Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Potash Planning: “Crank it Up!”
An update on one of the three main outstanding ‘issues’, that of hydrology, has been submitted in response to the Potash ‘Project’.
“The Environment Agency OBJECT to the planning application submitted on the basis that inadequate information has been provided … in relation to the (TWO) following matters . . .
Groundwater Protection – The impact the sub surface elements of the development will have on groundwater and its associated springs, watercourses, abstractions and habitats;
Foul Drainage Disposal – The impact the proposed foul drainage discharg from the welfare facilities will have on Sneaton Thorpe Beck and adjacent waterbodies .
The ‘buzz’ words being;
“Overcoming our Objection . . . insufficient information . . . independent terrestrial ecosystems . . . mitigation measures.”
To summarise, the Environment Agencies OBJECTS to the present application because York Potash have not supplied the correct information that allows the Environment Agency to approve. The main contention being Groundwater protection, with more submissions needed, with guidance given on how to achieve approval status. Mainly to do with the management of sub-terranean hydrology, sub-aquifiers and the risks associated with extremes conditions of drought and flood.
The secondary consideration of Foul Drainage Disposal is more clear cut, my surmise is that they are requesting that a mains based drainage system is installed. End of.
That said, the Environment Agency seem to be bending over – backwards to try and assist this project adding comment to the Major Development Test and further adding regarding the siting of the mine;
“. . . we are likely to have objected in principle had the mine-head been proposed within a Source Protection Zone 1. Whilst we would not necessarily have objected in principle had the minehead been proposed within other Source Protection Zones or on the Corallian Limestone principal aquifer further south, the degree of risk to the groundwater resource would have been considerably higher. As such we welcome that the minehead proposed has successfully avoided these more sensitive locations.”
Next Steps – given that we are currently objecting due to the lack of information, our preference would be for determination of the application to be deferred in order to allow York Potash to assemble the necessary information.
Should the National Park Authority be minded to grant planning permission contrary to our current objections, we request to be re-consulted and given the opportunity to comment on the inclusion of planning conditions.
We would be pleased to meet with York Potash and their relevant consultants at the earliest opportunity to discuss the additional information needed . . . ”
That reads to me that the Environment Agency have a due responsibility and would like to examine all the risks add infinitum but, should the Park Authority be pressed into making a decision on 2nd July – then just get back to us,
So an agreement in principle, but not in detail.
Looks like the Project still has wings, but some more cranking up before blast off!