Somehow the the UCAS booklet ( http://www.bridgendchristianschool.co.uk/uni-entry/ ) has been scrambled too. However, I am again happy to help out. You can see this booklet here: https://intranet.arts.ac.uk/registry/staff/documents/ukquals2010.pdf . The school’s website says “Below is the UCAS UK Qualification document that shows which A level grades ICCE percentages are equal to (see page 64).” However, this is hard to substantiate currently. The International Certificate of Christian Education, the qualification delivered by the school, does not get a mention in the list of qualifications currently recognised by UCAS (http://www.ucas.com/students/ucas_tariff/qualifications).

Thankfully, the UCAS staff were very helpful when I called them today. UCAS explain it is entirely at the discretion of the individual institution whether they accept a particular non-listed qualification as relevant to an entry application. As these ICCE qualifications are not on the list that is covered by the UCAS Tariff system, they therefore attract no tariff points. Given the nature of the ICCE qualification, and given that it has been given an approximate equivalence by NARIC (see below), it may be considered, depending on evidence of what was covered and the relevance to the course being applied for. It would seem very unlikely that any University would accept ICCE qualifications in isolation, and that to gain entry to University an ACE educated child would still need to achieve conventional qualifications as well. So at best, the ICCE Advanced Certificate may be considered the equivalent of one ‘A’ level, by a sympathetic university department.

The crude equivalence ascribed to the ICCE is done by NARIC (National Academic Recognition Information Centre). This is the Government recognised organisation that evaluates (for a fee, of course) the equivalence of overseas qualifications. It has come up with its opinion on the value of ICCE certificates, giving some hope for holders of these bits of paper that higher education institutions may consider them. NARIC assessments, however, have only an advisory role, and I have so far failed to find any UCAS institution happy to accept them on their own as meeting entry requirements. (I would love to be corrected on this and find one that does!)

“”Can my child get into University with the ICCE qualifications?. The answer is yes, absolutely” says the website. Economical with the truth, I would suggest.

ICCE are the certificates issued by Accelerated Christian Education, a Tennessee USA (where else?) based fundamental Christian operation (tax-exempt business http://non-profit-organizations.findthebest.com/l/1434409/Accelerated-Christian-Education-Ministries-Inc ), that distributes its wares through Wiltshire based Christian Education Europe.

Its main products are PACE – Packets of Accelerated Christian Education, mostly fill-the-blanks workbooks, explained very nicely here by a young man that was put throuigh the ACE programme, and therefore knows the programme in detail, at first hand:

(Watch it to the end, there is an important message in the last statement.)

How is it delivered? The ACE methodology is clearly shown on their own website: http://www.aceministries.com/curriculum/?content=presentingACE

We could argue about the rights and wrongs of different pedagogies all night, but let us make clear that no reputable education programme uses the techniques seen in this system. It has a great advantage to schools like the Bridgend Christian School in that it does not really require teachers at all, just facilitators with the answer books.

However, we also have to confront the rights and wrongs of lies, miseducation and the plain crazy.

Take a look at these small samples of content of the ACE curriculum:
http://leavingfundamentalism.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/top-5-lies-told-by-accelerated-christian-education/
http://leavingfundamentalism.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/5-even-worse-lies-from-accelerated-christian-education/

Now, let us pause, calm down (if you are as agitated as I was when I first saw this litany of nonsense) and collect our thoughts here for a few moments.

Those that know me will know my views on religion. Those that know me well will also know that I do not like banning things, censoring people and imposing limits on freedom of speech. I will defend anybody’s freedom to spout any garbage they want, while equally insisting that nobody has the right to not be offended.

Johann Hari expresses it perfectly (in his column in the Independent talking about Geert Wlders – I have lost the exact reference details – sorry!)

“Free speech is for the stupid and the wicked and the wrong – just as much as it is for the rational and the right. All I say is that they do not have the right to force it on other people or to silence the other side. …. The solutions to the problems of free speech – that sometimes people say terrible things – is always and irreducibly, more free speech. If you don’t like what a person says, argue. Make a better case. Persuade people.”

So here goes. The essence of the problem here is not whether parents have the right to their religion, or even whether they have the right to bring their children up in their religion. The real question is whether or not they have the right to deny their children the right to a balanced education and to also thoroughly indoctrinate their children with what are essentially cult views. Even amongst the masses of the religiously deluded, only a very tiny percentage subscribe to the ridiculous (funda)mentalist views built into the ACE programme. If that is not a definition of a cult, I do not know what is.

So much for ACE education, it is more like CRAP education:

Christian Retrograde Academic Pap.

Green Party Policy is clear and robust on these issues:

ED170 Education should include a celebration and recognition of religious and cultural diversity and spirituality. Education should encourage critical engagement with, and non-dogmatic exposure to, diverse, sometimes competing, world views and beliefs – whether based on culture, religion or spirituality.
ED171 Within that framework the Green Party recognises the right of parents to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

ED172 We recognise the importance of human values and the moral dimension in learning, and the role they play in different belief systems.

ED173 We will seek to cater for these rights and needs through ensuring that children and young people can practice their faith in schools, for example by providing prayer space for those who need or wish to practice their religion regularly.
ED174 At the same time we will abolish the requirement for a compulsory daily act of worship. Schools which choose to continue to hold acts of worship will provide an alternative activity for learners who choose not to take part. Pupils who do not participate in worship will not suffer any form of discrimination.

ED175 Religious instruction, as distinct from religious education in understanding different religions may only take place outside of school curriculum time.

ED176 No publicly-funded school shall be run by a religious organisation. Schools may teach about religions, comparing examples which originated in each continent, but are prohibited from delivering religious instruction in any form or encouraging adherence to any particular religious belief.

ED177 Privately-funded schools run by religious organisations must reflect the inclusive nature of British society and become part of the Local authority admissions system. This non-discriminatory approach will be extended to staff who must not be discriminated against in faith schools due to their own faith either in seeking employment or during employment.

ED178 Opt-outs from equality and diversity legislation will not be allowed for faith schools and they will not be permitted to promote homophobia or transphobia on the grounds of religion.

Many would go further. Several authors have been critical of religious indoctrination of children, such as Nicolas Humphrey, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins use the term ‘child abuse’ to describe the harm that some religious upbringings inflict on children.They claim that children are especially vulnerable to mental harms related to religion, including:

• Terrorised by threats of punishment, such as eternal damnation in a fiery hell
• Extreme guilt about normal, healthy sexual functions
• Trained to disrespect science and reason
• Indoctrinated into a particular religious faith, thus depriving the child of the opportunity to make their own free inquiry later, when they are mature.

But as if this was not all bad enough, the ACE curriculum goes beyond religious indoctrination, and as the youtube video above shows, goes into the realms of political Indoctrination too. Good examples were seen in the youtube video above. The programme is vehemently anti-communist and pro unfettered free trade and capitalism. It is also very much anti-Roman Catholicism – so it is not that I disagree with everything they preach!

Their website contains one more set of big surprises – the list of claimed supporters ( )

Most of those listed are not very surprising, but I wonder what big corporations, such as Ford, EMI and Benq, are doing being seen to be supporters of this bunch of crackpots. I will just have to write tom them and find out (watch this space).

Do I want to see these ACE/CRAP schools closed down? No.

Do I want to see these schools close down? Yes.

What is the difference in these statements, you may ask?

Ideally, I want to see the schools close because the parents realise they are paying money for a CRAP education. (The fees for the Bridgend Christian School are a mere £2000 a year, compared to the £10,000 a year you would pay at a typical reputable Independent.) The website tells us the staff are low paid. It leaves us to surmise why. Because of their love of the MIssion, perhaps. Because they have no teaching qualifications, perhaps. I would love to know what qualifications Debbie Merridew, the Science teacher has. The bottom line is you get what you pay for!

They are paying to have their kids exposed to abysmal pedagogy and plain idiotic curriculum, in the name of thoroughly indoctrinating their offspring into their dubious values and ridiculous beliefs. The system is designed on tried and tested methods to subjugate critical faculties and produce blind obedience. It is the way cults have worked for millennia.

The problem, of course, is that the people that patronise establishments are not likely to ‘see the light’. But what about the kids? The Estyn report suggests that they are happy enough and certainly well-behaved and mutually respectful and supportive. There are certainly kids in Bridgend in far more harmful environments. There is no suggestion that Bridgend Christian School utilises biblical punishment regimes, as documented in some similar schools.

So long as not a single penny of public money goes to these charlatans, and so long as we do not shy away from publicly declaring our views on what they are doing, I am not convinced we should do much more. But then again ………

What do you think?

(Andy Chyba)

P.S. Bridgend Christian School closed down and the operating company dissolved at the end of the Summer Term 2015.

• Romayne Phoenix – http://romayneandwillforgreenleadership.org.uk/ and http://romaynephoenix.co.uk/
• Peter Cranie – http://petercranie.org.uk/
• Pippa Bartolotti – http://pippabartolotti.com/
• Natalie Bennett – http://www.natalie4leader.org/

An Englishman, a Scotsman, a Welshman and an Australian man went into an Irish pub ………Except three of them were women and this was no joke, but the very serious matter of working out who is the best person to take over from Caroline Lucas as Leader of the Green Party of England & Wales. I do not propose to cover the content of their addresses and answers to questions from the audience, as their views and stance on key issues can be seen on their websites (see links above).

I know of quite a lot of Greens who dislike the notion of a leader altogether, but I believe they have two key roles to play:

1. The public face of the Party, which in these media focused times can be crucial.
2. Strategic leadership – in terms of marshalling resources and optimising the fruits of our labours

The first point is the reason why many shy away from the notion of leaders altogether, but in the world we live in today, it would be a high risk strategy to swim against this particular tide. And I don’t think anyone could say that Caroline was not a big success in this role and thereby has been an asset to us all.

So in terms of this aspect of the role, how do the the candidates shape up?

All are highly intelligent and confident, articulate people, as I am sure you would expect, but as much as we may despise it, this aspect of the job boils down to persona, charisma and communication skills.

For me, this rules out Natalie and Pippa, for very different reasons.
Pippa has charisma in abundance, as we all know locally, but she can get a little carried away at times, meander a little, and be prone to the occasional gaffe. She is a fantastic campaigner, and great motivator, but I believe her skills are best used locally rather than on the national stage.
Natalie is a tremendous intellect and has achieved fantastic things in terms of re-shaping the national party already (especially for women), and although she is a media person (newspaper editor), her medium is the written word. I simply cannot see Natalie coming across well on TV and radio, and I believe this is a crucial consideration. She will, I am sure, be a key player in the future of the Party, but not, for me, as Leader.

So this leaves Peter and Romayne.
I have not seen or heard much of Peter before this campaign. He is a canny operator, for sure. He says the right things, and has an air of confidence and grit about him, but still manages to leave me a little cold. He needs a sprinkle of that magic ingredient, charisma. The regulation suit and shirt (thankfully no tie) do not help. He is close to the real deal, but maybe too much of a safe option. He has a great shot at becoming an MEP, and I would urge him to focus and make that his priority. The more electoral success we can muster, again, the better for all of us.
This leaves Romayne. If I am honest, Romayne was not quite at her sparkling best last night, seeming a tad weary, but she has a proven track record of electoral campaigning success (in Lewisham), national campaign leadership (with the Coalition of Resistance) and a down to earth, straight talking, feisty style that I believe will connect the best of the four with our target audience. Prominent in Green Left, she is also the most convincing Eco-socialist for me.

As for strategic leadership, they all have a lot to offer, but again, not necessarily in the Leader’s role.
Pippa has only just taken over the reigns of the Wales Green Party Leadership and, despite claiming business leadership skills, has yet to prove she has what it takes to shape an efficient Party machine. In some ways this may have come a little too early for her. I am keen to see what she can do in terms of licking Wales Green Party into shape before wishing to endorse her for national leadership.
Natalie comes across as having a strong vision of where she wants to take the Party, and I share much of the vision she lays out, but I have nagging doubts about her style and ability to carry people with her. She can be abrasive and I suspect talk of ‘making the party fit for purpose’ may not go down well with some senior figures in the Party who have brought us to where we are today.

Peter has a particularly strong vision of what is needed to help us here at the grass roots and has a strong socialist agenda in terms of human rights, housing etc., but I am unconvinced about his long term vision for the party. He talks repeatedly about being against ‘debt capitalism’ as if the right type of capitalism may be ok. I feel confident that he would help the Party develop and, as I said before, be a relatively safe pair of hands, but is this enough, I keep asking myself? One huge advantage he does have is that, with the Party constitution as it currently stands, he would probably come packaged with the very impressive Alexandra Phillips as his Deputy – http://alexfordeputy.org.uk/ . They have similar priorities and I believe Alex offers leadership skills that could effectively complement Peter’s. How well they know each other and would work together, I am not sure. (Update: please read comment below  from Caroline Allen – also a candidate for Deputy)

This again leaves me with Romayne, on balance, as my preferred choice. Romayne not only has the fullest, most rounded CV for the job, but she has the strongest socialist, anti-capitalist vision. She does not come across as a career politician, but as passionate would-be revolutionary (peaceful, of course). She also comes with a declared running mate, in Will Duckworth. Again, he provides complementary qualities and they come with an assured symbiosis between the two of them. Some may perceive them as a riskier option to Peter/Alex, but I firmly believe that we need to be more outspoken and provocative, but in a controlled and measured way. If we want to start ridding ourselves of the white, middle-class, do-gooder image, and start connecting with the disaffected, disillusioned traditional Labour voter, then it simply has to be Romayne and Will.

The first was broadcast on the lunchtime news bulletin:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01kdrq2/The_Radio_Wales_PhoneIn_06_07_2012/ from 1:01:12 to 1:04:04

I was then called to the Llandaff studios for an interview on Good Evening Wales to respond directly to an interview they had recorded earlier in the day with Gerwyn Williams.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01kdrq6/Good_Evening_Wales_06_07_2012/

Gerwyn’s segment can be found between 32:15 and 38:52, but unfortunately, the second half of the programme is not playing at the moment.

When you listen to Gerwyn’ segment, most of you will be able to predict my response I would imagine.
The blatant lies about their focus being on conventional gas are clear from his focus on the potential for shale gas later in the piece, alongside the admission that they have the whole of South Wales, from the Loughor Estuary to Cardiff and the coast to Hirwaun, in their sights.

This battle may be lost, but my resolve to win the war is strengthened!

Andy

More info: http://www.bridge.fm/?do=hero

This is a great opportunity to properly inform you vote in the ballot. Ask the candidates the questions you want answered about the future direction of the Party and evaluate who is best equipped to cope under the spotlight that being Party Leader inevitably brings.

All 4 candidates for Leader are expected to attend.

EVENT DETAILS
When? SATURDAY 14th JULY, starting at 6.00pm
Where? Meeting room above O’Neill’s close to The Hayes side of Cardiff Market, a stone’s throw from St David’s Hall
http://www.oneills.co.UK/oneillstrinitystreetcardiff/findus/

Cost? No charge – although a collection will be taken towards meeting candidates expenses.

It will be the end of a long and tiring day for the candidates; they have similar events in Reading on that morning, and Bristol that afternoon.
I guess this will make it a good trial of their ability to cope with the sort of hectic schedule that I know Caroline has had to endure for so long.

