Objection Letter regarding exploration borehole, Tyla Farm, Merthyr Mawr LPA Reference: 13/322

Dear Mr Gore

Objection to proposed exploration borehole, Tyla Farm, Merthyr Mawr
LPA Reference: 13/322

On behalf of the Broadlands Residents’ Association, I wish to lodge our formal OBJECTION to the above application.

The Association has a number of fundamental concerns. These relate to:

• the highway safety implications of the proposed works arising from the additional HGV movements that they would generate;
• the potential effect on European and Nationally designated sites of nature conservation ;
• the effect on protected species present at and in the vicinity of the site;
• loss of high quality agricultural land;
• the effect on the local landscape and visual impact;
• noise;
• pollution risk relating to the use of chemical lubricants; and
• archaeological impact.

We detail our concerns in turn below.

Highways

The proposed development site is accessible only by a narrow single track lane with high hedge banks.

Contrary to the statement made in the application submission, the lane provides no formal passing places between the site access and the A48. The only means by which vehicles may pass at present is by using a private drive access or driving onto unsurfaced verge. This is entirely unsuitable as a solution to address potential conflict of cars with articulated vehicles, or indeed, two articulated vehicles passing to and from the site.

It is customary in such situations for the applicant to be requested to provide a survey of the access route and to demonstrate that vehicles may track in both directions without giving rise to vehicular conflict. This has not been done in this case. We would respectfully suggest that without this information the local planning authority is unable to make a reasoned assessment of the highway effects of the proposal.

We would also note that the lane provides no segregation of vehicular and non vehicular traffic. While, in part for the issues outlined above, the lane is only lightly trafficked, it is, as a consequence, used heavily for recreational purposes by walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Indeed, we note that Tyla Farm operates as a commercial stables and regularly uses the lane for access to the local bridleway network.

There is already a highway safety issue of conflict between vehicular traffic and other uses on this lane, and intensification of this use, particularly using HGV vehicles, is likely to exacerbate this. The applicant has to-date failed to address this issue at all.

We note further that while the applicant anticipates numerous HGV movements to the site, no information is provided as to how vehicles will be able to manoeuvre within the site to enter and leave it in a forward gear.

Finally, and related to the above issue, for HGVs to be able to enter and leave the site in a forward gear, a surfaced turning area will be required. No mention is made in the submission of this surfacing or its extent and no details of tracking are provided.

Taking these issues together, it is our view that the application is seriously deficient in its consideration of highways and access issues.

Ecology

In respect of the sensitive ecological context of the application site we have read the supporting ecological note and would respectfully suggest that it is woefully inadequate.

In particular, we note that this statement makes no reference to the site's location only 1,400 metres from a Special Area of Conservation, which is of European importance for nature conservation and protected under UDP policy EV18. It is a similar distance from a Site of Special Scientific and a Local Nature Reserve, both of which are protected under UDP Policy EV19 of the adopted UDP.

Paragraph 23 of Minerals Planning Policy Wales states that:

“ Minerals proposals within or likely to significantly affect potential and classified SPAs, designated, candidate or proposed SACs or Ramsar sites must be carefully examined in relation to the site’s conservation objectives in order to ascertain whether or not they are likely to be significant in terms of the ecological objectives of the site.” (our emphasis)

Paragraph 25 makes a similar statement in respect of SSSIs.

Even though the application site itself falls outside of these designations, both the above ground and under ground operations have the clear potential to significantly affect them and ought to be assessed accordingly. That the applicant has failed to make any reference to these designations is extremely concerning and brings into serious question the robustness of the ecological assessment undertaken.

The site is also intended to be lit over a 24-hour period. The implications of this for the foraging routes of bats in the vicinity is obvious, and the failure to consider this issue at all raises a further question mark over the reliability of the applicant’s report.

Finally, the applicant indicates in the submitted statement that it is intended to widen the existing site access to allow HGVs to enter the site freely. This will involve the removal of hedgerows that have the potential to hold ecological potential and it is essential that a hedgerow survey is undertaken before removal can be permitted.

We would also note in this regard that the hedgerow in question is of demonstrable heritage and is without doubt an “important” hedgerow as defined by the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. As such, removal of the hedgerow without express consent could potentially constitute an offence.

In summary therefore, it is our view that before the local planning authority can reach a decision on this application, a comprehensive re-assessment of the ecological effects of this proposal is essential. In particular, consideration of the effects on designated areas and on bats is required.

Landscape impacts

The site is situated in a prominent location elevated above open ground to the east and west and is highly visible from a number of public vantage points. While the ground works themselves may not be highly visible, the proposal includes 24 hour drilling which will necessitate 24-hour illumination of the site. The applicant has not to-date provided a plan to demonstrate the light spread of the proposed floodlighting. Without this information, neither we nor the local planning authority are in a position to conclude whether this will have an acceptable effect in landscape and visual terms.

Loss of high quality agricultural land

Paragraph 32 of Minerals Planning Policy Wales notes that:

“Land of grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food Agricultural Land Classification is the best and most versatile agricultural land and should be protected from development as a national resource for the future. Unless clear evidence is provided to demonstrate the feasibility of restoring such land to a standard equivalent to its original Agricultural Land Classification grade then it should only be used for mineral development exceptionally if there is an overriding UK need for the development and sufficient land in lower grades is either unavailable or available lower grade land has an environmental value recognised by statutory designation which outweighs agricultural considerations.”

In this case, the application site is in active agricultural use and is evidently of a grade where this guidance would apply. However, the applicant has failed to provide any information on restoration of the site. In particular the applicant has not shown how any impacts of the hard surfacing, physical works and potential pollution arising from drilling fluids will be mitigated such that the land may be re-used for its previous agricultural use should the borehole testing yield negative results.

In our view the applicant ought to be required to submit an ALC survey of the application site, together with full details of intended site restoration at the end of the 36- week drilling period.

Noise

The submitted noise statement takes as its basis ‘Minerals Policy Statement 2’. This is however English guidance that is not applicable in Wales, where (with the exception of Paras 7-10) Minerals planning Guidance Note 2 continues to apply, alongside Minerals Planning Policy Wales as mentioned above.

In our view, to provide the LPA with a reasonable basis for considering this aspect of the proposal, a revised assessment with full regard to the requirements of TAN11 ‘Noise’ is essential.

Pollution

The applicant’s statement refers to the use of 4,400 gallons of drilling fluids but does not provide any details as to how this is to be transported and stored on site or what precautions will be taken in respect of potential leakage or leaching of this fluid to protect the local aquifer and agricultural land. This information is essential to a proper understanding of the possible environmental effects of this proposal.

Archaeology

The application site sits on the route of the Pilgrims’ Trail and has potential to be of significant archaeological potential. To ensure that no archaeological features are damaged or destroyed by the proposed borehole, a full archaeological assessment of the site is essential prior to the grant of any planning consent. To-date, this has not been undertaken.

Conclusions

It is apparent from the comments above that we consider that this application raises a number of significant concerns that have not been addressed by the applicant. Until and unless these are addressed fully, the Broadlands Residents’ Association wishes to OBJECT to this application.

I trust that the above will be taken into account in your consideration of the proposal and if you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours sincerely

Arfon Hughes MRTPI
Vice Chair
Broadlands Residents’ Association