31, Glenwood Crescent, Chapeltown, Sheffield,

S35 1YU 21.09.12

Development Services Howden House 1 Union Street Sheffield S1 2SH Dear Ms Mansell

RE: Planning application RecyCoal reference number 12/01946/FUL

Please find attached information relating to the above planning application, this submission is on behalf of the residents of Chapeltown and Thorpe Hesley who attended the public awareness meeting of 31st August 2012 at Newton Hall, Chapeltown, and has been coordinated by the Cowley Residents Action Group (CRAG).

CRAG was formed following the parish council planning meeting on the 7th August 2012 in order to provide a coordinated approach on behalf of the local community to the planning application for Hesley Wood spoil heap. It has been our intention to cross reference issues and concerns, where practicable to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and to elicit technical and expert opinion on some of the key issues posed by residents.

The people consulted include, but not limited to, Dr N Rivers (Sheffield Wildlife Trust), Professor Sir David Read (Sheffield University) and Dr D. van Steenis.

Reference has been made to: -

National Planning Policy framework (2012), Department for Communities and local Government.

Technical Guidance to the National planning Policy framework (2012), Department for Communities and Local Government.

SCC Air Quality Action Plan 2015 July 12

SCC Air Quality Action Plan 2003

The True Cost of Coal to Communities 2010- Douglasdale Edition

Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP)

Air Pollution and Noise their effects on human health and social inclusion Barbara Rimmington 2006

Brunekreef and Holgate (2002) Air pollution and health. The Lancet Vol 360 p 1233-1242 Maheswaran R, Haining RP, Brindley P, Law J, Pearson T, Fryers PR, Wise S, &Campbell MJ (2005a) Outdoor air pollution, mortality, and hospital admissions from coronary heart disease in Sheffield, UK: a small-area level ecological study, in European Hearth Journal 2543-2549 Maheswaran R, Haining RP, Brindley P, Law J, Pearson T, Fryers PR, Wise S, & Campbell MJ (2005b) Outdoor air pollution and stroke in Sheffield, United Kingdom: a small-area level geographical study, in Stroke 36:239-243 Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (2006) Cardiovascular Disease and Air Pollution London: Department of Health Adult and Childhood Asthma Health Needs Assessment October 2008 Sue Thackray and Andrew Booth Public health Department NHS Sheffield.

Presentation by Sue Thackray ‘COPD care: opportunities’ at the Quality Improvement Academy 30 April 2010

Potter, H. and Johnston, D. (2012) Inventory Of Closed Mining Waste Facilities Environment Agency . Pope, C. and Dockery, D. (2006) 2006 Critical Review: Health effects of Fine Particulate air Pollution; Lines that Connect, Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association. Volume 56, issue 6, pp 709-742.

Holden, T. (2006) Technical Fact Sheet: Air Quality – Dust Monitoring. Environmental Defender’s Office Ltd (NSW)

http://dustmanagement.co.uk [consulted 31st August 2012]

Wardell Armstrong (2012) Planning Support Statement

Wardell Armstrong (2012) Environmental Impact Assessment

WHO

The key issues for residents can be best described as Environmental; i.e. dust, noise, air pollution, and traffic nuisance, Ecological; i.e. wildlife, flora and fauna, and loss of habitat. Alongside this we offer comments in the context of the economic, social and cultural aspects described by RecyCoal.

Economic

NPPF para: 17 support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy);

RecyCoal have very clearly set out the necessity for the reclamation of some 395 000 tonnes of coal as being based upon ‘Meeting the Energy Challenge – A White Paper on Energy’, 23rd May 2007 in which it is recognised that coal is a valuable resource and a key component in meeting future energy requirements, however, the contribution made by this recovered volume of coal is less than 0.4% of the annual requirement for power generation (data established from Planning Support Statement, Wardell Armstrong June 2012) and as such cannot be described as an essential and significant contributor to the UK demand for coal. Thus a planning application for the

extraction of coal should not be seen as supporting the transition to a low carbon future, as there will be an increased carbon-footprint for the site with the addition of vehicles and wash plant for extractive purposes, coupled with the loss of an extensive area of mature trees that are part of the natural regeneration of the site over the last 40 years.

RecyCoal have suggested that the scheme will provide an economic impact for Chapeltown with the creation of some 35 jobs and consequential increased spending within the area and increased inward investment. All of these points must be subject to serious scrutiny as the a high proportion of the jobs are specialist and will normally be filled by redeployment from other sites/projects. The application's EIA: - p261, para 16.7.12 RecyCoal Limited takes the view that well managed and designed coal recovery schemes, in carefully selected locations, are compatible with wider objectives of environmental quality, investment, recreation and tourism. It is considered that the proposals will reclaim an area of despoiled land that currently detracts from the amenity of Hesley Wood, an area of the South Yorkshire Forest, potentially deterring inward investment. They seek to suggest that the area is not able to attract inward investment which is clearly not the case as there has been significant investment at both Newton Chambers Thorncliffe Industrial park and Smithywood Coking plant which have seen both commercial and domestic developments over the last 15 years. The current development of the Smithywood site is progressing but its slow progress is due to other economic considerations rather than the use of amenity facilities of Hesley Wood. As a community assembly area RecyCoal admit that the majority of the area is in the band of 51-80% least deprived areas on the IMD 2007, this coupled with the latest data on unemployment from Labour Market Bulletin May 2012 shows that 3% of the working age population are in receipt of JSA Air Quality

NPPF para:124. Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.

