Regulation 22 Information

HIGHTHORN

Regulation 22 Information

T&CP (EIA) Regulations 2011 (as amended)

April 2016

This document has been provided for your reference by The Banks Group. No material from this document may be otherwise copied, altered, republished, transmitted or distributed in any way without permission.

Aerial photographs are © Getmapping PLC and © AirFotos Ltd as indicated and are also subject to the conditions above.

All map data is reproduced from Raster 10,000 and Raster 50,000 by permission of Ordnance Survey registered on behalf of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2001, 2002, 20003, 2004, 2005. All Rights Reserved. AL 100017630.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.INTRODUCTION

2.THE REQUESTED INFORMATION

3.ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

4.HYDROLOGICAL & HYDROGEOLOGICAL EFFECTS

5.RESTORATION FIRST

This page is left intentionally blank

INTRODUCTION
The planning application for the Highthorn Surface Mine was submitted to Northumberland County Council as Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) on 12 October 2015 (Planning application Ref. No. 15/03410/CCMEIA). The planning application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement prepared under the terms of the Town Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011 (as amended).
In the time period since the planning application was submitted Northumberland County Council has undertaken extensive consultations with statutory and non-statutory bodies to assist in its consideration of the acceptability of the proposed development. As a consequence of feedback received, the County Council has formally requested additional environmental information in support of the findings of the Environmental Statement which accompanied the planning application.
The County Council’s request was made in a letter to Banks Mining dated 29 March 2016 under the terms of Regulation 22 of the above named regulations. This document has been prepared as the formal response to the request and contains the information sought by the Council. The way in which the information provided here supplements and relates to the information submitted in the Environmental Statement (dated October 2015) is explained in the table below. For ease of reference, the Environmental Statement will be referred to in this document as ES2015.

Table 1 : Relationship of Regulation 22 Information to ES2015

Environmental StatementChapter / Supplemented by Reg 22 Information / Conclusions of ES2015 affected
Consultation feedback and consideration of alternatives / N / N
Socio-Economic / N / N
Landscape and Visual Impact / N / N
Ecology / Y / N
Archaeology and cultural heritage / N / N
Hydrology and Hydrogeology / Y / N
Geotechnical / N / N
Air Quality / N / N
Noise / N / N
Lighting / N / N
Vibration / N / N
Highways and Transport / N / N
Stythe or Mine Gas / N / N
Soils and ALC / N / N
Conclusions / Y / N
Development Control Tool Kit / Y / N

The information contained in this document does not include any amendments or alterations to the description of the proposed development or to the drawings depicting the proposed development.

Where relevant, this document updates our recommendations for the control of the proposed development by means of planning conditions and legal agreements.

THE REQUESTED INFORMATION

Purpose and Structure of This Document

2.1As noted above, the information request by the County Council as MPA is set down in a letter to Banks Mining dated 29 March 2016. For ease of reference, a full copy of the letter is reproduced at Appendix 1.

2.2The information requested by the County Council covers the following areas:

Effects on the Coquet Island & St Mary’s Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ)
Effects on Pink-Footed Geese
Effects on Cresswell Ponds SSSI
Hydrological Effects
Restoration First

For the purposes of this submission, the information requested can broadly be categorised into three overall subject areas:
Ecological Effects:addressing any potential effects on the recently designated MCZ and effects on Pink-Footed Geese.
Hydrological and Hydrogeological Effects:addressing options for dewatering of the proposed working void and any hydrological interconnectivity between the application site and Cresswell Ponds SSSI.
Restoration First:providing further information on how the restoration first benefits of the proposed development could be delivered.
Where relevant, technical advisors to Banks Mining have been asked to consider the points raised in the request from the MPA and to provide a written response. These responses are reproduced in full as appendices to this submission. The text of this document summarises the findings of the advisors in the context of ES2015. Where relevant this submission will also highlight how any proposed mitigation measures referred to in ES2015 can be made the subject of appropriate planning controls.

This page is left intentionally blank

ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

Coquet Island & St Mary’s MCZ

3.1The effects of the proposed development on relevant ecological designations are considered in Chapter 14 of ES2015. The scope of the assessment was agreed with the MPA and relevant parties early in 2015. In the period since ES2015 was prepared, the Coquet Island & St Mary’s Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) has been designated.

3.2The MCZ extends over an area of approximately 192 sqkm of intertidal and offshore waters from near Whitley Bay in the south to near Alnwick in the north and includes areas around St Mary’s Island and Coquet Island. The extent of the designation is depicted in Figure 1.

3.3Along the coastline, the MCZ stretches from the high water mark to sea depths of around 30m. At their nearest point, extractive operations within the proposed Highthorn surface mine lie 540 metres from the designation. Surface operations e.g. soil mound construction will be 520 metres from the high water mark, and on the other side of a public highway and the dunes at Hemscott Hill.

3.4The protected features of the MCZ are listed in Schedule 2 of the Designation Order and primarily relate to habitats associated with intertidal rocks and sediments. The conservation objectives are set out in Article 5 of the Designation Order.

3.5Given the nature of the designation and its location relative to the proposed development, the only realistic way in which the proposed mining operations could have a direct effect on the conservation objectives and features of the MCZ is through water discharges from the operational mine.

3.6The control of water discharges from within the operational site will be facilitated by the construction of a series of cut off ditches and water treatment areas. These are shown on Drawing PA18 and described in detail at paragraphs 6.4 to 610 of ES2015.

3.7The discharge of treated water from the proposed site will require the consent of the Environment Agency (EA) and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) in the form of a formal discharge consent. The LLFA will determine the discharge flow rate, i.e. the quantity of water which may be discharged from the site, while the EA will define the quality parameters (suspended solids, iron and pH levels) of the water being discharged.

3.8DAB Geotechnics Ltd have been asked to consider the potential for the proposed development to have an effect, by means of hydrological impacts, on the conservation objectives of the MCZ. Their findings are set down in the letter reproduced at Appendix 2.

3.9DAB Geotechnics note that several options are available to manage groundwater within the proposed site. Each option has been considered in relation to potential effects on the MCZ.

Drawdown Facilitated By Pumping At Lynemouth

3.10Groundwater levels in the northern part of the Northumberland Coalfield are continuing to rise following the closure of Ellington Colliery. The Coal Authority is responsible for the operation of the pumping facility on the site of the former Lynemouth Colliery. The Authority is currently seeking to determine the optimum rate of abstraction which will control groundwater levels in the old workings, with the aim of preventing any uncontrolled discharges of potentially polluting water and the contamination of aquifers currently used for water supply.

3.11The pumping facility at Lynemouth currently discharges treated water into the north sea and is subject to a permit granted by the EA. The point of discharge lies within the designated MCZ.

3.12Banks Mining has agreed with the Coal Authority to work towards lowering the groundwater level in the vicinity of the proposed Highthorn site in order to minimize the need to dewater the old workings within the site. This may require an increase in the rate of abstraction of water from the old workings at Lynemouth.

3.13The pumping operations undertaken by the Coal Authority at Lynemouth have been taking place for around 2years and the permit from the EA to discharge into the north sea contains limits on the quality of water which can be discharged. These controls include limits on pH, suspended solids and total iron content, among others, and have been set to prevent any adverse impact on the marine environment. Regardless of whether the proposed development takes place or not, these pumping operations will continue to take place.

3.14In the event that the agreement with the Coal Authority leads to an increase in the rate of water abstraction at Lynemouth, the assessment of DAB Geotechnicsnotes, there are no grounds to conclude that the conservation objectives of the MCZ cannot continue to be protected by the means of control on the rate and quality of water discharged currently in place.

3.15It is further noted, if this option successfully controls groundwater in the vicinity of the application site, the volumes of water which will need to be controlled by means of the water treatment facilities depicted on Drawing PA18 of ES2015 will be minimal and will comprise primarily of surface runoff. DAB Geotechnics note that at these quantities and quality, runoff can easily be treated by conventional means within the site before being discharged.

3.16As with the pumping operations at Lynemouth, the assessment notes the proposed mining operations will be subject to controls on the the quality and quantity of water discharged which will ensure the conservation objectives of the MCZ continue to be protected.

Partial or No Drawdown at Lynemouth

3.17In the event that it is only possible to achieve partial drawdown of groundwater levels within the application site by means of abstraction at Lynemouth or the groundwater can only be stabilized at its present level, it is proposed that either a barrier of solid coal will be retained around areas of flooded old workings on the site or the old workings will be dewatered by pumping (see Section 4 and Appendix 5 for further details).

3.18If this option is chosen the assessment of DAB Geotechnicsnote that while discharge flows from the site may need to be higher, this factor would be taken into consideration by the Environment Agency in the setting of controls on water quality in any water discharge licence for the operational site.

3.19In summary, the Environment Agency has a statutory duty to implement the Water Framework Directive and to protect the quality of surface, ground and marine waters. It will determine the quality of the water discharged from the proposed Highthorn site and at the Coal Authority’s pumping site at Lynemouth as part of its normal monitoring and permitting process so that it does not have an adverse impact on the conservation objectives of the recently designated MCZ. On the basis of the assessments undertaken by DAB Geotechnics, there are no grounds to believe the effects of the proposed development cannot be satisfactory controlled by means of appropriately worded planning conditions in respect of the construction and maintenance of on site water treatment measures and controls implemented by the Environment Agency and the Local Lead Flood Authority.

3.20No significant effects on the conservation objectives of the MCZ are therefore predicted.

Pink-Footed Geese

3.21The ES2015 identified that the proposed development would be likely to have an impact of minor negative significance on a population of Pink-Footed Geese (PFG) which is recognised to be of international importance in a wider context, and of regional importance within the study area. This impact has been identified as resulting from the potential loss of foraging habitat during the winter periods and possible noise disturbance caused by the operational site.

