Introduction
This submission lays out my outstanding objections to the planning application by Maltby Management Ltd to convert Maltby Colliery into a limestone quarry. These objections are drawn from my own reading of the application, conversations with local residents and the Environment Agency, and an impact assessment by Maltby Town Council.
I am grateful for the extension Rotherham Council has provided for this consultation; many residents have needed longer to examine the planning application, especially given the scale of the proposed impact to local infrastructure and the environment. This additional time has helped produce this more comprehensive list of objections.
Outstanding objections
1. Impact on local infrastructure
According to Maltby Town Council, the town’s current road infrastructure is already unprepared for any “significant and growing amount of vehicular traffic which uses it…congestion, parking, highway and pedestrian safety issues are a growing concern on some of the roads”. The application describes a serious increase in HGV movement through Maltby – an average of 128 driving through Maltby six days a week. The already busy Maltby High Street would see a serious increase in traffic – an estimated 10.5 HGV movements per hour according to Maltby Town Council’s own assessment. How will Rotherham Council ensure that Maltby is able to handle this increase in congestion?
Residents have also raised doubts over how committed the applicants will be to their own timings. The application states in Chapter 12 section 12.42 that “material imports are conducted between 07:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday, and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturday”. However, 18 HGVs were recorded leaving and entering the pit site on the 19th of December between 06:00 and 07:00.
Related to this is the potential for anti-social noise pollution. The application outlines “HGV and plant maintenance” between 06:00am and 21:00pm from Monday to Friday, and “Pumping” between 00:00 and 23:59 seven days a week. Given this, and the serious increase in traffic through Maltby roads, it is surprising the application states in Chapter 10 Section 10.49 that “no further assessment of noise from HGVs has been undertaken”. In the same chapter, it says: “Pumping may be undertaken throughout the night-time period. No night-time noise level measurements have been undertaken as any proposed night-time operations will be attenuated to comply with the 42dBLAeq 1hr night-time noise limit”. However, this one hour of noise could take place at any time of night. How will Rotherham Council ensure that the applicants are committed to working within social hours?
2. Impact on local health
There are local concerns whether the application properly accounts for the impact on local residents’ health. The additional HGV movements for instance will lead to increased air pollution – with associated prospect of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases – in an already polluted place; Maltby East’s War profile for instance describes: “In the 2016-20 time period, the mortality ratio for deaths from respiratory disease in Maltby East ward is 201.1. This is worse than England”. Connected to this are concerns around road safety. Chapter 12 of the planning application implies these HGV will be passing many houses, multiple schools and a leisure centre. There are concerns the Council has not prepared enough road safety precautions for this heavily populated area, were the application to go ahead.
3. Workability of rail line plan
Third, there remain questions how this proposed development will use the established rail line to help with excess import and export. Chapter 12 Section 12.68 says: “It is anticipated that further fill import and mineral export would be by train using the existing rail head on the pit yard during Phases 3 to 11, comprising up to 16 trains per week”. However, the application does not include how this plan will go ahead or who they will contact to set up this plan. Given, the application also says in Chapter 10 Section 10:50 that “the Scheme retains the option to import fill material by rail” and that “the above vehicle movements are therefore based on a ‘worst-case’ scenario that all materials will be imported by road”, I would appreciate a copy of a detailed management plan for the rail system, to understand how the applicants will try and prevent high traffic elsewhere.
4. Removal of unmapped ancient woodland
Fourth, there are concerns about the potential removal of ancient and semi-natural woodlands on the property, in particular at the centre of the property where one woodland has seemingly not been accounted for in any of the planning documents (neither the biodiversity plan documents, nor the Revised Reclamation and Proposed Quarry Phase documents). This woodland has been identified as ancient and/or semi-natural according to the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside map. Section 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles…development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodlands and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there is wholly exceptional reasons, and a suitable compensation strategy exists”. Does Rotherham Council believe this application counts as “exceptional reasons” and will the Council be considering offering compensation if the woodlands is removed?
5. Impact on wildlife
Finally, the planning application states the site is of “geological conservation importance”, and briefly, that the development will produce a biodiversity net gain in excess of 10%. The Town and Country Plannings Act 1990 Schedule 7A Chapter 13 clearly states: “Where a development proposal is likely to affect features of biodiversity or geological conservation interest, you will need to submit, with the application, sufficient information and assessments to allow the local planning authority to determine the proposal. Failure to submit all information required will result in your application being deemed invalid. It will not be considered valid until all information required by the local planning authority has been submitted”. Has Rotherham Council asked for this information, given the application concedes the site is of “geological conservation importance”? If so, will they be able to send this to me?