DEFRA An invitation to shape the Nature of England July 2010 page 12 “Working towards compliance with EU air quality limits for particulate matter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in our urban areas is the most urgent priority for the UK and other EU member states. In the short term, the most pressing compliance challenge relates to NO2 levels in large urban areas including in London.”

Chapeltown, Ecclesfield and surrounding areas are part of the Sheffield Air Quality Action Zone set up in 2003 to improve air quality in Sheffield. European law requires air quality objectives of 40ug/m3 for NO2 to be achieved by 2015. An Air Quality Action Plan was produced, by Sheffield City Council (SCC) in 2003, to address nitrogen dioxide levels. The first action plan ended in 2010 and was reviewed by DEFRA and “it was apparent that more ambitious actions, and better implementation were required if the target levels were to be reached by 2015.” So a new action plan was accepted in July 2012.

In the summary of the Air quality action plan 2015 it states

AQAP 4.2.3 Sheffield City Council declared an Air Quality Management Area across the whole of the urban area of the city for nitrogen dioxide (NO

2) and fine particles (PM

10) in March

2010……reports respectively, to DEFRA, showing areas of Sheffield where NO2 and PM

10

amounts are likely to breach national and EU legislation.

AQAP 4.2.4 the Council is now required to produce an Air Quality Action Plan to cover the period (up) to 2015, with the aim of improving nitrogen dioxide (NO

2) and PM

10 levels, such that the

annual limit of 40µg.m-3

for NO2 and the daily limit of 50µg.m

-3 for PM

10 (which is not to be

exceeded more than 35 times a year) do not continue to be breached. Sheffield City Council could be fined if the targets are breached again:-

AQAP 4.2.5 “There is the potential for the UK government to be fined if EU limit values are exceeded. Potentially the fines which can be imposed are significant…..the Localism Act to passport EU fines to local authorities and public bodies (where they have failed to take action when they could) is significant and helps to highlight the need for a clear line of sight between EU obligations and Local Authority responsibilities to improve air quality and provide clarity on the role local authorities play. The government however, can only pass the fines on if they can show that we have not taken appropriate steps to comply with EU law”.

The Localism Bill proposes that Central Government would have the power to:

“require a local or public authority to make payments in respect of a financial sanction imposed on the UK” if “acts of the authority may have caused or contributed to the infarction of EU law…”

If this proposal goes ahead Recycoal will be using heavy machinery using “agricultural (red) diesel” and putting the Nitrogen Dioxide levels in the air above the levels already breached. The levels for Warren Lane and Ecclesfield Road Low Wincobank are listed below. Both of these NO2 monitors are within 2 miles of the site. The NO2 levels at these locations are listed below:-

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Warren Lane 34 30 34 30 34 Ecclesfield Road, Low Wincobank 52 47 51 48 51 Thus, although the levels at Warren Lane are below 40ug/m3( the EU target), any extra HGV activity on the proposed site would probably take it over the 40 level and the levels at Ecclesfield Road are all well above the stipulated level already without any further HGV activity. So the target level for 2015 will again be breached

The 2015 action plan sets out a vision which aims to:

• Achieve national health-based air quality targets by 2015,

• Protect areas where air pollution is low, and

• Improve areas where air pollution is elevated. This would not protect areas where air pollution is low(Warren Lane) and certainly does not improve air pollution where it is elevated (Ecclesfield Road). In fact it would push up the levels of NO2 Foreword. A House of Commons report

on air quality. Environmental audit committee 5th

report air quality, summary 16th March 2010:-

“The cost benefit is clear; what we need now is the political will to make this a priority and to commit the resources to address it now so that we can reap the benefits of improved health.”

Progress report to DEFRA 2008

“Our air pollution modelling work shows that the areas of concern are those particularly close to

busy roads, especially where the annual average daily traffic flow is greater than 17,000 vehicles per day and at busy junctions.”

The site is at the side of the M1 motorway, where the average daily flow is greater than 17,000 vehicles per day. Recycoal plan to have approximately 19,424x30 tonne HGV vehicle journeys per year (6 per hour ,12 hours per day, 5 ½ days per week not including bank holidays). This does not take into account the heavy machinery that would be on the site:-

Recycoal Table 11.4 Long term Loading shovel Volvo L220 Long term Loading shovel CAT 966 1 1 Processing Plant Wash plant and press house Haul Routes Off-site Haulage Road Lorries 4 per hr Long term Dozer CAT D6R Long term Tractor and bowser - Long term Excavator CAT 345 Haul Routes Dump truck CAT D740 68 per hour Long term Grader CAT 14 G

Van Steenis “Coal Opencasting and Health”

“Four bulldozers on a brown field site development at Hollingdean (Brighton) in June 2007 reached 1100 ug/m3”

This would certainly put the air quality level above 40ug/m3

AQAP 11.3 Appendix Table 8 “This demonstrates that 81% of all road traffic emissions for nitrogen dioxide (NO

2) can be

attributed to diesel vehicles, with the remaining 19% linked to petrol vehicles.” AQAP 1.4 “The implications for this plan are that targeting heavy vehicles would be likely to have a positive effect on nitrogen dioxide (NO

2) levels.”

Should the council, therefore, be giving planning permission which increases the NO2 levels in our area for the next 5 years? This is not complying with and contributing towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas should be consistent with the local air quality action plan. Giving permission for this plan to go ahead would not be consistent with this AQAP. Health Issues NPPF para:143 “Planning policies should set out environmental criteria, in line with the policies in this Framework,against which planning applications will be assessed so as to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, including from noise, dust, visual intrusion, traffic, tip- and quarry-slope stability, differential settlement of quarry backfill, mining subsidence, increased flood risk, impacts on the flow and quantity of surface and groundwater and migration of contamination from the site; and take into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality;”

NPPF144 (bullet 3) “ ensure, in granting planning permission for mineral development, that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality;” AQAP 2.1 “Air pollution adversely affects human health, and has recently been estimated to account for up to 500 premature deaths per year in Sheffield. Air pollution has short and long term health impacts, particularly for respiratory and cardiovascular health, including increased hospital admissions.” AQAP 2.3 “Air pollution also has economic health costs of around £160 million per year to society (i.e. the impact on Sheffield’s economy as a result of lost working days). This is likely to be a conservative estimate because these figures do not take account of chronic conditions linked to air quality such as chronic lung and heart related problems, or secondary costs to wider services and families.”

If this scheme goes ahead what added cost would it be to the national health services? Recycoal have done no monitoring of PM10, PM2.5 or PM1 particles. There is no mention of NO2 emissions from their vehicles. They are only monitoring the dust that you can see. Recycoal 12.1.4 “Only particles in the range of 10µm to 75 µm are generally referred to as nuisance dust. Dust emitted from mineral workings approximately 95% of particles are between 30 and 75m and have a relatively high mass and settling velocity. Particles of this size generally deposit within 100m of the point of release. Particles in the size range of 10-30µm therefore make up only a minor proportion of dust from mineral sites, and these tend to fall out of the atmosphere within 250m of the point of release. Additionally, modelling studies have shown that deposition rates decrease significantly (in an almost logarithmic manner) with increasing distance from the source.” AQAP 4.2.2 “Action to manage and improve air quality is required by European Union (EU) legislation. The 2008 ambient air quality directive (2008/50/EC) sets legally binding limits for concentrations in outdoor air of major air pollutants that impact public health including particulate matter (PM

10 and PM

2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO

2).”

Recycoal 12.1.6 “Smaller particles, less than 10µm and termed PM10, can travel in excess of 1km from the point of release, but particles in this size range are only released in significant quantities from mineral sites where the material is subject to secondary processing, e.g. roadstone coating.”

It is well publicised that breathing in PM 2.5 particles can cause many illnesses. We went to visit a retired GP, Dr. Van Steenis MBBS, who is one of the UK’s leading experts on air pollution. He has researched industrial air pollution (including open casting and spoil removal) with its consequential health damage and illnesses. There are different size particles thrown up when heavy machinery is used to shovel the coal or coke. The larger particles form the dirt and dust on washing and windows. The very tiny particles are the ones you can’t see. They are called PM2.5 and PM1’s. These are the ones that can cause asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, heart attacks, type 2 diabetes and depression. They may also lead to cancers, low birth weight in babies, ADHD, low IQ in children and disruption to our immune system.

From Dr. Van Steenis research four schools in villages around Avenue coking Work developments, Derbyshire had monitors for PM2.5 particles put into them. They were all 1-2 miles from the coking works site. The PM2.5 levels were well above the safe level of around 10 ug/m3 (see appendix 1) They ranged from 56ug/m3 to 137ug/m3 and the PAH levels were very worrying. The information is prepared by CPL STATS 1999 and verified by Jag 18/02/00(See attached sheet). There are at least 10 primary schools within a 1 ½ mile radius of Hesley Wood spoil heap, three of them and a large Comprehensive school, less than ½ a mile. The health of some of these children will be affected.

Recycoal say that their system is a wet one, but from Dr. Van Steenis’ research these very tiny particles will still be released into the atmosphere and will travel up to 3 miles from the site, depending on the wind. Spraying with water cannot completely remove these particles.

Van Steenis says:-“Experience gained at Arkwright proves that the alleged ability to control dust by open-casters is a fallacy. I was present when the BBC TV filmed emissions at Arkwright with separate clouds of dust and vehicle emissions. PM2.5s and PM1’s rise, and can stay suspended in the air for up to 1 week, totally dependent on the weather as to where and when they ground……Civil Engineering Feb 2012 exposes fake company air modelling not checked & amended by measured data, producing false low predictions” Recycoal 14.7.9 “The ground is of low permeability”

Recycoal 12.1.8 “The amount of dust that might cause complaint or nuisance in a particular circumstance is very difficult to determine and there are no statutory limits such as those applicable to suspended particulates or gaseous pollutants. The Environmental Effects of Dust from Surface Mineral Workings suggests that there is little consensus about possible nuisance dust levels, and there is little basis for applying any of the published guidelines as a definitive absolute dust nuisance standard for the UK.” Where is their evidence? There are no monitoring results to show what the PM levels would be or the NO2 levels from the heavy equipment and HGV’s. AQAP 2.2“The impact on life expectancy and ill health is unequal, with more effects on the young, the old and those with pre-existing heart and lung conditions. For individuals who are particularly sensitive and exposed to the most elevated levels of air pollution, the reduction in life expectancy is estimated to be as high as nine years. Overall the adverse effects of pollution are such that it has a bigger impact on life expectancy than road traffic accidents and passive smoking.” Environmental Audit Committee - Ninth Report Air quality: A follow up report

