne by local residents, with no real benefit in return.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England agrees. It states that
“communities in England should have the same protection from the noise, dust and loss of landscape which can severely erode quality of life.”
My earlier point about the uncertainty in planning policy explains that. The certainty that a buffer zone would bring would be an improvement on the current situation for rural England and its residents. The Campaign to Protect Rural England also notes that open-cast coal mining has undergone a recent resurgence in the UK, mainly due to the increase in global coal and gas prices. However, it also states:
“Not only do opencast mines deface some of our finest landscapes and wreck tranquillity, they can have a devastating effect on nearby communities and wildlife, while hindering efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.”
I will now move on to that last issue, for there is an environmental case for the buffer zone.
It has been calculated that each tonne of coal used for power generation produces more than 2,000 kg of carbon dioxide. The Confederation of United Kingdom Coal Producers, an industry group, has been reported as stating that
“the measure could lead to the loss or sterilisation of between 250 million and 500 million tonnes of reserves.”
Based on the figures provided by the Coal Authority, that is equal to between 48% and 97% of known surface-mine coal reserves in England, which, as previously stated, amount to around 516 million tonnes. If each tonne of coal burned for power generation produces 2,215 kg of carbon dioxide, preventing 250 million tonnes of coal from being burned would prevent them from becoming 550 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide. In that way, by passing the Bill, Parliament can make a major contribution to reducing climate change risks.
To put the figures into a meaningful perspective, the average amount of coal consumed by power-generating companies in the UK between 2005 and 2009 was approximately 50 million tonnes per annum, which is equal to emitting an average of 111 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide. By passing the Bill, Parliament would permanently put the equivalent of five years’ worth of CO2 production from UK power generation beyond reach and further stimulate the need to find alternative sources of energy.
In view of that, I have also received backing for my Bill from Leicester Friends of the Earth, which stated:
“Open-cast mining is extraordinarily destructive environmentally and can blight the lives of those living in nearby communities. We are delighted that Mr Bridgen has listened to the concerns of his constituents and chosen to introduce legislation on this issue.”
What is the need for those open-cast sites? England currently has 14 coal-fired power stations, five of which will close by 2015. Only two new coal-fired stations are planned. By 2015 we will need 3.4 million tonnes less coal for English power stations, which is 1.6 times the amount of all English open-cast coal mined in 2009. It could be argued that we are tearing up the countryside needlessly and using our emergency reserves when there is no emergency—the number of coal-fired power stations is falling.
There are many reasons why the Bill should receive a Second Reading. It would clarify planning, bring English law into line with Scottish and Welsh law, about which we have already heard much today, help the country to take a significant step to meeting its environmental objectives and, most importantly, protect communities against the intrusive, defacing vandalism of our countryside.
Do the residents of England not deserve the same protections as people in Scotland and Wales?
Voting by Prisoners
Debate between Lord Beith and Andrew Bridgen(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts