An Open Letter: Old Mine Workings Under Packers Field
During the course of the
Packers Field campaign, it was discovered that disused mine
works existed under the site. This is common knowledge to
local people, some of whom remember a shaft opening up in
the early 90s and a user of the field falling into it. There
is substantial evidence to suggest that uncapped mine shafts
could still exist under the site, posing a potential health
and safety risk to works contractors and future users of
the site. This is supported by a report commissioned from
Bristol Coalmining Archives (see below).
The details of our research and the potential risks were
sent to the Health and Safety Executive, Bristol City Council
and the City Academy. The Health and Safety Executive reply
stated that they are unable to deal with matters of this
kind. The responses from Bristol City Council and the Academy,
who do have responsibilities in this area, are felt to have
been evasive and unconvincing. For example, Bristol City
Council do not even have a record of the aforementioned
mine shaft incident, despite it happening on 'their' land,
and the filling of the shaft being organised by themselves.
A number of other shortcomings are outlined below.
Certainly, correspondence with the above parties suggests
that the serious health and safety implications have been
dismissed. Given this perceived lack of interest, we feel
it is in the public interest that the full details of our
report are made available. Below is the original letter
written to the Health and Safety Executive, and also to
the Academy and Bristol City Council. If you have any questions
or concerns it is suggested that you contact these parties
directly, or alternatively your local councillor or Member
of Parliament (Look
here for some contact detail).
Download
this letter as a PDF file (93KB)
Health and Safety Executive
4th Floor, The Pithay
All Saints Street
BRISTOL
BS1 2ND
February 22nd 2006
Complaint to the Health and Safety Executive regarding the
planning application 03/02802/F/C (copy attached) approved
by Bristol City Council (BCC) to allow the City Academy
to develop Whitehall Playing Fields.
The planned development
of Whitehall Playing Fields by the City Academy, under lease
from Bristol City Council, has thrown up a number of omissions
and shortcomings which we feel should be known to the Health
and Safety Executive. Due to a perceived lack of transparency
and due process in past dealings with Bristol City Council
and the City Academy, we are not confident that our concerns
would be addressed impartially by them. We have however
sent a copy of this letter to BCC. We have outlined our
concerns below in as much detail as possible, with reference
to Health and Safety Executive Planning Policy Guidance
14: Development on Unstable Land.
1.) We feel that from our
reading of the PPG14 guidelines both the developer and to
some extent the local authority of potentially unstable
land need to use the best information available in making
planning decisions. In this application we do not feel that
this has happened, for the following reasons;
- We know from our own
commissioned report (copy attached) that a mine shaft opened
on the site in the early 1990's. This is contradicted in
the full planning application documents submitted to the
Development Control Committee of BCC on 14/7/04 which states
"there are no recorded shafts within the site".
We feel this is a particularly striking omission seeing
that Bristol City Council organised the capping of the shaft
in question. This can be verified by John Cornwell from
the Bristol Coal Mining Archive who was asked by Bristol
City Council to be involved in the capping work. In fact
a picture of the open shaft is included in Mr Cornwell's
book about Bristol coal mines, "The Bristol Coalfield"
(Figure 1). Furthermore, when we approached Bristol City
Council about this event, they were unable to state any
knowledge or records of this. This conflicts with Paragraph
2 of the PPG 14, which states that "where instability
problems do arise, they should be adequately recorded so
that the experience gained can be of benefit to the wider
community", and also Paragraph 50, which states
that "The importance of good accessible records
of past events due to ground movement cannot be overemphasised
and any future events due to instability should be adequately
recorded for the wider benefit of the community"
Figure 1: Taken
from "Bristol Coal Fields" By John Cornwell. "An
unlined mid-18th century shaft found at whitehall in the
1990s. This shaft is sunk through Redcliffe Sandstone which
will be about 40 ft thick to work a 5 ft thick coal seam."
- The planning application
documents also state that the only body used to advise on
coal mining activity in the area was the Coal Authority.
No other sources of expertise in this area appear to have
been consulted, specifically the Bristol Coal Mining Archives
Ltd (BCAL). We feel that the developer should have consulted
this organisation in addition to The Coal Authority as a
matter of course. Our reasons for saying this are contained
within a report to The House Of Commons Trade & Industry
Committee, relating to Former Mineshafts (HC495 - 17th July
1996, copy attached). This explicitly states that "the
Coal Authority's records of former mineshafts are incomplete
and sometimes unreliable". Paragraphs 36 and
37 go on to demonstrate the reasons for this and actually
include a specific reference to Bristol, which had particular
circumstances leading to incomplete records.
Furthermore, Bristol City
Council were actually involved in the compilation of the
report to the House Of Commons and stated "BCAL's records
are in some respects more comprehensive than those held
by The Coal Authority". Given the magnitude of this
statement we find it incredible that Bristol City Council
/ the developer have not consulted BCAL with regards to
potential mineworks on the site, especially given Bristol
City Council's past discovery of them. The House of Commons
report also highlights the use of BCAL's data by property
professionals in Bristol, due to a lack of confidence in
the Coal Authority's data.
From our own commissioned
report (copy attached) carried out by BCAL we believe there
to be other mineworks on the site, or at least a very strong
possibility of them. In addition, our report states that
has been substantial subsidence in the area around the site.
We believe these issues to pose serious questions about
health and safety with regards to developing the site.
2.) We believe that even
the information at Bristol City Council's disposal has not
been utilised in accordance with the PPG14 guidelines. The
conclusion of this report (paragraph 51) goes on to say
"The Secretary
of State looks to local planning authorities and planning
developers to implement the advice in these guidelines.
This should ensure that, in most instances, unstable land
is identified at any early stage in the planning process,
appropriate policies are developed for its use and planning
applications are decided on the basis of adequate information."
In fact, the issue of unstable
land / potential mining works is given just 3 lines in the
planning application report. In the section entitled Response
to Publicity and Consultation, advice was taken from external
/ statutory consultees (the Coal Authority):
"The Coal Authority
wrote on 6/11/2003 and advised that whilst the site is within
a likely zone of coal mining preceding 1928, any ground
movement should now have ceased. Additionally, there are
no recorded shafts within the site."
This is the sum total of
consideration of mining activity and its health and safety
implications in the entire planning application put to the
committee. This is in direct contrast to the considerable
amount of space given to other issues, such as the archaeological
impact of the proposed development. Furthermore even these
three lines lack conclusiveness, stating that the site's
past use for coal mining is 'likely', and that ground movement
'should' have ceased. Given this uncertainty, is there not
a duty on the part of the developer to carry out further
investigation to reach a more definite conclusion?
Given the information outlined above, we strongly believe
that there have been serious shortcomings in the application
to develop Whitehall Playing Fields, which could have extremely
serious consequences for those working on the site or using
the facilities in the future. The planned development includes
the construction of new buildings and a car park, which
will necessitate the use of heavy machinery. And although
we are unable to state that there has been deliberate negligence
on the part of Bristol City Council or the City Academy
in making the application, we certainly think that this
should not be dismissed. As individuals who have closely
followed the history of the proposed development, we have
identified countless examples of perceived bad practice
from both parties, which have formed the basis of a lengthy
letter of complaint to the Ombudsman, from whom we are currently
awaiting a formal response.
We hope you will give due
consideration to our concerns over this matter. The City
Academy has stated that development of the site will begin
within the next three months. We do not feel that this work
should be allowed to commence until these issues have been
fully addressed.
Yours Sincerely
Download
this letter as a PDF file (93KB)