“ PM

10 particles contain PM

2.5 particles, however the PM

2.5 particles can be measured separately

and penetrate further into the lungs, which is why they are used when assessing health impacts”

There is so much scientific evidence to show the health risks posed by open-cast mining. The Douglasdale report in Scotland “The True cost of Coal to Communities” 2010 shows the devastating effects of surface mining. Recycoal say that they are not open-cast mining, but they are digging from above and disturbing the soil, coal and contaminants creating dust. Douglasdale Report :- “Surface mining disturbs land creating dust known as particulate matter. Particulate matter are tiny particles of solid or liquid suspended in a gas or liquid such as coal and mineral dust in the atmosphere…..Coal dust can be picked up by winds…. Particulate matter is also released by diesel powered construction mining equipment. Exposure to diesel engine exhaust has been associated with adverse health effects such as cancer for decades.” Sheffield City Council’s interpretation of the Evidence of Robert Vaughn from DEFRA to Environment select committee 2010

“A report by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP) reports that long term exposure to fine particulates (PM2.5) may have hastened the deaths of up to 200,000 people nationally in 2008, about a third of annual mortality. The report concludes that exposure to PM2.5 now cuts life expectancy at birth by six to seven months. It has short and long-term health impacts, particularly for respiratory and cardiovascular health, including increased admissions to hospital.” Health Aspects of Air Pollution results from the WHO project ‘systematic review of health aspects of air pollution in Europe page 7

Effects related to short term Effects related to long term Pollutant exposure exposure Nitrogen Dioxide In ambient air, nitrogen dioxide serves as an indicator for a complex mixture of mainly traffic-related air pollution

Effects on pulmonary function, particularly in asthmatics Increase in airway allergic inflammatory reactions Increase in hospital admissions Increase in mortality

Reduction in lung function Increased probability of respiratory Symptoms

Particulate matter (PM10

) Lung inflammatory reactions Respiratory symptoms Adverse effects on the cardiovascular system Increase in medication usage Increase in hospital admissions Increase in mortality

Increase in lower respiratory symptoms Reduction in lung function in children Increase in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Reduction in lung function in adults Reduction in life expectancy, mainly due to cardiopulmonary mortality and probably lung cancer

AQAP10.3

Air Pollution and Noise their effects on human health and social inclusion a

review of recent literature. Report prepared by Barbara Rimmington, Research Officer, East End Quality of Life Initiative, Revised January 2006. “Children (and unborn foetuses) are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. This is because their lungs, metabolic and immune systems are still developing. The effects in childhood and foetal development include: Aggravation of asthma Increased cough and bronchitis Low birth weight Infant deaths (due to respiratory and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) Pre-term births Birth defects leading to effects throughout adult life of: Premature ageing”

AQAP Aims “This plan sets out the commitments of Sheffield City Council and its partners to address local air pollutants by 2015. These commitments will help to deliver our ambitions for the environment as set out in “Standing up for Sheffield”, the Council’s Corporate Plan 2011-14 by contributing to the outcomes areas of:

Better Health and Wellbeing

An Environmentally Responsive City

A Great Place to Live”

If this plan goes ahead Chapeltown and surrounding areas will not be a great place to live for at least five years and the health effects will be felt for much longer. The trees are soaking up the pollution and protecting us at the moment. Disturbing the ground will only add to air pollution create poorer health and wellbeing for the whole community for many years and would not be environmentally responsive, in fact quite the opposite.

One of the aims of the AQAP is to expect all new developments to implement or support actions that make a positive contribution to improving air quality. This scheme does not. In fact it does quite the opposite. I would suggest that accepting this plan would have unacceptable adverse impacts on human health from SCC own evidence within the AQAP.

AQAP 6.29“ We will introduce and enforce a planning policy to ensure developments sensitive to air pollution are located in areas where national air quality objectives are achieved, unless they provide overriding regeneration benefits, and sufficient measures to protect air quality are incorporated. For significant developments, notable resulting loss of air quality will need to be appropriately mitigated.”

Ozone (NO2 and PM

10, combine in the

atmosphere to form Ozone) Adverse effects on pulmonary function Lung inflammatory reactions Adverse effects on respiratory symptoms Increase in medication usage Increase in hospital admissions Increase in mortality

Reduction in lung function development

National air quality objectives (See previous notes AQAP 4.2.5) are not achieved and the regeneration benefits will not be seen for the next 30 years. Even then, what is there at the moment is a far richer variety of vegetation than what is proposed for the regeneration (Field surveys (2011) 8.4.12-8.4.17 and restoration overview- Appendix 7.6) Some varieties will never be replaced. There is no monitoring of particulate size. It’s the dust you can’t see that causes damage. Recycoal say that visual inspections of dust raised will be made and all observations will be logged and that wind speed and direction will be taken into account when organising operations. They are relying on a weather station at Bingley. Recycoal sampling procedures for monitoring dust are all reactive when the damage has been done and the particulate matter has already affected the air quality. Their monitoring procedures are totally unacceptable. Recycoal 6.1.3 “The monitoring procedures and results will be reviewed every month to ensure that the results conform to the trigger levels (2.5%) utilising the sticky pad method. The 2.5% has been chosen as this is the level where dust is likely to cause complaints.” Recycoal 6.2 Sampling Procedures Sticky Pads 6.2.1 “The monitoring of total dust deposition will be carried out using sticky pads or adhesive tape. The tape is wrapped around a barrel and mounted vertically in a field so that the direction of any dust source can be identified. The concentration of particles deposited on the tape will be measured using a reflectometer.” Frisbee Type Deposit Gauge 6.2.2 “The Frisbee type deposit gauge consists of a lipped bowl with a central hollow tube, which connects the base of the bowl to a plastic collection bottle underneath. Dust particles, which settle in the bowl, are carried by rainwater through the central tube into the plastic bottle. The assembly is held in a metal container standing on a tripod which is securely anchored to level ground with metal pegs. The bottle will be changed every calendar month and its contents analysed by an independent UKAS accredited laboratory for pH, electro-conductivity, dissolved and undissolved solids, following procedures contained in BS2690, BS6068 and ISO 7888.” Environmental defender article explains how to make a simple gravimetric (Frisbee type) dust monitor by securing a 6 “ diameter funnel to the top of a clean 2 litre plastic bottle and fastening in a secure location, total cost approx. £2.00. All that this would tell us is what came out of the air, but not what type of particles they are or when they were actually collected. This is not a scientific way to establish the amount of air pollution. Recycoal 6.2.3“In the event that the Frisbee type deposit gauge monitoring indicates that the emissions have exceeded 200mgm-2day-1, the operations will be reviewed and amended to ensure that dust emissions are minimised or contained on site.” AQAP 6.30 “The City Council is currently undertaking a review of the way in which air quality is assessed as part of the Planning Application process. We will expect all new developments to implement or support actions that make a positive contribution to improving air quality.” This plan has no proper assessment of particulate matter including NO2. Their monitoring process relies totally on the dust that you can see. This does not cause the damage to human health. Published research confirms that both PM2.5 and PM1 particulates produced by removing coal, especially if toxic waste is present due to unknown tipping, CAUSE new cases of asthma to develop in children and adults as well as exacerbating those who already have it. How can this improve air quality? It would be adding to the problem of air pollution and have unacceptable adverse impacts on human health.

AQAP 6.35 “Continued control of industrial emissions should progressively reduce fine particle (PM

10) emissions from industry, with nitrogen dioxide (NO

2) being maintained.”

Nitrogen dioxide would be increased with all the diesel HGV’s, and fine particles would increase. AQAP 10.6 Brunekreef and Holgate (2002) Air pollution and health. The Lancet Vol 360 p 1233-1242 “The number of hospital admissions rises with the increased concentrations of fine particles (PM

10). Admissions for patients over 65 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

(COPD) or asthma rise 1% per extra 10µg/m3 PM

10, and admission for people with cardiovascular

disease go up 0.5% with the same concentration increase.” AQAP 10.7 Maheswaran R, Haining RP, Brindley P, Law J, Pearson T, Fryers PR, Wise S, &Campbell MJ (2005a) Outdoor air pollution, mortality, and hospital admissions from coronary heart disease in Sheffield, UK: a small-area level ecological study, in European Hearth Journal 2543-2549 Maheswaran R, Haining RP, Brindley P, Law J, Pearson T, Fryers PR, Wise S, & Campbell MJ (2005b) Outdoor air pollution and stroke in Sheffield, United Kingdom: a small-area level geographical study, in Stroke 36:239-243 “ Maheswaran and colleagues from the University of Sheffield found 6% of coronary heart disease deaths and 11% of stroke deaths in Sheffield were attributable to a rise in PM10 and NO2. This work, based on figures from 1994-1998, for people aged 45 modelled air pollution data for a number of pollutants including fine particles (PM

10) and

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and took into account age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation and smoking

prevalence.” AQAP10.8 Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (2006) Cardiovascular Disease and Air Pollution London: Department of Health “National committees have also shown that exposure to air pollutants in both the short and long term impacts on development of cardiovascular disease and leads to an increase in hospital admissions and an increase in the risk of death.” AQAP 10.9 Based on a current Sheffield population of 547,000 and the effects of a reduction being the same in Sheffield as in London. “A recent study based on the greater London Population of 7.6 million found that reducing fine particles (PM

2.5) by 1µg/m

3 would gain 400,000 years of life for the current population of London.

Extrapolated to Sheffield this would mean a saving of 28,000 years of life for the current population of Sheffield(Based on a current Sheffield population of 547,000 and the effects of a reduction being the same in Sheffield as in London.)

“

AQAP 10.10“The number of Hospital admissions rises with the increased concentrations of fine particles (PM

10). Admissions for patients over 65 with COPD or asthma increase 1% per extra

10µg/m3 PM

10 and admission for people with cardiovascular disease go up 0.5% with the same

concentration increase. The target, which is being exceeded for Sheffield for fine particles (PM10

),

is an annual average mean of 40µg/m3 plus a daily mean not to exceed 50µg/m

3 more than 35

times a year.”

AQAP 10.11 Taken from www.nhscomparitors.nhs.uk Date accessed: 2 Aug 2010 Adult and Childhood Asthma Health Needs Assessment October 2008 Sue Thackray and Andrew Booth Public health Department NHS Sheffield. “In Sheffield there were 647 emergency admissions for asthma (average 1.8% rate) in 2008/2009, which while lower than the Yorkshire or national average represents only part of the admissions that potentially are affected by elevated air pollution ( Per 100 patients on disease register.)”

From presentation by Sue Thackray ‘COPD care: opportunities’ at the Quality Improvement Academy 30 April 2010 “Tinsley, the area of Sheffield most exposed to air pollution from the M1, has a particularly high level of hospital admissions for COPD and asthma.”

All this evidence of the effects that No2 and PM10 and PM2.5 particles must mean that there will be unacceptable adverse impacts on human health in the Chapeltown and surrounding areas. Recycoal have done no proper monitoring to show that they will not create these air pollutants and there is lots of evidence to prove that they will increase the air pollution.

Noise

NPPF para:123. Planning policies and decisions should aim to: ●avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; ●mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions; ●recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and ●identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason. RecyCoal's supporting information on noise is minimal and acts only to satisfy the most basic of assessments of the potential impact on the major residential areas affected by this application. the noise monitoring undertaken was conducted on a day when the estate was visited by refuse collection services and this is considered as a typical level of noise by report. Similarly the areas of Cowley Drive, Woodburn Drive and Glenwood Crescent have no assessment for background noise before 0815 or after 1701, thus taking little account of the likely affect of the proposed 0700 starting time or the proposed finishing time of 1900 for the site activity nor any account for the night time operation. In contrast however, the report does highlight "Constant birdsong. Distant sound of vehicle movements on the local road network." and "Noise from constant vehicle movements along the M1 Motorway and Cowley Hill " thus identifying the tranquillity of parts of the estate and the potential noise pollution caused by the M1 motorway it is therefore self evident that night time operations located on the estate side of the M1 will contribute to noise levels on the estate and consequently RecyCoal's noise assessment does not meet the requirements of NPPF para: 123.

Environmental Impact Hesley Wood Spoil Tip

The application by RecyCoal is required to meet the following sections of the National Planning policy Framework: -

NPPF para:110. In preparing plans to meet development needs, the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment. Plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework.

NPPF para:149. Permission should not be given for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations; or if not, it provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission.

NPPF para:165. Planning policies and decisions should be based on up-to-date information about the natural environment and other characteristics of the area including drawing, for example, from River Basin Management Plans. Working with Local Nature Partnerships where appropriate, this should include an assessment of existing and potential components of ecological networks. A sustainability appraisal which meets the requirements of the European Directive on strategic environmental assessment should be an integral part of the plan preparation process, and should consider all the likely significant effects on the environment, economic and social factors

NPPF para:166. Local Plans may require a variety of other environmental assessments, including under the Habitats Regulations where there is a likely significant effect on a European wildlife site (which may not necessarily be within the same local authority area), Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and assessments of the physical constraints on land use. Wherever possible, assessments should share the same evidence base and be conducted over similar timescales, but local authorities should take care to ensure that the purposes and statutory requirements of different assessment processes are respected.

In respect of the environmental requirements Wardell Armstrong have submitted a number of Appendices namely: -

Appendix 8.1 Badger Activity Survey, conducted by Neil Madden on 11th November 2011

Appendix 8.2 Bat Activity report v1, conducted by E Jennings on 1st September 2011

Appendix 8.3 Breeding Bird Survey v1, conducted by Joshua Broster over the period April to June 2011

Appendix 8.4 Herpetofauna Report 2011 v1, conducted by E Jennings during May 2011

Appendix 8.5 Invertebrate Report, conducted by Paul Lee over the period August to September 2011

Appendix 8.6 Extended Phase 1 Report and Extended Phase 1 report v1, produced by S Rodgers on 2nd August 2011

These appendices fail to meet the basic requirements of the NPPF paragraphs set out above on the following basis: -

Validity

Examination of these reports has given rise to serious concerns over their validity to be included as supporting evidence to this planning application as all reports took place in 2011 and in the

majority of cases all surveys are considered, by the authors, to have a finite lifespan and with concluding recommendations that they should be repeated if work does not commence within 12 months of them being conducted.

Appendix 8.1 "However, due to the suitability of the habitats present within the site, a re-inspection to detect any colonisation should be undertaken if development does not commence within 12 months of this survey date. " Appendix 8.2 "4.5 If works do not commence within one year of the survey (twelve months will have elapsed on 1st September 2012) an update survey will be required." Appendix 8.3 "6.6 It is recommended that if the works do not commence within 12 months of the date of these surveys, new breeding bird surveys should be undertaken. The first phase of surveys will have elapsed between 1st April and 1st June 2012." Appendix 8.4 "5.4.1 Amphibian and reptiles are highly mobile and populations can fluctuate annually. It is recommended that repeat surveys are undertaken if development of the site has not commenced within 2013." Appendix 8.6 "5.3.1 An updated survey should be undertaken if more than 12 months have elapsed since the date of this survey (12 months will have elapsed on 2nd August 2012)." Limitations

The authors of several reports comment upon the limitations of the survey methodology, notably "time of year" and this could distort the actual ecology of the site and consequently these surveys should be repeated at the correct time of the year to ensure that no species of interest have been missed.

Appendix 8.2

"3.2.7 A number of noctule bats were observed shortly after dusk foraging in the canopies of birch Betula pendula trees on the eastern boundary of the site. Due to distance between the surveyor and bats, it was not possible to record their echolocation."

Appendix 8.3

" 5.4 The suitability of the site for wintering birds was not assessed but the site is deemed likely to support overwintering thrushes and foraging parties of tits and finches with potential for Schedule 1 listed fieldfare (Turdus pilaris), redwing (Turdus iliacus) and brambling (Fringilla montifringilla)."

Appendix 8.5

"The ideal period for surveying many of the invertebrate groups important in assessing site quality is April to September with most species, especially those of woodland, active in May or June. This survey would therefore have missed many of the species that would be active during these months."

"A disturbed area of ground providing a mosaic of bare earth and ruderal vegetation is potentially of great value as an invertebrate habitat. However during the course of this survey few specialist bare ground species were detected, the major ones being the Andrena and Halictus bees which require banks of warm, bare substrate in which to excavate nesting burrows. These bees were collected whilst nectaring at flowers and the location of their nest burrows was not discovered. The low cliffs and other areas of bare soil could be important habitat features and may be worthy of further investigation earlier in the season when greater activity of bees and wasps would make it easier to locate high concentrations of nest burrows."

"Despite the lateness of the season, the presence of a species assemblage associated with a rich flower resource is indicative of a potentially important habitat feature i.e. the pollen and nectar provided by the ruderal vegetation. However, yet again, the timing of the survey was not suitable to assess the value of this habitat feature adequately."

"The longest established areas of woodland at both the northern and southern ends of the site contained a significant dead wood resource. However, it is difficult to assess the importance of this resource on the basis of this survey. The presence of a single species associated with the A212 bark and sapwood decay assemblage is not unexpected in any wooded area and more specialised survey techniques would be required to survey adequately for other members of the species assemblage."

Appendix 8.6

"Badger

5.1.3 The site provides suitable habitat for badger; in light of this and anecdotal and desk study reports of badger within 2km of the site boundary, a detailed survey for badger within the site and 30m zone of influence is recommended. Badger survey can be undertaken at any time of year but is most effective during the winter months when vegetation is less dense."

"Bats

5.1.4 The site provides foraging opportunities for bat species and a bat activity survey is recommended between May and September to identify bat species and abundance across the site."

"Terrestrial Invertebrates

5.1.8 The site is capable of supporting an important terrestrial invertebrate fauna; in light of the records of dingy skipper in particular, a scoping survey for terrestrial invertebrates is recommended. This should be undertaken by a suitably experienced entomologist at the appropriate time of year to detect dingy skipper."

Conflicting opinion re habitat

In the primary report re adders et al the ecologist describes the habitat as unlikely to support adders however the Forestry Commission describes a habitat very similar to that found on the fringes of the site and in particular the areas adjacent to Glenwood Crescent. they also comment upon the large distances between breeding and hibernating habitats which has not been considered by the ecologist.

Appendix 8.4

"4.2.2 It is considered unlikely that adders are present within the site or its adjacent habitats as they are generally absent from urban areas and prefer heathland,moorland or dense grassland with low scrub"

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/adder consulted 18 august 2012

"Habitat Adders are relatively common in areas of rough, open countryside and are often associated with woodland edge habitats. They are less inclined to disappear into the surrounding undergrowth when disturbed and so are probably the most frequently seen of the three British snakes. The best time to see them is in early spring when they emerge from their hibernation dens. By mid April, the males have shed their dull winter skin and are ready to mate."

"Breeding Following mating, females seek out a suitable place to give birth, often travelling over 1 kilometre from the hibernation site. Births take place in late August / early September. Unlike most reptiles, adders do not lay eggs. Young snakes are born about the size and shape of an earthworm, but a perfect miniature of the adult snake."

http://www.crislis.co.uk/adder/adder_in_britain.htm consulted 19th August 2012

"The Adder is found in many different habitats and is found throughout England, Scotland and Wales. Heathlands, moors, chalk downland, woodland rides and borders are all favoured by this snake. It can also be found in coastal dunes, cliff-tops, on rough commons, overgrown quarries, field edges and railway embankments. They seem to require undisturbed sunny places usually near some thick cover. It will occasionally venture into gardens".

In addition we have consulted Dr N Rivers of Sheffield Wildlife Trust and she has asked that we include the following submission from her: -

"Dear Jean

Thank you for your latest information which does indeed highlight some issues around the timing and age of some of the surveys. I apologise for not spotting this myself – at the moment, we have very little time to deal with planning issues – I only work part time (which is why I have not been in when you have tried to contact us) and planning is just a small part of my job. However, I do intend to seek a qualified planning volunteer which should help in the future.

Anyway, at the end of this mail I have made some comments on the ecological surveys. I already submitted a comment on the application and I think it is too late for me to amend it – but feel free to use my comments below to attach to your letter. In response to Recycoal mentioning the possibility of working with The Wildlife Trust in the future management of the site – my colleague Nick White – Principle Ecologist for Wildscapes (our consultancy arm) is meeting with Recycoal next week – so this could be interesting. I have copied Nick into this email. Nick will also make contact with Notts WT who were involved in a similar Recycoal scheme to see what their experience was.

Ben and colleagues have had a look at the photo of the snake you provided. To be honest we feel it is difficult to tell from these photographs whether it is an adder or dark grass snake – Ben’s feeling is that it is more likely be a grass snake, but without a photo of the head it is difficult to be sure. As you can see below I highlighted the potential presence of Adders in my comment on the planning application

Below is the comment I submitted on the application before the deadline which I wrote after speaking with the Council ecologist and yourself.

”Local members have been in touch concerned about the loss of wildlife at this site which has established over a number of years. However, we have read the Ecology Report which does not note any thing of significant concern, the site is not protected and the ancient woodland would not be part of the development. On this basis, we would not object to the proposal, dependent on an appropriate scheme and management being put in place for after the extraction. We have looked at the plans for the site after the extraction and it looks like a good scheme that could be beneficial to Sheffield's wildlife in the long term (despite disruption). We would like to stay consulted about the after-care scheme and management there is still a question about long-term management. However, we cannot fully support the application at present as we have heard reports of adders using the site which has not been noted in the reports & recommend a survey to ensure adder populations are not negatively affected.”

Comments on the ecological surveys – you can use

Having looked again at the ecological surveys carried out for this site, one of our members has alerted us to the fact that some of the surveys were not carried out at the optimum time of year and/or need repeating/checking before any work commences. In particular, in light of the ecology report (appendix 8.3 and 8.6), we recommend a winter bird survey is carried out and a winter badger survey carried out. We would also recommend a phased approach to words to enable invertebrates (particularly the dingy skipper butterfly) to survive on patches of suitable habitat. We would recommend a late spring/early summer (ideally May) entomology survey to confirm the best areas of the sites for invertebrates. We are unsure what the plans are in terms of phasing.

We recommend that the SCC Ecologist (Julie Westfold) is consulted about whether repeat surveys/checks prior to works should be a condition of the planning application or in some cases carried out in advance.

Regards

Nicky Dr Nicola Rivers

Living Landscape Development Manager Wildlife Trust for Sheffield and Rotherham Usual working days: Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Tel: 0114 2792645 (direct line - no answermachine) Tel: 0114 2634335 (reception) www.wildsheffield.com"

Local green space

NPPF para: 77. The Local Green Space designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space. The designation should only be used: ●where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; ●where the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and ●where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land. NPPF para: 144. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should: ●give great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction, including to the economy; ●as far as is practical, provide for the maintenance of landbanks of non energy minerals from outside National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and World Heritage sites, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas; ●ensure, in granting planning permission for mineral development, that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety, and take into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality; ●ensure that any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties; ●not grant planning permission for peat extraction from new or extended sites; ●provide for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards, through the application of appropriate conditions, where necessary. Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be sought in exceptional circumstances; ●not normally permit other development proposals in mineral safeguarding areas where they might constrain potential future use for these purposes; ●consider how to meet any demand for small-scale extraction of building stone at, or close to, relic quarries needed for the repair of heritage assets, taking account of the need to protect designated sites; and ●recognise the small-scale nature and impact of building and roofing stone quarries, and the need for a flexible approach to the potentially long duration of planning permissions reflecting the intermittent or low rate of working at many sites. We believe that Hesley Wood Spoil tip is considered by the local residents in this way and as such has become an integral part of the local amenities and landscape, it attracts wildlife and is well established as a regenerating landscape which is blending into the area, part of the application site is currently the Scout Activity Centre which attracts visitors and groups to the area to access the rural environment provided by the site.

Environment assessment of wheel wash facility

Nowhere within the RecyCoal submission is there an assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed wheel wash facility or a discussion of how the wash medium will be treated and disposed of. The purpose of the wheel wash is to stop road contamination by the vehicles leaving the site, however, the wash will also remove any contaminants present on the vehicles that could originate for vehicle operation and travel to site e.g. brake dust, diesel particulates, other road surface particulates, hydraulic fluids etc. As the vehicles are washed these contaminants are displaced and enter the wheel wash reservoirs to be re-circulated onto other vehicles as they pass through the facility. RecyCoal have not undertaken any assessment of the contaminants likely to be present or provided detail of waste treatment and or filtration systems to be applied, this omission represents a serious breach in Health and Safety considerations for the site and the area.

Flooding

Parts of the area are classified as Medium probability for flood risk and following the floods in 2007 the area has become sensitised to the risk of flooding, indeed the area suffered from localised flooding (Falding Street) and standing surface water (Cowley Lane/Woodburn Drive) on Saturday 25th August 2012. The outflow water from the tip is culverted under properties on Woodburn Drive and the increased water flow after the removal of trees from the site and the disturbance to the current site surface will increase the risk of flooding of Blackburn brook which is the discharge point for the culvert. Even after the operation the threat will not diminish significantly as it is RecyCoal's intention to use the culvert as a major outflow route for surface water from the site.

Appendix 7.6

6.1.2 Discharge will be through the existing drainage systems located at the south west corner of the site. It is intended that the east of the site including the scout land will feed into the Cowley Hill drain and the remainder of the site into the culvert running through and under properties on Woodburn Drive.

Traffic

The traffic assessment is based upon data which makes little or no reference to the increased traffic flow resulting from the development of the Smithywood site and the modified junctions at Cowley Lane/Cowley Hill and Cowley Lane /Nether Lane. We understand that additional planning applications for the site have been approved and in particular one for a Parcel Force Depot which will considerably increase traffic volumes at junction 35 of the M1 and Cowley Lane. There is currently unofficial car share parking taking place on Smithywood Road and if this application is approved these vehicles will be displaced resulting in further congestion on Cowley Lane, or Cowley Hill or the residential area of Woodburn Drive.

In considering this application it is the belief of CRAG that RecyCoal fail to satisfy the above NPPF requirements and therefore the application should be rejected.

Yours sincerely

Jean Howe Cert. Ed, Dip. Ed, NPQH (Chair)

Paul Brackenbury MA BA MInstLM MIfL (Deputy Chair)