Duke says he will lie down before the Coal Board bulldozers

Press, 14 August 1980, Page 17

Duke says he will lie down before the Coal Board bulldozers

From

JOHN WILSON

in Loudon

Two hundred years after the Industrial Revolution began in England, it would seem a . reasonable assumption ' that industrialists have long since had their way in any area with resources, worth exploiting. But British conservationists still become involved in controversies that would seem more appropriate in a young country like New Zealand than in long-industrialised England.

The most important of these present-day controversies was the subject of an 83-day inquiry from October, 1979, to April, 1980. Nearly 200 witnesses placed three and a half million words on record. When the inquiry report is released later this year the controversy, nowquiescent, is likely to revive.

To visitors travelling through it, and to those who live there, the Vale

of Belvoir, lying between the industrial city of Nottingham and the market tow-n of Grantham, is rural England at its lovliest — attractive farmsteads and small villages dotted over some of England’s richest agricultural land.

To the National Coal Board, however, the area is the North-East Leicestershire Prospect; and a good prospect it is, for beneath the low hills and shallow- Valleys lie millions of tonnes of coal. Twenty, years ago. holes drilled in the area in search of oil disclosed the existence of very large reserves of coal, up to 1300 M tonnes. The discoveries were then of only passing interest. The dramatic changes in energy prices changed that. The Coal Board is now anxious to sink three newpits to recover more than 500 M tonnes of Belvoir coal, with an annual output of 7M tonnes over a period of about 70 years. The Coal Board has based its case on the estimated future demand for coal and the need to produce it in Britain at prices competitive with alternative sources of energy, in- ' eluding coal imports.. The board has claimed that Belvoir coal is essential to meet Britain’s energy needs. A large part of the output would be burned in power stations. along the Trent. Willing to put money where its mouth is,the Coal Board spent an estimated $2.2 million presenting its case to the inquiry. - Objectors' questioned the board’s claim, qoting Department of Energy forecasts about the amount of coal needed for power generation. They claimed that the proposed $l5OO million investment was “highly speculative,” and that energy conservation, the use of cheap imported coal, and the greater availability of natural gas offset any need to develop . the field w-ith any haste. They also argued that even if there is a need for the coal, the need should not be met by despoiling the Vale of Belvoir.

Local objectors spoke of the rural charm of hamlets and by-ways, of the’ threat to the production of

Stilton cheese, and of the danger to the conservation villages, listing buildings and ecological and archaeological sites in the area. The loss of up to 1550 ha of good farming land was mentioned.

A notable member of the local alliance of farmers, parish councils, and environmental groups is the Duke of Rutland, whose family seat is Belvoir Castle. Some years back, the Duke swore to lie down in front of any Coal Board bulldozers.-

The promise introduced some light moments into the controversy. Car stickers appeared proclaiming: “I’ll lie dow-n with the Duke”. The Coal Board countered w-ith a claim that it has local volunteers willing to drive the first bulldozer over the Duke’s body. As this claim suggests not all people in the area are opposed to the Coal Board. As existing. coal pits in Leicestershire and south Nottinghamshire are

closed, SOW) mining jobs will disappear. The 3800 mining jobs the Belvoir field w-ill create would he welcome to unemployed miners and their families.

The inquiry report may well try to find a compromise between the two positions, perhaps by suggesting a single " shaft rather than the three proposed by the board, or by imposing a requirement that spoil should not be tipped locally. Such compromises would make Belvoir coal more expensive, but this may be an inevitable cost of finding a middle way . between energy demands and the demands of the environment.

Even if the report suggests a compromise acceptable to those determined to preserve the area's present rural character’ the controversy could still flare up again. The present British Government might easily be of a mind to. reject, on economic grounds, any compromise that makes Belvoir coal more expensive than it need be. The Duke of Rutland may yet have to live up to his promise.