If anyone is unable to attend, but has a particular question they want answered by the candidates, then please forward it to me and I will do my best to get it answered for you.
I do hope that as many of you as possible will try to make it, and would be happy to meet up with you at Bridgend Station. I will probably get the 17.00 train (cheap day return £5.10)

Andy

Appeal Decision

Inquiry held on 22&23/05/12
Site visit made on 11/06/12

By Emyr Jones BSc(Hons) CEng MICE
MCMI
An Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers
Date: 06/07/12

Appeal Ref: APP/Z6950/A/11/2167112
Site address: Unit 1 Llandow Industrial Estate, Cowbridge CF71 7PF

The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the
Appointed Inspector.

.
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a
Refusal to grant planning permission.

.
The appeal is made by Coastal Oil and Gas Limited against the decision of The Vale of
Glamorgan Council.

.
The application Ref 2011/00812/FUL, dated 13 August 2011, was refused by notice dated 21
October 2011.

.
The development proposed is to drill and test the insitu lower limestone and associated strata
For the presence of gas.

Decision

1.
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to drill and test the insitu
Lower limestone and associated strata for the presence of gas at Unit 1 Llandow
Industrial Estate, Cowbridge in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref
2011/00812/FUL, dated 13 August 2011, and the plans submitted with it, subject to
The following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than five years from the
Date of this decision.
2) No operations authorised by this permission, with the exception of the site
Restoration works set out in Section 7.10 of the supporting statement submitted
With the application, shall take place after a period of 10 weeks following the
Commencement of drilling operations on the site, unless otherwise agreed in
Writing with the local planning authority.
3) The drill rig and all other items of plant and equipment to be used in the drilling
Operations hereby approved shall each have a typical noise level at 1 metre not
Exceeding 74 dB(A).
4) No operations authorised by this permission shall take place until details of a
Scheme to mitigate noise impacts at the nearest residential and commercial
Properties, as well as the bat roost to the west of the site, has been submitted
To and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All operations shall
Subsequently be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
5) Notwithstanding the submitted documents, prior to any drilling taking place, a
Detailed working method statement for the drilling operation, to include methods

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decision APP/Z6950/A/11/2167112

To minimise the risk of the loss of drilling fluid to ground water resources during
The drilling process and monitoring for any loss of drilling fluid, as well as
Measures for the collection and disposal of spilt drilling fluid, shall be submitted
To and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All operations shall
Thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

6)
Monitoring and assessment of vibration from the operations shall be carried out
In accordance with the vibration methodology below unless otherwise agreed in
Writing with the local planning authority.

I)
An acceptable datum level of vibration will be agreed with the local planning
Authority prior to drilling commencing.

Ii)
The inherent vibration of the drill rig will be monitored before transporting
To site.

Iii)
Normal prevailing vibration over the drilling area will be measured at the
Nearest residential and commercial properties before drilling commences.

Iv)
From the commencement of the drilling operation, vibration will initially be
Continuously monitored without interruption; at times when the drill is both
In use and not in use. Monitoring will take place at both the nearest
Residential and commercial properties. The duration of continuous
Monitoring will be agreed with the local planning authority once
Representative vibration data has been compiled and assessed.

V)
Once the recorded vibration level approaches 10% below the agreed datum
Level, drilling will cease.

7)
Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels and chemicals shall be sited on
Impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The size of the
Bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus
10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to
The capacity of the largest tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents and sight
Glasses shall be located within the bund. There shall be no drain through the
Bund floor or walls.

8)
Full details of a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface water drainage shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the
approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to any drilling operations or
site preparation taking place. The submitted scheme shall include proposals for
the treatment and disposal of suspended solids from surface water runoff and
shall include emergency procedures to be implemented where any failure results
in the pollution of controlled waters.

