[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Key Decision: Turbines blocked on mine subsidence 

Credit:  Planning Resource | 25 September 2015 | www.planningresource.co.uk ~~

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

Source:  Planning Resource | 25 September 2015 | www.planningresource.co.uk

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 Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

Tag: Victories

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky