Good morning and welcome to the seventh meeting of the Communities Committee in 2005. I ask members of the committee, witnesses and visitors to switch off their mobile phones.
That is a broad question to which there are many answers. Our experience is that in cases of opencast mining, as with many bad-neighbour developments, communities struggle to feel that they are properly involved. They lack access to information and decision-makers and the ability to challenge what is said by the industry and by decision-makers. A swathe of reforms is necessary. The draft planning guidance on opencast coal takes several steps in the right direction but it needs to be backed up by the reforms that we hope will be included in the planning bill in the autumn. I know that the committee will scrutinise that bill carefully.
Do you think that the suggestions that organisations such as Scottish Coal have made, on the concept of enforcement plus and the establishment of liaison committees, will be of benefit? Will they go far enough to protect communities against the abuse of opencast mining or do you think that those measures are welcome but should be additional to the Executive's proposals?
Such proposals are clearly an "and" rather than an "or". I am afraid that, in our experience, enforcement is poor. It seems that operators frequently—I will not say consistently because I do not have experience of every operator—have scant regard for conditions and that the authorities are unable adequately to enforce those conditions because they are under-resourced. We believe that full access to justice under the Aarhus convention, which enters into force in the UK in May, will give communities a right to challenge both operators and authorities where they believe that enforcement is not happening correctly. I will not give examples because I am sure that the next panel will tell you about specific cases of non-enforcement, such as working beyond boundaries, working outside permitted hours and so on.
The Executive proposes introducing a presumption against opencast coal developments. In your submission you express concern that there could be ambiguity in the test that would apply to that presumption. Will you explain your concern?
We believe that the presumption against opencast development is sound. The norm is for opencast mines to be disruptive and therefore potentially unacceptable, particularly in the context of climate change. We believe that there is a case for not using coal unless it can be used in a way that is carbon-neutral and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has told us that that is not possible at the moment.
So community benefit should not be about simply building a swimming pool or sports centre in a community or planting some trees, but about a long-lasting community benefit, which might involve the reinstatement of land for future alternative use, which would be of great benefit to the community. The balance must be right.
The reinstatement of land should be an essential part of any planning application for opencast mining. We are particularly concerned to hear of instances of planning authorities failing to insist on a restoration scheme up front and restoration schemes not being implemented in a timely fashion. I have seen that problem with minerals more generally.
Is it appropriate that opencast coal mining is the only type of development in Scotland to which a presumption against development applies?
Strangely, on that question, I find myself in some agreement with Scottish Coal, which has expressed concern that opencast coal mining is the only type of development to which such a presumption applies—but that agreement will be unusual this morning. It would be good practice to have a presumption against development for all significant bad-neighbour developments, such as landfill sites, which clearly fall into that category. I hope that the presumption is a signal that the Scottish Executive is sequentially putting the principle of environmental justice into planning policy. However, opencast coal mining is clearly one of the most disruptive and damaging forms of development to a local area and is an appropriate place to start that process.
Do you share the concern that some of the so-called benefits in the draft policy that would override the presumption against development might not be significant?
I do indeed. The list of benefits and disbenefits reads more like a list of factors that may be taken into account one way or another in deciding on planning permission. Many of the items in the list of benefits are phrased as avoiding too severe an impact. I have read submissions that suggest that other positive benefits have been overlooked, but most of them have nothing to do with planning and therefore should not be added to the list.
Good morning. In response to a question from the convener on the subject of enforcement, you said that the next panel would probably have more to say on the issue. However, can your organisation suggest any remedies for situations in which a local authority is not pursuing enforcement?
I have three or four suggestions to make on that. First, this committee should ensure that the proposed planning bill will give ministers the power effectively to direct enforcement when it is not happening on the ground, in the same way that ministers currently have powers to decide on a planning issue that a local authority has not dealt with properly.
The coal industry is concerned that if SPP 16 is implemented, it could lead to a decrease in Scottish coal production. To meet current demands we would then need to import coal that is not mined to such high environmental standards. Do you have any comments on the effect that that could have?
That is like saying that because child slavery is permitted in Burma, we should permit it in Scotland. We must impose appropriately high standards on our operators. If necessary, we should seek to ensure that contracts are available for the amount that is deemed to be appropriate to produce in Scotland. It is not appropriate to scaremonger about conditions elsewhere. We should use Scottish standards as a means of improving standards throughout the system. In many industries, an operator that is required to work to the highest standards in one country will normally impose those high standards on its operations in all the different countries in which it works.
Your submission highlights concerns about the distances between sites, but it welcomes the extension of the separation distance from 100m to 500m. What direct benefits will that extension bring to communities?
The increase in the separation distance will bring clear benefits as it will reduce the impact of noise from working and the impact of dust and particulates. At the moment, the problem is that such impacts can occur outside the site even if the operator does not overstep the boundary. Impacts can come from parts of the operation that are not the working of the operation, such as the storage of soil in bunds. Topography permitting, the risk of landslip or collapse of those bunds can have impacts that go some way beyond the 100m distance around the site. A number of things would improve as a result of an increase in the separation distance.
Do the new separation distances make opencast coal mining acceptable?
It is not acceptable as a general principle. As has been highlighted in the consultation responses from Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and many other environmental and community groups, opencast mining has impacts even beyond the 500m distance. We agree simply that the level of impact that can be imposed on a community within the 500m distance is unacceptable, particularly given the risk—this ties in with the need for enforcement—that operators will work outside their permitted boundaries. That has happened more than once in our experience of working with communities. At one site, the distance between houses and the working face was the width of a C-class road.
Finally, have you any comments on the proposal for dealing with cumulative impacts within a 5km radius?
Having read through much of the evidence, I think that the proposal appears to have confused some people. There are sound grounds for having a defined distance within which proposed sites must pass a test for cumulative impacts. From my reading of it, the proposal is quite logical, in that it would require the developer first to check whether there were communities within 5km of the proposed site and then to check whether those communities were affected by other sites within a distance of 5km. In our view, complexity would be reduced and communities would be given more certainty if the rule was simply that there could be no more than two operations within 5km of a community. Although that might provide an incentive for larger rather than smaller operations, we would hope that the scale of operations could be managed appropriately by the planning authority.
SPP 16 states that local authorities should ensure that no community should be subjected to a disproportionate environmental burden. The written evidence from some community groups raised concerns about the cumulative effect of consecutive developments on the same site over a prolonged period. Does the policy as framed give communities adequate protection from continued development on the same site? Is there any way in which the policy could be improved?
I suspect that more explicit recognition could be given to the potential cumulative impact over time. As it stands, the guidance represents a good step towards recognising and managing cumulative impact.
Given that communities' interests can be protected if planning conditions are vigorously enforced, surely they need to be reassured that that will happen and that they will not have to keep facing a cumulative situation in which, over time, a planning application for X becomes Y, then Z and then Z-plus. Would communities not be reassured if everything was considered at the one time?
I agree with almost all those comments. Certainty is highly desirable and effective enforcement is essential. The practice of applying for a site and then adding extension after extension is detrimental to community interests and to certainty. I should point out that we also have to keep the overall impact and scale of operations within an acceptable limit at any given time.
In your submission, you criticise paragraphs 31 and 32 of SPP 16, which deal with supporting information on future development and so on. Will you put some of those concerns on the record?
We very much welcome the intention behind and spirit of the guidance. It is entirely reasonable to seek as much information as possible to stop—as Scott Barrie pointed out—the sequential creep of applying for a certain amount of development one year, a bit more the next year and so on. However, we are a little concerned about how the draft guidance puts the duty on the individual developer. It would seem more appropriate to place a commensurate duty on local authorities to obtain information from the Coal Authority about all nearby deposits and to consider any application in that context. There might be a need for much greater clarity and public disclosure of all interests in mineral rights by different developers. That is something that I have encountered in the wider mineral system. For example, in aggregates, the industry has resisted revealing landbanks of supply, which has distorted the planning system.
In your evidence, you are sceptical about how the system might work in allowing a genuine contribution by the local community. I was interested in your suggestion for a third-party right of appeal. Do you have any other suggestions for how we can make the system more watertight, so that local communities are satisfied and coal interests are given a reasonable chance to put their case?
There are a number of suggestions. In our view, a third-party right of appeal would create a dynamic incentive for developers to put forward proposals on which they had consulted the local community properly. In that way, there would be less risk of an appeal, and certainly less risk of a sustained appeal, after the event.
Thank you. That is helpful.
Donald Gorrie mentioned third-party rights of appeal. It is difficult to consider the guidance outwith the context of the new planning law that is to come before us. The new planning legislation may make pre-consultation and consultation with communities much more rigorous and perhaps even introduce a limited third-party right of appeal. Would it be possible for the new planning guidance to be concluded prior to the planning legislation being brought forward, given that the guidance is so integral to what will happen in the larger framework?
It would be a pity if it were not possible, as some communities, particularly in the Douglas valley, are already facing multiple applications, which would be far better dealt with under the new guidance than under the existing guidance. I can see your concerns. I argue that the aspirations for the current draft are in tune with those that have been expressed for the planning bill, which will aim to increase certainty, reduce delay and maximise the opportunities for communities to participate.
My apologies for being late. I hope that I did not miss much.
I suspect that authorities are rarely investigating major and controversial developments adequately before or after proposals come into operation. It is clear that there are resource problems for local authorities—it is not purely a lack of will—but in too many cases there is a culture of high-level contact between the developer and the authority, with limited contact with the community. Whether or not it is reasonable to negotiate a controversial development—it might be reasonable—communities are very definitely left feeling that their views have not been taken into account and adequately considered.
If there is a resource issue now, there will continue to be a resource issue if we change the system. Is there a danger that local authorities would still not bother carrying out all the necessary work and that they would cop out of giving planning permission for developments? Has that been an issue for you or your colleagues south of the border?
I cannot speak for colleagues south of the border. There might be an issue. One of the most important things that we can do to ensure that resources are available is to unload the system by removing unnecessary applications. The draft guidelines, which would create a presumption against development, represent a step in the right direction, in that they would ensure that only sound applications came forward. The provision in the proposed guidelines to eliminate repeat applications is also positive. I hope that the forthcoming planning bill will do more to reduce the prevalence of twin-tracked and repeat applications and the unnecessary appeals by developers that currently gum up the planning system.
We are joined by a number of colleagues who are not members of the committee but have an interest in the subject. I invite them to ask questions.
I approach the issue from a narrow perspective, as the representative for the constituency of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. I am sure that members are aware that Upper Nithsdale has a more than significant interest in the well-being of opencast coal mining. Nearly 200 of my constituents work in the industry in east and south Ayrshire and slightly further afield, rather than in Upper Nithsdale.
I have not visited the project, but I would be interested to do so.
Other members have mentioned the ability of local authorities to deal with applications and enforcement. In trying to contribute to the process, communities often feel overwhelmed by the volume of documentation. For example, the environmental impact assessment alone may be a huge document, so how can a community be expected to respond to it? I am also concerned about how an individual local authority—or, indeed, an individual planning officer—can be expected to manage the volume of documentation. Somehow, at the end of the process, everybody should feel that a balanced and fair outcome has been achieved. If permission is granted, the community and the planning authority need to be able to deal effectively with enforcement issues.
There is a nexus of questions in that, which I will try to handle quickly. As I said in response to a question from Ms Fabiani, to enable an authority to manage both the documentation and the process, part of the answer is the removal of unnecessary applications from the system through a combination of presumption against development and eliminating repeat applications. If that were to happen, resources could more effectively be put in place to deal with other applications.
It was the point about enforcement.
Yes.
Obviously, because applications tend to involve a relatively small number of local authorities, those authorities are required to put up a disproportionate amount of funding from their own resource allocation.
That is one of the hardest issues to resolve. As you will have seen in the submissions from members of the next panel, communities find enforcement to be very limited. Even when communities witness—and, indeed, video and document—breaches, the planning authorities do not necessarily accept the evidence.
I have one final question, which does not require a long answer—a simple yes or no would probably do. If the Scottish Executive implements SPP 16 as consulted on, do you believe that that will end all opencast in Scotland?
No.
Thank you. With that response, I thank Mr McLaren for his attendance.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our second panel of witnesses. We are joined by Ann Coleman, who is a co-opted member of Greengairs community council and a member of the Greengairs environmental forum; Lindsay Addison, who is chair of Douglas community council; Lawrence Fitzpatrick, who is convener of Scotland Opposing Opencast, and Dr John Munro, who is also a member of SOOT. I understand that we are also joined by Henry Thomson from the Glespin community group. Given the large size of the panel, I ask members to keep their questions short. I also ask for one witness to be nominated to answer so that we can hear answers that are as constructive as possible.
It is most important that we have honesty. We also need to build trust because nothing will be effective without that. We are starting from a bad place in that the communities that have experienced opencast mining do not trust anybody. As well as trust, we require openness and we must be sure that the information that is given to us is accurate. It cannot be a con: the information that people get must be factual and must not contain misinterpretations.
Good morning. As has been stated, for communities the present process is a burden of trees—we have to go through a large amount of paperwork. Douglas community council is currently handling four applications for opencast mining, as well as four applications for wind farms. I want to highlight to the committee the issue of planning process timescales. An application from an operator may have taken months, if not years, to draw up, but we are given only 14 or 28 days within which to respond to a document that may be 4in thick, although we are not experienced in such matters.
As community representatives, how would you like to be resourced or supported to engage with the planning process and the development of local and area plans? You have expertise in this area and know the difficulties that you face currently and have faced in the past. What can be done to help you?
First, there must be changes to the timescales. Secondly, we should be given professional independent advice. It is difficult for us to work with an operator who gives a one day, two-hour-long exhibition on their proposal, or to go through all the material that we are given when we try to arrange a meeting with the head of planning. We need professional independent advice and a substantial period within which to go through the process with professionals in the area.
I would like to make a specific point. Environmental impact assessments vary hugely in quality. They are drafted for the operator and sometimes are not only misleading, but inaccurate. All communities would welcome the opportunity to make an impact on that mechanism. We have suggested that planning authorities be empowered to draw up shortlists of people whom they believe are competent to provide objective environmental impact assessments. One hopes that firms would then ensure that they produced objective assessments, because otherwise they might lose their shortlist status. If communities knew that an environmental impact assessment was accurate, a huge amount of the anxiety that is felt by people who face a planning application would be removed.
I will pursue the same line. You are valuable to us because you come from the front line, as it were, rather than from the theoretical approach. In addition to what you have usefully said, do you have any other specific examples of how the present system is not operating appropriately? What specific things would make the system operate better, either according to the Government text or from your own ideas?
On the back of what I have presented, I would obviously say instantly that the fact that we have had four applications floating around shows that it is completely ridiculous to ask inexperienced volunteers to cope with such an amount at the same time. In the short time that our community council has been in existence, we have had four opencast mining applications to discuss. We need to know how that can be allowed to happen. Time must be defined and allotted, which would obviously help with the local authority's funding and operating of the applications. I know that South Lanarkshire Council has had to hire an extra planning officer during the process that we are currently going through, which is a cost to the public purse. There are problems for us in going through applications one at a time and in finding a process that is independent and accurate.
The problem is about the times when the applications come in—they always seem to come in at holiday times or at Christmas. We do not as it is have enough time to deal with them because we are not professionals, but they always seem to come in just when everybody has plenty of other things to do or when it is holiday time and people are not interested.
I would like to make a specific point about repeat applications. One welcomes the proposed changes in SPP 16, but one of the problems that communities face is that, at present, if an application goes through due process and is rejected, there is still the fear that another application will be made within two years. I put it very strongly to the committee that local authorities should have the power, after an application has been turned down, to consider removing part or all of the area concerned from the search area as soon as the appeal process has been competed, or it is clear that there will not be an appeal. It should not be left until the next plan is drawn up, possibly in a few years' time. Again, that would reduce pressure on communities.
One of the problems in dealing with opencast mining applications in any community is that there is generally an automatic presumption in planning law in favour of anything—absolutely anything—until it is proven to be contrary to planning policies. I became involved because I read the Flowers commission report, which was commissioned more than two decades ago by the then Conservative Government. That report described opencast mining as the most destructive environmental process in the United Kingdom.
I will add a small point for Mr Gorrie. The issue is that from Europe all the way down to local authorities, there is usually some form of mineral plan. We would like to see plans being adopted and made to work properly by the authorities.
And enforced.
Yes. Regardless of what is in black and white, from the Douglas community in South Lanarkshire up to Europe, it seems that we are the monitors who remind the authorities to read the papers and the policies. That is awkward, because we are not financed and we do not have the time to do that—whether we work full-time, part-time or are unemployed—because we are volunteers.
One of the problems is that although developers come along and give presentations and talk to communities—which I encourage, because it is important—we also need the local authority planning department to play a part and to come into the community. Every time we have invited representatives of the planning department to come, they have not turned up. We do not get councillors, we do not get planning officials and we do not get the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—none of them will come and talk to us. We are not getting the help that is supposed to exist. At the end of the day, nobody ensures that the information that we are given by the developer or local authority is accurate and followed up. On several occasions in Greengairs we have been given at public inquiries information that proved to be false, but nobody is held accountable.
I am sorry, convener, that we have broken your rule to keep things brief, but that exchange was helpful.
We will return to enforcement later, Dr Munro, when you will have an opportunity to say something.
One of the most critical parts of the policy is the introduction of the presumption against opencast mining developments, which brings us somewhat into line with England. Could you comment on that change from the existing guidelines?
When one reads paragraph 8 of SPP 16, it is important to appreciate what it is saying, which is that there is a presumption against opencast coal mining unless the proposal is acceptable or local communities will benefit from it. It is not an automatic presumption against opencast coal mining. It would be bizarre if we were saying that opencast coal mining could be permitted even if the proposals were unacceptable and would bring no benefit.
I would add that the two tests in SPP 16 make it fair, but one has to put meat on the bones of those two tests, as Dr Munro has said. The policy is built on those two tests, but failure to meet them does not mean that the industry will automatically come to an end; it means that criteria will have to be met. Everyone who is sitting at this table and hundreds, if not thousands, of people in communities have asked for that for years.
On the test relating to whether a proposal is acceptable, Friends of the Earth expressed concerns about to whom a proposal should be acceptable. Those concerns were raised in connection with third-party rights of appeal. Do you share those concerns?
We should not forget that planning policy is not law and that, as well as planning policy, people also have to bear in mind local plans and structure plans. At the moment, planning applications that are contrary to the local plans and structure plans can still be approved. I suggest that the test in paragraph 8 of SPP 16 is quite weak. Since the process is not accountable, if a proposal is approved on the basis that there will be a community benefit and we do not have any right of appeal, who will ensure that there is a community benefit?
That is the second test.
Yes. How are we going to ensure that community benefit materialises?
Can you comment on the other part of the issue, which is the compliance plus alternative that is outlined in Scottish Coal's submission? That model is already in operation at Scottish Coal's St Ninians site and we will hear evidence about that after you have left the table.
I have not read that submission, but I can say that it is quite clear that SPP 16, the original guidance that was issued, was a barrister's breakfast. The industry's magazine advises its readers that the regulations in Scotland take a much lighter touch and that, because of the clampdown in England, Scotland is the place to go, and it refers to operators being drawn to certain opencast sites like iron filings to a magnet. That was submitted in evidence that we gave earlier.
What date is that magazine from? Is it from 1998?
It came out in 1998-99. Copies have been presented at various times to various committees of the Parliament. However, it is clear that the regulations were not working and did not have the robustness of the guidelines south of the border.
On the acceptability point, the question is how the hierarchy would be placed. If it is the environment of the globe that we are talking about, that is the acceptability level at which the proposal is pitched. It would then, potentially, be a matter of working down from there. If the next layer is—as in my view, it should be—the communities that are affected, it would be necessary to find out whether proposals are acceptable in their terms. If the policy is based around a presumption against the industry or the creation of that energy, it is starting at a different point.
Scottish Coal has argued with the committee that compliance plus should replace the presumption against opencast mining. I appreciate that you have not seen the paper, which suggests the establishment of a liaison committee, a restoration board, an independent compliance assessor, a technical review panel and a planning condition requirement. As a constituency MSP who has had to deal with such difficulties, I say that all those suggestions are welcome. What compliance plus fails to take into account, however, is the community's view. Do you agree that community benefit is as important as all the things that have been listed previously?
The things that have been listed already exist. Our community has seen exactly the list that you have given; it is exceptionally disappointing if the industry thinks that communities should be at the bottom of the list or not even on it: it is exceptionally arrogant of the industry to think that we who would have to put up with the opencast mining for X years should not be on that list. That is unacceptable. I repeat that what you listed is already in place.
Let us return to the question of enforcement and monitoring. The written evidence from SOOT highlights concerns about inconsistent use of local authority enforcement powers against opencast mining operators that breach planning conditions. Can you give us examples of such problems and say what you think needs to be done to improve the situation?
I will comment on the employment issue first. I do not think that we have ever suggested that there have been no jobs available locally; however, not all the jobs have been available locally. Understandably, opencast mining operators move staff that they have had working on one site to the next site. If that were not the case, those people would in effect be working on a casual basis. There are two sides to the employment equation. The other side—which has been mentioned—is the negative effect. If opencast mining takes place or is threatened for an area, there is a negative impact on other forms of employment in that area.
Mr Barrie's question about monitoring would be easily answered if self-regulation by the industry ceased entirely and independent regulation were introduced. Air monitoring is supposed to take place around the Douglas valley but, as my good friend Mr Thomson could tell the committee, that is not happening.
My father worked in the coal pits for 46 years, and his father worked in pits before him, so we have a strong affinity with coal, especially deep-mined coal. Twenty years ago, there were 191,000 deep coal miners in Britain; now there are just over 5,000. The industry seems to base its arguments on energy need, but this time last year four mines in the big mining complex at Selby closed. The unions co-operated with the employers on retraining and so on, and the closures were accepted. Over the past week, I have listened regularly to the news. If BBC television is to be believed, the number of jobs in opencast has grown to 3,000 this morning. However, the table that we have produced, which is based on figures from the Coal Authority, shows that the actual number is 1,300. There are no deep-mine jobs in Scotland.
Mr Cronin has a point to make. I ask him to keep it very short.
The Douglas ward is a good example when it comes to the point about jobs. A distance of 5km applies to opencast, yet we have the third highest male unemployment level in the whole of South Lanarkshire. How are the two compatible?
I want to return to a point that was made about the inconsistent use of planning enforcement powers. Perhaps I should mention that my father was born in the village of Douglas Water, so I know the area very well. Do you have evidence that it is not just the enforcement of planning regulations that is causing a problem, but the inconsistent use of the currently available planning powers, with different authorities using them in different ways as they either grant or refuse permission for opencast developments? Perhaps more important, the authorities might not be vigilant enough sometimes in applying the conditions rigorously.
One company has applied to South Lanarkshire Council and has had 100 per cent success. In the same valley, another company applied during the past 10 to 20 years, but it was turned down. To me, that says it all. There are inconsistencies. If the planning policies, from the European level down to the level of local authorities, were adhered to throughout the process, there would be no inconsistencies. However, there are inconsistencies, particularly in South Lanarkshire.
That point is relevant everywhere. There is a perception that, if an application for opencast is submitted in North Lanarkshire, it will be successful—it will happen—regardless of anything. It is possible that there is something of a postcode lottery for approvals and controls; that also applies to developers. If there was a tighter system, which was more effectively policed by the local authorities, everybody—the developers and the communities that have to live with opencast—would find themselves on a more level playing field.
That line of questioning takes me on nicely to the separation distances that are proposed in the draft SPP 16. Opinions vary. The members of SOOT view the proposed separation distances as one of the most important alterations to the guidance. Scottish Coal points out that having sites within the proposed distance is
I will explain the experience of living at Greengairs, where there is such a limited barrier between the opencast landfill site and the community. There is no space for odours, dust and noise to be dissipated. Without a good distance, those are all brought right into the community. Strangely enough, the landfill operator said a few years ago that one of the reasons why it would never look at another site in the UK equivalent to that at Greengairs was that it would never work as close to a community again.
How close is the site?
We have had sites that are virtually at the back door of some houses. You made a point about people not sticking to planning consents. Contractors once worked right round the garden of one house—outwith planning permission, it must be said—on a holiday weekend. They went right round the garden, which was left on a precipice. That is how close the sites can be.
I should draw your attention to some of the information that was presented to the committee today. I think that it is relevant.
We have looked at the pictures.
I ask members to look at the diagram that I presented. I do not mean to sound ridiculous, but you should also look at the diagram that I had to add at the last minute. All the pictures are relevant.
I am concerned about the present planning guidelines and the planning proposals, which retain the concept that a distance can be reduced or increased depending on local circumstances. SOOT feels strongly—I shall try to explain why—that the one amendment that we would most like to be made to SPP 16 is the inclusion of a minimum distance. Without getting too scientific, I would like to spend a bit of time explaining the reason for that. When one talks about the impact on a community, one is talking about visible impact and about noise—against both of which something can be done to try to mitigate the effect—and about air quality. There are only two ways of reducing the impact on air quality; one is to reduce emissions on site and the other is to increase the separation distance. There is no mitigating way of reducing air quality impact without increasing separation distance.
You seem to think that the phrase "small groups of houses" is ambiguous and that, while it is well intentioned, it might not achieve the right result. Will you clarify your view on that?
You will recall that NPPG 16 said that a community was a group of 10 houses and that anything less than that was not a community. My concern is that, by changing that fairly rigid definition and leaving it to the local authority to decide what a community is, the Executive is encouraging a situation in which groups of more than 10 houses will not be seen as a community. I suggest that the paragraph should say that it is for local authorities to decide whether a collection of fewer than 10 houses is a community.
Your suggestion would mean that 10 or more houses would definitely be regarded as a community and that the council could decide whether a smaller number of houses would constitute a community but would be unable to state that a collection of more than 10 houses was not a community.
Exactly. That is what is in NPPG 16.
My community council discussed this point last night. Our definition of a community is land on which there is human occupancy. In some of the cases that we are discussing, a house is sitting on the very edge of the boundary and, as Dr Munro said, there is a bund right up to its back gate.
I would like to ask about the 5km radius proposal. Dr Munro and Mr Fitzpatrick, from Scotland Opposing Opencast, expressed concerns about the possibility that the Scottish Executive's policy could lead to there being consecutive developments on the same site over a prolonged period, which could have a cumulative effect on communities. Could you clarify that point?
There are two forms of cumulative effect. One concerns a situation in which there are a number of sites functioning simultaneously and the other concerns an on-going impact. Our concern is that, whereas SPP 16 takes consideration of that with regard to extensions, it does not take consideration of that with regard to repeat applications in the same locality. The suggestion is that handling the two in the same way would be a more equitable way of trying to control applications that were rolling on, one after the other. I realise that, at the end of the day, no planning policy that is not simply a broad framework can deal with every situation, but the issue that you ask about is something that needs to be addressed in the framework that we are discussing.
