 |
|||
 |
THE POLICIES ON MINERAL EXTRACTION IN THE PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK
Many of the quarries and mines in the Peak District were operating before the area became a National Park. The National Park boundary was drawn so that it excluded many of the main limestone quarries in the Buxton area (that is why the Park is an odd shape).
The policies on mineral extraction are decided by the Planning Authority for the Park, in liaison with local and national government organisations. These policies are set out in the Peak National Park Structure Plan . A replacement of the old 1979 Structure Plan, was adopted in 1994.
The Park Authority also keeps in touch with bodies such as the District Council Environmental Health Authorities, the National River Authorities, the Air Pollution Inspectorate and the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate , who have responsibility for such matters as noise nuisance, water and dust pollution and safety within quarries.
Although quarries and mines spoil the landscape and may pollute the land and the air, some of the minerals cannot be found easily in other areas. The industry is also important to both the local economy (providing jobs for local residents) and the national economy. For these reasons four main questions must be asked in judging any proposals for new mines or quarries or for extensions to existing ones:-
1. Is there a real need for the product, either locally or nationally, or could another product be used instead? i.e. Stone other than limestone can be used for roads.
2. Is there another source for the material that would be a practical alternative? i.e. Limestone can be found in other parts of the country that are not National Parks.
3. What will be the effect on traffic? Will even more heavy lorries be using overcrowded roads? i.e. Moving stone by railway may be a possible alternative.
4. How far will the local residents, landscape and environment be affected? The Park Authority now insists that landscaping schemes and restoration work must be agreed as part of any new proposal.
The following two case histories show how these four questions are considered in deciding whether to allow any extensions or new developments in the mineral industry:-
CASE HISTORY;- TOPLEY PIKE QUARRY (1985)
Topley Pike quarry has been worked since about 1910 with several extensions since then. It produced 500-750,000 tonnes p.a. of limestone for aggregate. It employed about 70 men.
Proposal: To extend 19 acres to the south west and quarry a further 14 m. tonnes over 16 years. Site to be restored after 16 years.
Tarmac’s arguments for the proposal
- it would provide enough money for landscape improvements and restoration work
- limestone would be carried by train, not clog up roads
- the quarry is right on the edge of the Park
- without an extension, present work would be spread over longer period and present quarry would be exacavated below the water table.
Park Authority arguments against the proposal
- no national or local need for more roadstone
- alternative sources outside the Park for such stone
- extension would affect the landscape, particularly the village of Earl Sterndale
- dust would have a bad effect on wildlife in the SSSI
The proposal was refused (in 1985) by the Secretary of State after an appeal and public inquiry
CASE HISTORY - MILLDAM MINE (1987)
Proposal: To open new underground fluorspar mine on site of old lead mine in Great Hucklow (then a scrap yard)
Laportes’ arguments for the proposal
- Established national and local need for mineral
- no alternative source of ore except in National Park
- workings will be made visually acceptable
- no reasonable alternative site. Proposed site would need restoration anyway
- proposal would provide employment
Park Authority concerns
- disturbance to village of Great Hucklow during construction and during life of mine
- proposal would require extension to working life of Blakedon Hollow Lagoon and of Cavendish Mill
- delay of 10 years in final restoration work at Milldam Mine
The proposal was granted (in 1987) by the Board
|
|
||||
 |
|
|||
| POINTS TO CONSIDER | ||||
|
|
||||