| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Key Decision: Turbines blocked on mine subsidence
Credit: Planning Resource | 25 September 2015 | www.planningresource.co.uk ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Concerns over potential subsidence have resulted in dismissal of plans to site nine turbines above a coal seam in south Wales.
The Coal Authority had granted a 99-year lease to extract coal from beneath the appeal site. The parties had no doubt that a planning application seeking consent for this development would be approved. The case centred on the extent to which the turbines would be affected by subsidence once coal extraction began.
To maximise output, the mining company proposed to use long wall mining, which would allow up to 88 per cent of the coal reserve to be mined, rather than traditional pillar and board methods, which would allow less than 25 per cent to be extracted but reduce the risk of subsidence. Under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 and the Coal Industry Act 1994, the mining operator would be liable for any subsidence caused to land or property, including the turbines.
The wind farm developers initially proposed a bilateral agreement to protect the mining company and the Coal Authority against any liability arising from subsidence of the turbines. However, counsel’s advice indicated that a court would rule that it was not possible to contract out of the provisions of the 1991 act in this way. Instead, the appellants offered a section 106 obligation.
The inspector noted that the appellants had tried to guard the mining operator against liability through the planning obligation, a deed of indemnity, an insurance policy and a power of attorney, but considered that there was still a risk that the courts would view this as circumventing statutory protection. The problem could not be overcome through a planning condition, he added.
Without agreement on an indemnity package, he reasoned, the Coal Authority would be likely to require a substantial cash deposit from the mining company if it sought to use long wall mining methods, in which case it would probably fall back on the less efficient pillar and board method. This outcome would contravene government policy that mineral resources should be protected against other development that would hinder their extraction, he concluded.
Clive Nield; Inquiry
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Funding |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=73811 ]
| Tag: Victories |