Like others, you are saying that, once a site has planning permission, the 5km rule means that there is likely to be greater development on that site.
Yes. SPP 16 recognises that extension applications have to be treated differently and we are saying that an application in the immediate vicinity of a development should be treated as an extension.
In your submission, you talk about the fact that communities do not get involved in the process at present. It strikes me that that relates to an issue about the public agencies letting people down. Ms Coleman said that, often, the developer will speak to members of the public but that it is difficult to get hold of someone from the planning department or SEPA.
It must be part of the bigger story. We really need to change the attitude. We were promised social and environmental justice. If you are to pursue your policies of social and environmental justice, the whole planning system needs to be looked at in a different light. The change is only one step along that route.
A third-party right of appeal will have to be an extension of this policy, with the possibilities that third-party rights of appeal have in other parts of the world. That would help the policy to be better worked and more workable within the bigger remit of the planning process.
It is important to get this particular block of planning policy promulgated at the earliest opportunity. I still do not think that it is as robust as it could be, but it is a lot better than what we have at present. There are other ways in which to improve the planning process, but we need something in place so that, when planning officers receive applications, there will be guidelines that they will have to follow, which will be more robust and give greater protection to communities. We all want to create the perfect world tomorrow, but that is just not possible. This is a good step. In West Lothian, draft guidelines are being used as the test bed for assessing an application, although that may not be the case in other authorities, as the law is a bit ambiguous.
In June 2002, the Transport and the Environment Committee published a report that dealt with the health issues. At that time, the evidence was that the Executive recognised the various uncertainties from US studies—you said that much of the evidence that you have on health issues is anecdotal—and our colleagues in the Scottish Executive Health Department endorsed the view of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, a UK advisory board, which recommended:
I have a one-word comment: no.
Christine Grahame might want to pursue that issue with the minister when she comes before the committee next week.
I think so. Yes.
I thank the panel members for attending the meeting. Your comments have been helpful. I am also grateful to SOOT for sending us its written submission in advance of the meeting.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I reconvene the meeting and welcome the third panel of witnesses. I am especially pleased that David Brewer is able to join us because, until a short time ago, he was stranded at East Midlands airport. He is the director general of the Confederation of UK Coal Producers—otherwise known as CoalPro. Niall Crabb is the director of Scottish Coal, and Ian Wilson is the director of mining projects and property for the Coal Authority. Thank you for joining the committee this morning.
Our concern is that, since the presumption against development was introduced in England in 1999, the industry has been driven towards extinction. Output in England in 1999 was about 7 million tonnes a year, which is about the same as it was in Scotland then and about the same as it is in Scotland now. Output in England this year will be well under 3 million tonnes and, in 2004-05, not a single tonne and not a single site will receive approval in England. That is extinction. The word "decimation" is much misused—it means to cut to a tenth—but it is not misused to describe the impact of the presumption against development on opencast output in England, because that is what is happening.
We have heard evidence from Friends of the Earth, and have written evidence from a number of bodies, that the presumption against development will not prevent opencast applications from being approved. If that is the case, perhaps the reduction in coal production in England and Wales has been due not solely to the introduction of the presumption against development, but to the quality of applications and whether they pass a community-benefit test. It is surely in coal producers' interests to ensure that their operations go some way to address communities' concerns.
Absolutely. We have no problem with the two tests in the draft SPP 16 as they stand; our problem is with the fact that the tests are preceded by the term "presumption against development". When the presumption was introduced in England, our opposition to it was muted because we thought that we could work with it, but that has not proven to be the case and the industry is being eliminated.
Are you convinced that we can compare the implementation of the presumption against development policy in England and Wales with its potential implementation here in Scotland? I ask that for a number of reasons. My understanding is that the reliance on gas for electricity production in England and Wales is different. It may well be that there is not quite so much demand for coal at the moment, although I appreciate that we export coal from Scotland to England and Wales. I would be interested to hear your comments about that.
I will deal first with the question whether coal output in England has fallen because of the lack of a market and a greater level of gas generation. The presumption against development was introduced in 1999. Coal burn at power stations in the United Kingdom has increased by more than 20 per cent since 1997. There is no problem of a lack of demand for coal. The dash for gas took place in the early 1990s, but since then, coal has been cheaper than gas. The switch from gas to coal has not taken place for no reason. As a consequence of that increase in demand, this country now imports more than half the coal that it uses. It follows that a presumption against indigenous coal production, whether deep mined or opencast, is a presumption in favour of imports. The demand for coal is just as high in England and Wales as it is in Scotland.
Since the introduction of the presumption against development, have applications in England been made for sites that are easily accessible and close to conurbations, or have they been made for less accessible sites? CoalPro's written evidence highlights the need for easy access—you stated that there was a need to allow applicants and developers to have easy access to sites. On the other hand, those developers who are willing to go a little further away from conurbations or communities might find that their applications are approved, as they would meet the community benefit test.
There has been a mixture of applications. There have been applications for a number of sites in areas and locations that I would not have thought are particularly adjacent to communities or particularly likely to cause damage or have a serious environmental impact. I have also seen a number of sites for which applications have been made that are quite close to communities, and it has not surprised me that they have been rejected. However, that is how the planning process works. I do not think that there has been a concentration of applications in areas that are close to built-up or conurban areas.
In answering the convener's questions, you concentrated on a similar presumption against development being the main cause of the decline in opencast output in England. Are there any other reasons that you have not mentioned that may account for that decline? In response to a question from Alex Fergusson, Mr McLaren from Friends of the Earth Scotland said that we should reduce coal as a fuel for generating electricity and favour renewables. Is there a future for coal-fired generation in the United Kingdom, particularly if we embrace such things as clean-coal technology?
Yes. From 1997 until around 2002 to 2003, world coal prices were extremely low, which had an impact on the number of sites that could be worked economically to compete with imports. That might have been a reason for the fall in the number of applications, but plenty of applications were still made to work sites. Those applications would not have been made if the developer did not think that he could work those sites at a competitive cost and sell his coal at a price that was competitive with the price of imports.
I would like to add something to help members a little more with renewables. As a coal-producing company, we obviously realise that coal mining and coal burning will cease at some stage in the future. Either coal will run out or the environmental or amenity constraints will be such that we will simply be unable to produce coal. The trick is to plan for the change from where we are now to where we need to be in the future.
As a representative of the Coal Authority I point out that we do not work coal because we do not have the power to do that. We are the administrator of coal for the nation and in certain aspects we are the regulator of the industry. Our duties include securing an economic and viable coal industry to be developed and maintained by those who are licensed to operate in coal. Beyond that, I am not here today to demonstrate the role of coal, other than to state facts that are, I think, obvious.
In following up Mr Brewer's response to my question, I wonder whether it might be useful for the committee to get some information on the number of applications that were made and granted before and after the implementation of mineral planning guidance note 3—MPG 3—in the two or three years before 1999 and in the three years after 1999. That would answer some of our questions.
It would also be helpful to get some indication of why applications were rejected.
I have a short factual question. The figures that I have show that in the financial year 1998-99, opencast coal production was just under 7 million tonnes in England and about 6.5 million in Scotland. The latest figures that are given in the table—you might have more recent ones—show production in England at about 5 million tonnes and production in Scotland at about 8 million tonnes. The total for England and Scotland in the 1998-99 figures is about 13 million, which is the same as the total for England and Scotland in the latest figures, although the biggest proportion is now in Scotland.
I do not know that magazine's name and I do not recognise the article.
The magazine deals with opencast mining from 1998 to 1999.
That is not a magazine that exists these days.
The question is whether production simply shifted and, if so, whether it shifted because planning applications were easier here. I cited the magazine because the previous panel referred to it.
I do not think that production shifted. As you said, from 1998 to 1999, the figures were 7 million tonnes in England and 6.5 million tonnes in Scotland. In 2004, the figures were about 2.7 million tonnes in England and about 7.5 million tonnes in Scotland. The amount in Scotland has increased, but the increase is comparatively slight. Output in England has collapsed. Those 2.7 million tonnes last year will become 1.5 million tonnes this year, 500,000 tonnes the year after and then nothing.
My point is that the proportion is shifting from England to Scotland, where the figure is higher each year.
Of course it is.
Does that correlate with the fact that we appear to have more liberal planning laws for opencast mining, because England has a presumption against it, which you have said is the reason why you cannot mine there?
The reason is not that Scotland has more liberal planning laws but that laws in England have eliminated the industry there. Our point is that introducing in Scotland similar laws to those in England will similarly eliminate the industry here.
So no displacement is taking place.
No. SPP 16 gives percentages and Scotland's percentage of UK opencast output has increased. However, the suggestion is somewhat disingenuous, because that percentage increase is due not to a big increase in output in Scotland, but to the collapse in output in England. If the output in Scotland stays the same, it is not surprising that the percentage should increase.
