Winter 2000
Minerals Development

Gas production wells and pipelines rejected due to impact on green belt and landscape.

Independent Energy UK (now in receivership) has failed in its proposal to drill wells and extract natural gas over a period of at least 13 years from a reserve beneath upland farms in Staffordshire and transport it via a five-kilometre pipeline to an existing generating facility.

The main issue was whether the development was appropriate within a green belt area, with visual impact a further concern. The inspector thought that the wellhead would harm the landscape be virtue of proposed screening mounds, 330 metre access track and a 35 metre rig. He said that the scheme would fail to maintain the openness of the area and fail to achieve high environmental standards.

He concluded that the information submitted in support of the pipeline was inadequate in terms of assessing its environmental impact.

The appellant has proposed a 30 metre corridor within which the pipeline could be located. The minerals planning authority argued that, following the 1989 judgment in Barratt Luton Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Mid Bedfordshire District Council, once the principle of the route was established by the grant of permission, it would then have no scope to refuse all routes along the corridor once its environmental acceptability had been agreed. The inspector accepted that the information required to assess the impact was insufficient to allow the grant of a full planning permission.

He took the view that the harm arising from the scheme outweighed any national need for the extraction of natural gas and that very special circumstances had not been demonstrated. He also refused an award of costs in favour of the appellant, despite the fact that officers had recommended a temporary permission.

OPENCAST COAL MINING DECISION

Complaints by local residents in respect of a decision by Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council to grant permission for opencast mining have not been upheld. Residents argued that the council publicised the application in a misleading manner, failed to adequately assess the environmental effects and was given inaccurate information by officers. In particular, the complainants argued that advice to councilors that they might be liable for personal surcharges of approximately £300,000 should the application be refused on grounds which could not be substantiated amounted to maladministration.

The ombudsman held that the complaints should not be upheld since it was appropriate for officers to impress upon councilors why an application should be approved and the possible consequences of not doing so. There could be no criticism of this advice and the complaints were rejected.

SCOTTISH MINISTERS FOUND TO BE IN BREACH OF DUTY

Redland Aggregates have been successful in getting the Scottish courts to judicially review the failure of the Scottish ministers to issue a decision in respect of its proposed coastal super-quarry on Harris in the Western Isles. The Company's representatives told the court that since the initial submission of the planning application in 1991, nine and a half years had elapsed. The reporter had issued a draft report in 1998, almost three years after the close of the public inquiry into the scheme, and the Scottish ministers had received the final report in April 1999.

The Company further argued that the suggestion by the Scottish ministers that the site should be considered to be potentially worthy of being designated a Special Area of Conservation under the European habitats directive before issuing a decision on the application was procedurally improper, particularly since Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), the ministers' adviser on such matters, had been one of the principle objectors to the super-quarry scheme.

Lord Justice Hardie concluded that while there was no statutory period for allowing ministers to determine an application, the company had a legitimate expectation that it would be determined within a reasonable period. In this case he commented, the delay was of "scandalous portions".

The judge also held that the minister' actions in referring the possible designation to SNH had been unlawful since the latter could not be seen to provide an impartial opinion. The ministers had breached the company's right under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which entitled it to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable period by an independent and impartial tribunal, he ruled.

QUARRY PROJECT IS TURNED DOWN

Plans for a super-quarry on the island of Harris were rejected recently by Scotland's new environment minister, Sam Galbraith, who said that a recommendation to approve the scheme had placed too much emphasis on English planning guidance.

Galbraith turned down operator Lafarge Redland Aggregates' application for a 459ha quarry on the grounds that the adverse environmental effects outweighed the need to meet English stone demand. He was overruled the findings of the reporter Gilllian Pain, who recommended in March 1999 that the economic and social benefits of the development at Lingerbay were of national importance and superseded environmental concerns.

Galbraith said the reporter was wrong to use the DETR's Mineral Planning Guidance on aggregates provision in England (MPG6) as a material consideration in the case and criticised her for having "seriously understated the impact of the development on the national scenic area".

MPG6 suggests that in order to meet aggregate demand in England, a shift in focus from English sites to remote quarries in Scotland is required. But Galbraith said that Scottish planning guidance should have been the primary concern.

Kevin Dunnion, director of campaign group Friends of the Earth for Scotland, said the decision was "real evidence that the Scottish Executive is prepared to give a higher priority to the environment".

Graham U'ren, director of the RTPI in Scotland, said : "This highlights the need for a UK wide framework in which major judgments such as this can be made". Lafarge Redland director John Leivers said the company was "extremely disappointed".