3.22Argus Ecology have been asked to comment on the representations received by the County Council in relation to effects on PFG and have provided further information in support of the findings of the ES2015. A copy of the response of Argus Ecology is reproduced in full at Appendix 3.

3.23In support of its findings, Argus Ecology note :

Pink-footed geese currently have favourable conservation status in the UK and Northumberland, with records showing the population at both a national and local levelis increasing;
Pink-footed geese have relatively undemanding habitat requirements, utilising agricultural habitats including permanent pasture and cereal crops – there are plenty of alternative areas surrounding the application site for PFG to be displaced to; and
Pre-application consultationswith the conservation groupson the proposed development highlighted a wish to see the proposed development deliver biodiversity enhancements for a range of species, some of which (e.g. farmland bird assemblage) do not enjoy favourable conservation status.

The proposed development could result in the loss of foraging habitat for PFG in two ways, directly through the removal of land from agricultural uses as the operational site progresses, and indirectly through noise disturbance caused in agricultural fields around the operational site.
Recognising the phased nature of the proposed development i.e. the whole site is not disturbed at once, in relation to direct loss, the ES2015 states that undisturbed areas within the site will be managed in such a manner as to improve habitat quality for PFG. Measures used will include:
Management of the grazing regime;
Management of sward height to achieve an optimum height (approx. 13-20cm);
Application of fertiliser;
Control of access.
During the operational stage of the proposed development, the agreed measures will be applied across the undisturbed fields within the application site in advance of the working void. The areas in question are illustrated on the phasing plans in Appendix 3.
Subject to normal aftercare provisions, similar measures will also be applied to land reinstated to agricultural purposes as the proposed working void moves south. As the plans in Appendix 3 illustrate, significant areas of land will be available for displaced PFG.
Both of Banks Mining’s existing working sites in Northumberland operate site specific Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP). The BAP outlinesactions to be undertaken both in and around the site to improve theopportunities for the protection andenhancement of key target speciesand their associated habitats.
Annual surveys and reports arecarried out to monitor the effect of themining operations upon the localwildlife and the success of measures to retain and/or create habitats in and around the site during its operational phase. This process has consistently proven that key wildlife species have not vacated operational areas rather, that the habitats created on a working site prove tobe attractive to a wide variety of important species. For example, the overburdenmounds at Brenkley Lane have become an important habitat for brown hare, a priorityspecies in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.
As a result of the implementation of BAPs on the existing sites, target species have been maintainedon site throughout the lifetime of the project and re-population of target species isexpected to grow as land is restored and areas of ecological habitat are created.
It is proposed that the Highthorn site will be subject to a site specific BAP, the form and content of which will be agreed in advance with the MPA. This can be achieved through an appropriately worded planning condition. As noted above, PFG have relatively undemanding habitat requirements and evidence from the operational sites demonstrates that agreement and implementation of a BAP is an appropriate means of securing mitigation for the extent of displacement effect identified.
Argus Ecology note the restored site includes areas of agricultural restoration with a sufficiently open aspect to have a reasonable prospect of continued use by PFG. If it is felt appropriate, subject to normal aftercare provisions, the management of specific fields within the restored site for the benefit of PFG could be made the subject of a legally binding agreement under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It is not however considered realistic or necessary to identify those fields at this stage.
In response to the request for further information regarding the potential for noise from site operations resulting in an indirect effect on PGF outside the application site, advice was sought from noise expertsNoisemap Ltd which has fed into the consideration by Argus Ecology.
It is noted that while maximum noise levels (expressed as LAmax) provide one approach to the consideration of noise effects from the site on birds, including PFG, factors influencing whether a bird is “startled” from its habitat are more complicated. As noted, Lmax levels in agricultural areas such as that seen at the application site will include noise events associated with the movement and maintenance of agricultural machinery. However, other factors, relating to the regularity of the noise e.g. tractors being more tolerated than the occasional light aircraft passing overhead, or the tonal characteristics of the noise, are likely to be just as relevant. It is for this reason it is considered LAeq values may be more appropriate to identify the likelihood of ecologically significant disturbance levels, i.e. those which would provoke flight responses, limit return times, and potentially result in displacement and effective loss of habitat.
The assessment of Argus Ecology is based on predicted noise levels at Phase 1 of the proposed development when temporary operations such as soil mound erection is taking place and the working void excavations will be closest to the coastal fields shown to be used by PFG. The assessment shows that noise levels in the fields around the site will not exceed levels typical of rural agricultural areas.
Short term operations, such as the stripping of soils and erection of perimeter soil mounds will be limited in duration by planning condition and seeding operations normally take place in autumn or spring, outside the main occupancy period of PFG.
ES2015 includes at Appendix 15 a draft site Environmental Management Plan (EMP)which outlines a series of measures to be employed on site to ensure noise emissions are managed and monitored. The EMP, combined with the implementation of the site specific BAP will ensure the risk of ecologically significant disturbance levels from noise is minimized such that there is confidence fields around the working site will continue to be used by geese, as well as less noise-sensitive species, during the operational phases of the surface mine.

This page is left intentionally blank