Although England has a presumption against opencast and Scotland does not at present, several elements of NPPG 16—the existing guidance—are considerably more restrictive than MPG 3 in England. For example, MPG 3 does not specify separation distances—cordons sanitaires—whereas they exist already in Scotland. Planning regulations are not more lax in Scotland. As David Brewer says, a considerable number of permissions have been lost in England as a result of MPG 3. Coal is available in Scotland, so people will try to mine it and meet the markets, but the situation is pretty much the same with wind farms and wave power. Scotland has more wind farm applications than England or Wales.
From the authority's point of view, I do not know whether a conscious shift has been made to producing more opencast coal in Scotland. The English firms have not moved into Scotland to mine more coal. A subtle and different answer may be that the Scottish companies are more efficient and effective and can capitalise on a market. The success of Scottish Coal and companies such as ATH Resources in capitalising on a market and exporting coal from Scotland to England is not the result of English producers coming into Scotland to work coal because that is easier here.
I did not say that. All that I am saying is that the accumulation of the two amounts produces the same UK-wide figure.
You are hot on there being no presumption against opencast mining. The communities that opencast mining has affected adversely argue that the existing system makes an assumption in favour of development. Mr Brewer argued that that was normal for everything. Given that opencast mining is most unfriendly to communities, could we proceed without a presumption for or against, but with tight conditions? Is there any way forward? I am not empowered to negotiate; I am merely exploring whether there is any merit in such an approach.
Yes. First, I take issue with the assertion that opencast mining is the most unfriendly operation. Given the comparative environmental impacts of a number of developments, if you are to have a presumption against opencast mining, why not have one against landfill? Why not have one against motorways? Why not have one against many forms of mineral working? Why not have a presumption against lots of things? Their environmental impact will be as great as that of opencast mining. What is more, their environmental impact will, to all intents and purposes, be permanent, while that of opencast mining is temporary.
We are great supporters of the planning system. We have made strong comments supporting changes to the development plan system to allow community involvement at the earliest stages. The absence of their involvement was one of the major criticisms that were made by the community groups this morning. We fundamentally believe in working with communities and in getting plans on the table early. It strikes me that the community groups' major concern is that they do not feel that there is sufficient supervision or that sufficient action is taken by local authorities. In certain circumstances, they do not feel that operators are playing the game as they should. That is incontestable, so we must solve that problem.
Your answer has taken us nicely to the point that I want to raise. I want to give you all the opportunity to raise your community-involvement credentials, because this morning there has been significant criticism of your community involvement. Mrs Coleman said that she could not get a meeting to see round an opencast mine and that opencast mines are not good neighbours. It was also alleged that environmental impact assessments are often inaccurate. That has certainly not built trust between communities and you as developers. We are running short of time, but could you outline briefly what you currently do? Have you not engaged the communities as you should have? What could you do to improve matters in the future?
Mrs Coleman's main complaints concern another operator, so clearly I have a different view of matters. We are suggesting that a modest rewording of SPP 16 ought to make it possible to get a consistent approach across the piece. Everybody should operate under the same guidelines and to the same high standards. We believe that we have high standards: okay, they could be higher, but we believe that we have high standards and that we should aim for that. It concerns us greatly if other members of the same industry, which may not be members of CoalPro, do not reach those standards, because we all pay the price. That is why I am sitting here today.
Do you accept that in the past, communities were not involved as they should have been? That factor has perhaps contributed to the need for the debate that we are having. How would you respond to Mr Addison, who described receiving wads of paper 4in thick that required technical expertise in geology, engineering or whatever to understand them? How can we inform communities and accord them equal standing in the consultation process, given that they are represented by volunteer community councillors, whereas you are surrounded by the expertise of the industry?
That is a fair point. I suppose that communities elect their political representatives to do the analysis for them. The professional officers in councils and their advisers do that analysis. Obviously this is not a matter over which I have control, but I was struck by Mrs Coleman's comment that she cannot speak to planning officers—
Or to councillors.
That is a shame, but perhaps it is a local issue.
I realise that the matter is not your responsibility, but I want to know whether you think that community involvement could be much better than it has been in the past and, if so, what you can do to help the process.
We are more than happy to talk to anyone, at any time, about applications. The suggestion that applications are always made just before a holiday does not have much credence, because a planning application might take 12 or 24 months to be determined—there is a huge gestation period. We should probably do more than hold two or three public exhibitions on three evenings in Douglas, for example. Perhaps we could hold seminars. Clearly we could not run a seminar that had an audience of 300 people, but it would be easy to invite various representatives to attend a seminar at which our geological or hydrogeological consultants could try to answer queries. Workshops or seminars might offer an approach to be taken during the gestation period.
I was going to ask about enforcement and monitoring, but Mr Crabb covered the subject extensively in his answers to other questions. Do witnesses have further comments about how operators could best be regulated by planning authorities, to ensure that situations such as those that the previous panel described are not repeated? I say in passing that the constituency that I represent is adjacent to the constituency in which the St Ninian's site in Fife is located, so I echo what Mr Crabb said about the importance of being regarded as a good neighbour. He described an example of very good practice, the adoption of which by the entire industry would prevent many of the complaints we have heard from arising.
The majority of the industry has made a great effort to involve communities over the years, not just in Scotland but in England—although that has not done us much good in England. Last year or the year before that, the Executive launched a consultation on monitoring regimes and fees in respect of mineral workings, to ascertain matters such as what the fees should be and who should pay. Our response was that the operator should pay. If an operation involves a burden on the local authority, it is right that the operator should pay. We are willing to pay—in fact, we want to pay—for proper monitoring to ensure that consistent standards are applied across the piece. If monitoring suggests that some action should be taken, it follows that enforcement should take place.
With compliance plus, the independent assessor invoices Fife Council, which then invoices us. The payment therefore goes through the council which, I think, satisfies communities that the person is, in effect, being employed by the council rather than by us. We just pay the bill.
I would like to add to what has been said in response to Mr Barrie. As a regulator, the Coal Authority fully supports proper and informed regulation of any mining operation. Our staff regularly inspect all operational sites. We have memorandums of understanding with the Health and Safety Executive, and we have agreements with local authorities, such that if our inspectors find clear breaches of planning or environmental guidelines, those will be raised with the operator and the regulating body at the same time. We therefore add to the regulation and welcome that regulation.
I think I said that CoalPro has an environmental charter. It has come to my attention on the odd occasion that an operator might have done something that was not in strict accord with the charter.
That has happened once or twice in my constituency.
I do not believe that you have a CoalPro member operating.
I think that H J Banks & Co Ltd might have been a CoalPro member.
Yes.
That company breached regulations.
I remember the case and what was happening ceased immediately. It was not only local people or the local council who raised the issue with that company; CoalPro did too.
I want to move on to discuss separation distances. SPP 16 says that particular attention has to be paid to separation distances—the proximity of workings to communities. I am sure that you heard the evidence that community organisations gave earlier this morning. SOOT suggested that changes to separation distances were the most important aspect and that we should go further than the document, in that 500m should be the minimum.
On separation distances?
Yes.
Evidence was heard that suggested that there is a large bank of permitted reserves in Scotland. That is true and it has, perhaps, occurred for a specific reason in that, on privatisation of British Coal, the successor companies were allocated a certain volume of reserves for which they had conditional licences under the Coal Authority. Those conditional licences expired at the end of last year, 10 years after privatisation. In order to decondition a licence, planning permission is required. Scottish Coal in particular went to considerable efforts to move its conditional sites through the planning process to obtain planning permission before it lost them, which would have left them open to others.
Could I comment on that?
I was going to ask you to comment on that as well, Mr Wilson. As I recall, your submission stated that you would totally oppose that. Perhaps you could point me to the right page in your submission; I cannot find the place at the moment.
Oppose what?
The increased separation distance.
In support of what David Brewer has said, we have carried out an exercise on the sites that are operational in Scotland as of today. I think that it is fair to say that at least 50 per cent of those operating sites—by which I mean viable sites—would be materially affected by an increase in the separation distance. At the very least, 25 per cent of the operational reserves would be lost. At worst, 90 per cent of the reserves would be lost, and therefore the site would be lost. What Mr Brewer has said about sterilisation is true, even for the sites that we have today.
I should point out that this is not our document. We are simply taking evidence from you on a document that the Scottish Executive has produced.
I beg your pardon.
Will Mr Crabb comment on this matter? After all, instead of saying that this is the end of the world as we know it, his organisation has come up with a compromise.
My colleagues are the custodians, as it were, of the coal reserves and although it would be nice to get all the coal out of the ground, we are more pragmatic and simply want to reach a solution.
Earlier, you said that the local residents of—I think—St Ninians in Fife and the company have come to an agreement and produced a protocol. What is the separation distance between the boundaries of that site and housing?
I believe that the separation distance from Kelty is more than 500m, but some groups of houses are closer than that to the boundary.
Under the current planning guidance, a community is defined as a group of 10 or more houses. However, under the proposed SPP 16, the definition of communities becomes "small groups of houses". Are you satisfied with that definition? If it were adopted, what would be the implications for the future of opencast coal developments in Scotland?
That is one of the provisions that we would obviously prefer to remain as it is in NPPG 16, but we can live with that definition as, clearly, we want to be good neighbours. There is little point in trying to bulldoze your way through life—pardon my use of the phrase. Life is too short for that. We want to try to resolve problems. If we can take on board the effect that the development will have on smaller groups of houses, we will do that. However, while I am not saying that we should override the considerations of groupings of only one or two houses, I think that someone should be charged with assessing whether the development will have an effect on them, whether it can be dealt with and what the feelings of the residents of those houses are. If those factors are taken on board, we can live with the provisions in SPP 16.
It is not the definition that is at issue. We need to ask what the likely impact of operations is on a community, whether that community is made up of one house, 10 houses or 100 houses. There should be a separation distance from even a small number of houses if the impact of operations in that area is likely to be significant. There will be small clusters of houses on which the impact of operations is not going to be significant. In those cases, the considerations relating to separation distance would not necessarily apply. The real issue is to do with the level of the impact, which should relate to the environmental impact assessment.
I have two questions, the first of which is for Mr Brewer and Mr Wilson. Earlier, you said that the presumption against planning permission for opencast developments in England had the effect of almost finishing the industry. If a level playing field were put in place again—either by Scotland introducing a presumption against or by England abandoning it—do you think that the work would disperse throughout the UK again? Are you saying that, if Scotland introduces a presumption against such planning permission, when new applications are required—further down the line, because there are reserves in existing sites—we will end up importing all our coal and that there will be a free-for-all in Wales unless it also introduces a presumption against such planning permission?
On the notion of there being a level playing field across the UK, if a presumption against planning permission for opencast developments were introduced across the UK, we would expect that, by 2010—because the effect would not be felt tomorrow—we would have a minimal industry producing between 1 million and 3 million tonnes a year, compared with the 12 million tonnes that were produced last year and the 21 million tonnes that were produced at the industry's peak.
Yes.
I will move on to your more difficult question. You asked whether I knew what the planning application success rate in Scotland is. I cannot answer that, because I do not hold all the statistics. The local authority representatives from whom you will hear later or the Executive might be more able to help you.
Excuse me for interrupting you. You might have picked me up wrongly, or perhaps I did not put my question properly. What I want to know is how hard a time you get from the planning authorities when you are justifying the community benefit, for example.
Oh, I see. We think that we get a fairly hard time from the planning authorities, but only to the extent that they are professionals who are doing their jobs. I used to work for a local authority, so I understand what is required. Standards vary across the authorities. Some are more aggressive than others in seeking to resolve issues. Fundamentally, people want to do a good job. If there is something wrong with an application and the planning authority can think of ways of making it more acceptable, we would want to take on board its suggestions.
I have a final question for you. This morning you have sought to impress on the committee the need for the community to trust the coal industry and to engage with it. With that in mind, I wonder whether this morning's media coverage of the issue, particularly the coverage of Scottish Coal's news release suggesting that those people who object to opencast mining are simply nimbys, is factual or will generate a wider understanding between communities and the opencast industry. As someone who supports opencast mining where it is appropriate, my view is that that will greatly undermine the cause of opencast in Scotland. On behalf of my constituents, I resent the view that the people in Greengairs who objected to the opencast proposals because they wanted to protect the graves of the dead from the Stanrigg pit disaster were being nimbys.
I do not know whether you have picked up wrongly something that I said, but I have certainly not suggested that that is a nimby attitude; I have said several times that we accept that the community has genuine concerns. That is why we are trying to meet them and have made a number of suggestions.
I do not know the particular press release that the convener spoke of, but I understand the point that she makes. I have had—as we all have—plenty of occasion in my life to oppose applications for planning permission by developers. I do not class myself as a nimby just because I have opposed such applications.
With all due respect, those issues relate to other discussions and arguments that we have had this morning and not to the issue that I raised about the need for greater understanding between the opencast industry and communities so that they can live in harmony and not at war, as is the unfortunate situation in a number of communities in Scotland.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome the fourth panel of witnesses, who are our trade union colleagues. We are joined by Martin Gaughan, the acting regional secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union; Nicky Wilson, the Scottish general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, Scottish area; and Stephen Boyd, the assistant secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Thank you for joining us and for sitting through the previous evidence-taking sessions.
The position of the trade unions is based on the facts that we have in front of us. The presumption against opencast mining could be the death knell of—or at least lead to a massive cutback in—opencast production in Scotland. That is our fear. The only facts that we have to support that assertion are the English figures, which we have included in our written submission to the committee.
Do you agree that we are perhaps not comparing like with like and that the experiences in England are not exactly the same as the experiences in Scotland? If it is applied, should the presumption against development not guarantee that, as long as a community benefit could be demonstrated, an application would go ahead? I represent a former coalfield area, and many of my constituents have a family history in coal mining. For example, my grandfather was a miner. We accept the fact that we live near coal-mining areas and that it is in our best interests for some of the bings to be dealt with through opencast production. Nevertheless, a balance must be struck and the presumption against development is about balancing the needs of a community and the needs of the industry.
Yes, the trade unions would agree with that. The National Union of Miners has always been a community trade union and it is important to us that the communities are looked after and environmental consequences are not forced on them. However, many things have been talked about that have been missed today. Our question is whether the new planning policy will make a difference if you introduce the form of words that people keep saying will not mean much. If it will not mean much, it will not resolve the problem that we have with the industry now. If a development gets over the planning hurdle, what happens if a bad operator does not operate the site correctly? On that point, we clearly support the industry in the sense that the real key to that problem is the policing of the industry, not the planning policy.
However, health and safety for workers and how sites are managed and run are issues for the industry and trade unions to sort out together in partnership. Some sites in Scotland are very well run and much of that has been down to the trade union movement's influence.
Nicky Wilson told us a few moments ago that the presumption against development would sound the death knell for opencast mining. Other witnesses—notably, Friends of the Earth—have told us that they support the presumption against development and do not expect it to mean the end of opencast mining, because some opencast developments would be able to show themselves to be acceptable. Given those different points of view, why are the witnesses so sure that the presumption against development has led directly to difficulties in securing planning permission south of the border? Why is the presumption against development the problem, rather than the industry's inability to prove its acceptability to communities and in environmental terms?
It is because of the figures that we have produced.
Why do you link those figures to the presumption against development rather than to the developments' inability to demonstrate their acceptability?
They are the figures that we have on what has happened to the industry; what do you have to make you think that it is anything different? That, as we see it, is the fact of what happened to jobs. There are now fewer than 250 jobs and only four sites operating, three of which might close in the near future. That is what we go on.
We started in 1966 with 67 sites, and we are now down to four. There were more than 2,000 workers and we are now down to just over 200, so we have only 10 per cent of the previous workforce. Nicky Wilson is right. The only thing that we can go on is facts. We can argue about the whys and wherefores, but what I have said is factual.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that there is a load of hidden opencast mining down south that nobody knows about or that what you tell us about has not happened; I am asking why you link the decline specifically to the presumption against development. What evidence do you have that it is due to the presumption against development rather than to practices being shown to be unacceptable to communities and in environmental terms?
There is a lack of plausible explanations. Since the presumption against development was introduced in England, the industry has been decimated and nobody has been able to explain to us for what other reasons that might be the case. Last week, Nicky Wilson and I met a senior planning official from the Scottish Executive, whose explanation seemed to be that Nicky Wilson's former colleagues—ex-NUM people—on planning authorities in England had an in-built bias against opencast coal mining and were therefore refusing applications. That is the type of reason that we have been given, and we have not heard any plausible explanation for the decline of the industry in England apart from the introduction of the presumption against development.
Do you believe that if the presumption against development was introduced, the industry in Scotland would be unable to demonstrate that its activities are acceptable to communities and in environmental terms?
No, I believe that the industry could, and does, do that. As we understand it—we do not profess to be planning experts—companies must already show that a development will be acceptable before it receives planning permission. However, that form of words seems to be what has made a difference between the industry south of the border and up here.
Forgive me, but I am a little puzzled as to why opencast mining developments that could demonstrate that they would have acceptable effects on communities and on the environment would be unable to meet that test if they were required to jump through that hoop?
The presumption against development changes the situation. We do not know, but the arguments that companies put forward south of the border may be just as good as those that they put forward here, yet developments that would receive planning permission up here do not receive permission down there—
Presumably, that is because it is easier to get planning permission here in Scotland.
The presumption against development is the only difference that we can see.
The witnesses have attempted to answer the question. We cannot keep revisiting it just because Patrick Harvie dislikes the answer.
Let me expand on that. We do not have a big problem with the two tests that are set out at the beginning of the planning policy document. However, the presumption against development switches the whole focus. Further inside the document, in the section that deals with appraisal of proposed opencast mining developments, employment is not even listed as a potential benefit. As it stands, the proposed planning policy will not allow the opencast mining industry to demonstrate the real benefits that it brings both to the communities in which it operates and to the economy at large.
Mr Boyd's point about employment bridges on to my next question. In oral evidence earlier, we heard that an energy strategy that focused on energy efficiency and renewables would provide greater prospects for employment than the current energy policy. How do you respond to that?
Speaking in my capacity as a member of the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland, I am a passionate advocate for renewable energy. Tomorrow morning, I will speak at a conference of councillors to try to sell the benefits of wind farms in Scotland. However, I also passionately believe that the worst thing that we could do for Scotland's renewables industry would be to exaggerate its potential benefits at this stage. If we are to build a viable renewables sector in Scotland—our marine sector in particular has massive potential—we should not oversell the immediate benefits. Whatever happens, we will need coal to see us through the current period. If we meet the target of generating 40 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020, we will still be left with the problem of where the other 60 per cent comes from. In the medium term at least, coal will remain an essential component of Scotland's energy mix.
Whether or not MPG 3 has caused a dramatic decline in the industry south of the border, the fact that many jobs have been lost within the sector is irrefutable. Is there information on the impact of that decline on those communities? What are those workers doing now?
As people know, many mining communities have simply never recovered. In some cases, that is because of their remoteness. As one MSP said earlier, many opencast sites are situated in rural economies. In parts of the north-east where there have been closures, little other work is available. A lot of money has been pumped in by the Government and the Scottish Executive to try to stimulate former coal-mining areas. That is all good work and it continues, but the fact of life is that many of those communities suffer because of their remoteness and lack of transport infrastructure. As people know, East Ayrshire and parts of South Lanarkshire have tried to attract new businesses and companies, but it is difficult for them to do so. A lot of work still needs to be done in providing transport and access to those places.
I have a question on employment and the figures in your submission that show that in England there were 2,412 workers in 1996 and 1,062 in 2004. I want you to link that with the production of opencast. In 1996, production was pretty much the same in England and in Scotland, but in 2004 2 million opencast tonnes were produced in England and 7 million tonnes were produced in Scotland. Have the workers followed the production?
Do you mean have they come up to Scotland to work?
Yes. Seven million tonnes were produced here, so did all the people who worked in opencast follow production?
Some workers might have travelled up, but for the main part—and we pushed for this—where new sites have opened, there has been a lot of local recruitment. A lot has been said about St Ninians, but 70 local men are working there who never worked in opencast until the site came into operation. There is certainly a skills factor and people with expertise might have to move from site to site, but the trade unions have always argued strongly that local jobs should go to local people. That is our attitude.
I do not know whether you have seen the submissions that we have received, but the one from Scotland Opposing Opencast argued that opencast coal developments do not support much local employment because
I disagree with it and I am quite sure that figures could be produced to support my view, if that would help the committee. That argument is used, but it is not our experience.
We probably have the largest membership of all the trade unions involved in opencast. Our membership appears to be indigenous to the areas where the opencast sites are.
If the trade unions could provide the committee with that information, it would be helpful.
You have mentioned employment several times and we have been presented with a graph that shows that in England fewer than 10 per cent of workers have been employed in opencast since the implementation of the presumption against. Are you convinced that there would be the same "decimation", as you called it, in Scotland as has happened in England? Do you think that we will go from having 1,378 workers to 130 workers?
That is our fear. I cannot answer the question. It might not happen, but we are considering what happened in England and the difference in the wording of the presumption against, as opposed to the situation north of the border. We do not have anything else to go on.
It has been suggested that we might not be comparing like with like. In England, many of the mining communities are close to conurbations, whereas they might be in more rural settings in Scotland. The new guidelines might not have as significant an effect in Scotland as they did in England. Do you have any information that that might be the case?
No. Wearing another hat, I am a trustee of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which is a national body. I concede that there are more rural mining communities in Scotland, but parts of County Durham, Northumberland, Derbyshire and Yorkshire are just as rural. Someone mentioned that Selby coalfield closed recently. It was not near a major town; it was out in the country. It is a mix-max. I worked most of my career in Cardowan colliery on the outskirts of Glasgow. In Lanarkshire in days gone by, there were collieries and steelworks in heavily built-up areas. The picture is similar north and south of the border.
It is important to use evidence to proceed. If someone somewhere is able to supply us with an analysis of the applications that have been made in England, and they are able to prove that those applications have been refused because the sites would be close to urban communities, we should encourage those people, whoever they are, to do that. If the committee could encourage the Executive to do that analysis or the committee could do the research, we would all find it helpful.
We have already asked CoalPro to provide us with information about its experience of the applications that have been refused in England and the reasons for refusal. When the minister comes to the committee next week, we can pursue the issues that have been flagged up as a result of the evidence that we have taken today. We will particularly pursue the intention behind the change to planning guidance: is it about creating a better balance between opencasting and the communities, or is the underlying intention to end opencast mining in Scotland? The committee will have to pursue that to its appropriate end at next week's meeting.
We have heard a lot about the lack of enforcement and there have been some pretty awful examples of the results of that. Mr Wilson mentioned lack of enforcement, too. Do you have an opinion as to why enforcement has been so badly carried out?
I do not, but if I was living in Greengairs and a bund or opencast mine was built metres from my garden I would be pushing to find out why. From what little I know about planning, I imagine that there are guidelines for site boundaries. The operator at Greengairs—I do not know whether I am allowed to say the name, but I know who it is—would be better sticking to football rather than mining.
I am finding it quite puzzling that we are talking about trying to tighten up procedures but we hear that an awful lot of existing procedures are being ignored. How does tightening up procedure make things better if the existing guidelines are being ignored?
If there is proper policing of the procedures—
But we do not have that. Why is that?
It does not appear to be in place at the moment. We are saying that there must be more stringent policing of the procedures. If there was such policing, we would not be in the situation we are in at Greengairs.
If that had been the case historically, perhaps we would not be sitting here discussing the matter.
As I understand it, the mining consultant who was appointed by Fife Council with funding from Scottish Coal can stop operations. If he goes to a site and the operators are outwith their boundaries or are not working properly he can order them to stop operations immediately until the problem is sorted out, and I think that he has done so.
I endorse something that was said by one of the witnesses from local communities. Planning departments in local authorities are under-resourced. We could argue all day long about the detail of various pieces of guidance, but procedures will not be monitored effectively unless planning departments are adequately resourced.
There has been unanimous agreement among all the witnesses this morning about the fact that enforcement—by the planning authorities or whoever—is not taking place. We could consider bonds, which Nicky Wilson mentioned, but my understanding is that they come into play if a company goes out of business or fails to ensure that a site is restored according to the agreed plan.
Earlier, the point was well made that, for the most part, it is on working faces that things happen, such as blasting through rock and digging of soft earth, both of which cause noise. We support the idea that there must be limitations on the separation distance between working faces and communities. There is a difficulty at boundaries, where there might be just one house. The witness from the Coal Authority was quite right to say that an increase in the separation distance could wipe out half of the sites immediately. One way around the problem that has been suggested is communication with the community, be it two or three householders, a hamlet or a village. Communication is the key.
I thank our panels of witnesses for joining us this morning and for their joint written submission in advance of the meeting. I suspend the meeting to allow for the changeover to the final panel.
Meeting suspended.
Meeting resumed.
I welcome our fifth and final panel of this somewhat lengthy meeting. I welcome Richard Hartland, the chair of the development control committee of the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning. He is joined by Councillor James Kelly, chair of housing, and Hugh Melvin, principal planning officer, from East Ayrshire Council.
I will start and go in at the deep end. In March last year, 6.7 million tonnes of coal were taken out of Scotland. East Ayrshire produced 3.9 million tonnes of that coal. I cannot see—the sun is in my eyes.
I think that one of the blinds is broken, but if you would like to move to another seat that would be fine.
Thank you, convener. In East Ayrshire at the moment, we have 600 direct jobs in the industry. If you multiply that, you will understand where we are coming from. Opencast mining is the most important industry employer in the whole area. East Ayrshire Council and its predecessor Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council, of which I was a member, have experienced opencast extraction for 30 years. East Ayrshire won an overall award for its mineral extraction subject plan this year, in competition with the whole of Britain, and that is with the biggest opencast congestion in all Scotland.
How have you been able to engage with the communities in East Ayrshire positively and convince them that there is a community benefit in opencast mining?
Because of the severe pressures that the authority—including the previous authority—was under, the council's planning division felt the need to produce a subject plan. Basically, that was a development plan directed and geared towards the opencast industry. We felt that a balance required to be struck between meeting community aspirations and meeting the aspirations of the opencast industry, which is a significant employer in our area. We had to try to resolve the conflicting interests. The East Ayrshire opencast coal subject plan was subject to community participation and input, and the concerns of the community were embraced in the production of that document.
I thank you for your very helpful contributions so far. What lessons should we draw to improve matters with respect to planning and consultation before opencast mining goes ahead or otherwise? Aside from the planning aspect, there is the enforcement aspect. You are probably much better at that than I used to be, Councillor Kelly. In my experience, councils were at their weakest in the enforcement aspect. Do you have any lessons to give us on that?
