Tag Archives: opposition

January Update

We have certainly been giving the Planning Authority plenty of work. So far there have been over 200 objections sent in by local residents opposed to the scheme.

Although the published deadline for sending in objections was 12 December 2014, the planning website says ‘The County Council will take into account all representations which are received up until three days before the proposal is considered for decision.So, if you had meant to send in an objection but just didn’t get around to it, there is still time.

Hilltop Action Group Committee has also been busy sending in objections – 12 so far.  We have still got a few more to complete and send in.

The ones submitted so far are (over 60 pages in total):

  1. Validity of Noise Assessment Report
  2. Accuracy of Mineral Application Form
  3. Communities Affected by the Hilltop Scheme
  4. Noise
  5. Geological & Hydrogeological Issues
  6. Inconsistent & Missing Drawings
  7. Water Attenuation Lagoons & Water Discharge
  8. Public Rights of Way
  9. Air Quality
  10. Health Impact
  11. Transport Assessment
  12. Ecology

The full text of these can be found from the menu on the left.

At the moment we have no idea when the Planning Committee meeting, which will make the decision on the application, will be. Scheduled dates for the next few Planning Committee meetings are: 9 February , 9 March , 20 April , 11 May , 8 June, 13 July, 10 August and 7 September. We will probably only get about five days notice.

Advertisements

Derbyshire Times & Provectus Exhibitions

We’re in the Derbyshire Times again. Click here to read the article.

In the article Bryn Hopkinson, consultant to Provectus who are planning the three-year extraction on the land, owned by Hilltop Farm, said:

“We mailed about 2000 people about our plans and we are really hoping that all of those that can, whether in favour or against, will come along to our public exhibitions to join in the discussion about the way forward, particularly the community benefits. And don’t forget, this will create jobs.”

So, lets all turn up and see how much of a discussion he is prepared to have.

I wonder what ‘community benefits‘ he has in mind that will compensate us for at least three years of noise, dust, pollution, damage to health, destruction of the landscape, damage to wildlife, increased HGV traffic and loss in value of our homes.

It will also be interesting to see how many jobs he thinks it will create.

After you’ve been to the exhibition post your thoughts about what he has to say on the Have your say page.

New Provectus statement

I see that Mr Hopkinson of Provectus has added a new statement to their website. Notice it is no longer called a blog as he is not prepared to accept open comment and discussion! Once again we appear to be calling the tune – everything is a reaction to what we are saying – there is nothing new from Provectus.

In his piece, Mr Hopkinson uses the phrase ‘…allegedly contained within the formal Provectus proposal to Derbyshire County Council…’ when referring to the words ‘proposed extension’ and ‘proposed extension area’ which I had quoted. There is nothing ‘alleged’ about them – they are there in black and white in the Provectus documents. I agree they appear to make no sense but this is due to his mistake not mine. As Provectus have submitted erroneous documents then it is up to them to sort it out with the planning authority.

Interestingly Mr Hopkinson seems to make rather a lot of sloppy mistakes. When he contacted me via the website on 3 May he correctly referred to me as Mr Gregory, yesterday for some unknown reason he called me Mr Garrett!

Good to know that the other two sites he has his eyes on are not around here, but not so sure the folks in Nottinghamshire will be as happy.

He goes on to address the concerns we have voiced on the flyer for tonight’s meeting. I will respond to his comments as follows:

  1. Noise – any noise produced by the Hilltop Opencast Project is more noise regardless of statutory limits. We like the peace and quiet.
  2. Landfill/Waste Disposal – they’re taking 175,000 tonnes of coal out, so they must be going to bring 175,000 tonnes of something back in or leave a big hole.
  3. House values – Nominal house values will probably not be greatly affected but they will be unsalable. Anyone who wants or needs to move in the next 5 or 6 years will find it very difficult without drastically reducing their selling price. As for an enhanced green environment, I find that very hard to believe. We all know that the contours of land reclaimed after opencasting are never natural but usually flat and featureless. Hedgerows may be replaced but will take many years to mature. Large trees, like the ones that will have to be removed to make way for the coal processing area, will take nigh on a hundred years to mature. Wild life will be driven away by the noise and dust and take many years to return.
  4. Traffic – The A61 is a major concern as this is regularly congested through Clay Cross. All lorries will use the Royal Oak roundabout which is a busy crossing point for pupils going to and from Tupton Hall School. We have yet to hear where the lorries will go having reached the Royal Oak roundabout. Indeed the Scoping Opinion in response to the Provectus proposal states ‘The Highway Authority considers the details of the proposed lorry routing to be inaccurate.’ 10 vehicle movements a day? One Provectus document gives a maximum of 20 loads per day. That’s 20 in and 20 out plus a matching number at some time to refill the hole – I make that 80.
  5. Dust/Pollution – as with noise, any dust or pollution produced by the Hilltop Opencast Project is more dust and pollution regardless of statutory limits. Talk to anyone who has lived near to an opencast site and they will tell you that despite regulations and monitoring dust and pollution is horrendous.