We could certainly do better on the enforcement side of the opencast industry but, at the risk of upsetting my councillor, I would point out that that is a resource issue. Our council has already responded to the consultation paper on the monitoring and enforcement charging regime, which we fully support. Having identified areas of conflict, we have removed a lot of objection from communities simply by introducing policies that direct opencast to specific areas where the least environmental conflict will take place.
Living life with restricted budgets as we do, it is easy to say that more resources will solve a problem. I am not sure that that is the case when it comes to the enforcement of planning controls, however. That comment does not necessarily relate purely to the enforcement of mineral extraction and opencast coaling—the matter applies across the board in planning. The planning enforcement regime is slow and cumbersome, and it lacks teeth. It lacks an end product as far as problem solving is concerned. I have come across operators—not necessarily mineral operators—who will take the hit of a fine and a prosecution because that is cheaper. That is a sad reflection on Scottish planning. I would lobby the Executive and the Parliament to grasp that issue.
I will direct the first part of this question to Mr Hartland, but I am also looking for the elected representative's point of view. You will have been sitting through the earlier part of this evidence-taking session. Much has been said about the presumption against development. As a professional planner and chair of the development control committee of the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning, how would you describe the view of your organisation on the presumption against?
It is the organisation's view, as well as my personal and professional view, that it is easy to welcome more powers—any planner will. However, we need to take an intelligent reflection on why we are here. I suspect that we are here because, through no fault of the operator, the planning authority or community, we have a legacy of distrust. We also have a legacy of a lack of transparency throughout the process. We have had a reputation for a lack of co-operation. We have been working to older and probably out-of-date standards.
It has been suggested—and we have heard this in evidence today—that the presumption against opencast coal mining will be the only presumption against. Rather than presuming against such applications, would it not be better to use the proposed planning bill to ensure that the development of local plans involves the community, so that every application is considered on its merits? Otherwise, you might find that instead of people co-operating with local authorities there will be confrontation.
Yes—we must work to get there. I admire the work that East Ayrshire Council has done—it has achieved that end. Other authorities have not yet reached that destination.
I had better not say that some people might think that all planners are cynics.
We are gaining credence in working with communities and operators and progress is being made. A good example of that is Polkemmet in West Lothian. There has been excellent co-operation among all the parties in the development and there is extraction as we speak. We have a compliance officer and bonds in place, and there are reports to us. There are minor deviations from what the planning permission allows, but the community is involved and is aware of them as soon as they happen and we are aware of them, as liaison groups have been set up. The approach has proved to be very effective and I hope that we can see things through to the end product, which of course, is a wee bit different at Polkemmet from that elsewhere, in that land will be provided for a vast number of houses—to meet structure plan requirements—two golf courses, shopping facilities and so on. There is a huge carrot—the land will not merely be returned to a quality agricultural environment. There is a huge community benefit in removing derelict sites and providing facilities.
There is a danger that we must look out for. I am not saying that we should not communicate with the community—far from it—but we must be careful.
The community must be fully engaged and Polkemmet is a good example of that. My constituency sits on the boundary with West Lothian. The communities around Polkemmet have been described by some as serial complainers, although that is not how I would describe them. They have had to face the excesses of opencast for a considerable time. However, the community recognised the benefits of an opencast application, not least because it dealt with the unsightly bing and the problems associated with it, which the community wanted something done about. The local authority, the developer and the community recognised that by working together we could find a solution that met everybody's needs.
In that instance, the system worked without the presumption against opencast. In fact, it worked with a presumption for it, because all things panned out equally and it was a success. Interestingly enough, it also panned out without the requirement for a 500m separation distance, because a practical approach was taken to the various difficulties that we encountered. Evidence was given this morning on the practical difficulties of rationalising being 500m from a haul road or whatever. We have to be reasonable and rational about it. I found the comments slightly pedantic, but they proved a point. We have to work at the reality of where coal faces are in respect of where people live, and exclude the paraphernalia of haul roads and so on.
I am concerned that the presumption against is being viewed as an absolute but, of course, it is not. The language is specific. The policy states:
I am not saying that there should be no trust funds. I advocate trust funds, and that they be organised and managed properly.
But you are making a distinction.
I make a distinction in that we have to be transparent, so that communities do not view operators as buying planning permission by making contributions to a trust fund. Trust funds must be separated out and planning applications determined on their planning material merits.
Therefore you suggest an amendment to the guidance in that respect. It would be useful if you could give us the wording for one.
I have a question on enforcement, following up on the question that Donald Gorrie asked a minute or two ago, to which Mr Hartland replied.
I take your point. When enforcement inspectors, coupled with SEPA, go to visit a site, it must be like when the Queen goes to visit a place and everything smells of fresh paint.
There are quite effective grapevines in some areas, as we know. However, the key point is that the planning authority and the other enforcement agencies should have both the staff and the equipment to do the job properly. We have been talking about presumptions; it would be no bad thing if opencast operators had a presumption in their head that, if they did anything wrong, they would likely be found out.
That would be the joy of a compliance officer. If the industry is to pay for the compliance officer, I would suggest that it should also pay for equipping that officer in undertaking the job—with air-quality monitoring facilities, for example.
Councillor Kelly gave alarming information about rocks flying 60m.
That was about six years ago.
Okay—I do not want to make anything of it. However, do you think that the introduction of the 500m separation distance between the opencast site boundary and the community will have the desired effect? Is it sufficient?
It will certainly have the desired effect where I live. Where I live, there are two huge opencast sites on either side of the village, one of which has just started up. The separation distance will have the desired effect of reducing vibration, for example.
We have moved a long way but is everyone on the panel satisfied that the 500m separation distance will be sufficient to cause a significant improvement to people's health and to the environment?
I can honestly say that I have not had one complaint at any of my surgeries since the 500m rule came in.
That tells a story, certainly.
In the East Ayrshire opencast coal subject plan, we have defined a community as being a community of about 10 houses. We have introduced a policy whereby there would be a 500m buffer zone between workings—and by that I mean any workings, not just the coalface or the face of the extraction area—and the communities.
Mr Hartland, do you have comments on either of those points?
I largely agree with what Mr Melvin has said. There are practical approaches to solving problems in this way.
Providing you are dealing with reasonable people, which is not always the case.
The case that I am talking about was in West Lothian.
Well, there you go.
I want to make a point in relation to a question that was asked earlier. I have been on liaison committees for 17 years and have had an opencast site next to my village for over 30 years. We have a strict approach and, to be fair, Scottish Coal has taken that on board. In the three opencast mines in my area, the lowest measurement of local employment is 76 per cent. That means that 76 per cent of that site's workforce lives within a 20 mile radius. In another opencast site, more than 80 per cent of the workforce lives within a 20 mile radius. I would count that as employing local labour.
Have any other local authorities that have opencast mines in their areas approached you for advice on their plans since you won the Royal Town Planning Institute award?
I am not aware of that, but we might get people knocking on our door. We have worked closely with South Lanarkshire Council. When we were preparing our plan, it was preparing its plan. We wanted to try to come up with areas of continuity and consistency not only from an individual authority's point of view but within a coalfield environment. Although we might not have not got things perfectly correct, we hope that we have achieved a balance that satisfies the needs of both of the conflicting interests.
I want to ask a question that people have asked me. Is it right that we focus purely on opencast coal mining or should whatever policies we have also include quarrying and waste disposal, which are, arguably, somewhat similar activities? A yes or no answer would be fine.
It is funny that you should ask that. Last week, I asked the same question at a coal community campaign meeting. We just gave a 10-year extension to a rock quarry that is about seven miles from my village. Eight miles in the other direction from my village, there is a huge sand quarry—half of it is in South Lanarkshire and half of it is in East Ayrshire; it is not in my ward—and, when I go past it, I can see that it causes more problems on the road than the other quarry does, even though it is subject to no enforcement. When coal lorries leave opencast mines, they must be washed before they go onto the main road. However, that does not happen with the sand lorries.
East Ayrshire Council's planning department will be using the guidance that it has produced and the knowledge that it has gained from dealing with opencast mining to implement good practice and policies across all the mineral extraction and landfill sites. A lot of what is in the opencast coal subject plan can be reflected in our handling of those sorts of applications.
SPP 16 refers to other factors in its discussion of cumulative impact. That needs to be extended to quarrying, as has been mentioned, timber extraction, which requires large vehicles to use roads, wind farms and the presence of contaminated land in or near a community.
Would it be possible for East Ayrshire Council to provide us with a copy of its plan, particularly in relation to opencast developments? The model seems to have considerable merit and all members of the committee would like an opportunity to consider it in more detail.
The policy needs to reflect and be reflected by the emerging planning bill, particularly with regard to enforcement powers. That issue needs to be examined across the area of planning but particular thought should be given to how enforcement powers could be improved in relation to mineral operations and similar developments that impact on the environment.
We have to try to rebuild trust in communities. One of the ways in which we can do that is to ensure that the enforcement and monitoring side of things is robust and transparent. We need to get away from a regime of being reactive to complaints and start to be more proactive in relation to monitoring. However, that needs to be adequately resourced.
I thank our witnesses for attending this morning and for providing us with helpful evidence.
Meeting closed at 13:38.