9)
Within three months of the completion of drilling and testing operations, all
plant, machinery, buildings and the bund compound shall be removed from the
site and the site shall be restored in accordance with the details set out in
Section 7.10 of the statement entitled Accompanying information submitted with
the application or any alternative scheme that may first be agreed in writing
with the local planning authority.

10)
The works to prepare the site for drilling, construct and dismantle the drill and
equipment, and restore the site shall not take place outside the hours of 08:00
to 18:00.

11)
Any lighting shall be in accordance with details previously submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority.

12)
Any drilling shall only be carried out between the months of October to March
inclusive.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

2

Appeal Decision APP/Z6950/A/11/2167112

Application for costs

2.
At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by Coastal Oil and Gas Limited
against The Vale of Glamorgan Council. This application is the subject of a separate
Decision.
Main Issue

3.
I consider the main issue in this case to be the effect of the proposal on the quantity
and quality of groundwater supplies in the vicinity of the site.
Preliminary matters

4.
A significant number of objectors raise concerns as to possible future proposals for gas
extraction and the process known as hydraulic fracturing in particular. Whilst I
understand these concerns, the proposal before me does not include extraction,
whether by hydraulic fracturing or otherwise. Any extraction proposals would require
a further application and the Vale of Glamorgan Unitary Development Plan (UDP)
makes it clear that the grant of planning permission for mineral exploration will not
indicate a presumption in favour of future exploitation of any minerals found. I
cannot, therefore, take these concerns into account in my determination of the appeal.
5.
It was suggested that UDP mineral policies do not apply to gas as no reference is
made to it. However, the UDP notes that surveys for hydrocarbon resources were
carried out over much of the western Vale in the early 1990s and one of its objectives
is to encourage the best and most efficient use of all available resources. It
acknowledges that, in the event of renewed exploration activity, it will clearly be
necessary to address the policy issues raised in a review of the plan. In the
meantime, it recognises that the existing policies will provide an adequate framework
for decision-making.
6.
The UDP safeguards land at the Llandow Trading Estate for uses falling within Use
Classes B1, B2 and B8. Nonetheless, the proposal relates to a temporary
development lasting no more than 10 weeks, including contingencies, such that there
would be no real conflict with the underlying objective of securing adequate provision
of employment land. Interested persons draw attention to lease clauses which may
preclude exploratory drilling on the site, but this is essentially a private matter
between the appellants and the landlord.
7.
Some objectors questioned the need to explore for gas reserves at all. Nevertheless,
the Welsh Governments Energy Wales: A Low Carbon Transition states that gas will
be a key transitional fuel because green house gas emissions from gas are
significantly less than coal subject to the method of extraction. It goes on to note that
gas is a flexible, responsive and reliable source of energy which can play a key role in
the transition to a genuinely low carbon energy system. Likewise, the Department of
Energy and Climate Changes Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1
indicates that fossil fuel power stations will continue to play an important role in our
energy mix as the UK makes the transition to a low carbon economy.
8.
It has also been suggested that the proposal should have been subject to
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), but it was screened by the Council and it
was determined that EIA was not required. The proposal does not fall within any of
the descriptions given in Schedule 1 of The Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, as
amended. Whilst Schedule 2 of the same regulations includes deep drillings, the site
is not in a sensitive area and the applicable thresholds and criteria refer to the area of
the works exceeding 1 hectare which would not be the case here.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

3

Appeal Decision APP/Z6950/A/11/2167112

9.
Schedule 3 of the Regulations refers to the need to consider the characteristics of the
development having regard in particular to, amongst others, the cumulation with other
development. However, it is only when development meets the threshold within
Schedule 2 that one should go on to consider Schedule 3. The assessment of whether
an application relates to a Schedule 2 application or not is to be decided by reference
to the application for development consent applied for and not any development
contemplated beyond that. I, therefore, conclude that the proposal is not EIA
development.
Reasons

Groundwater

10. The application was refused planning permission on the basis of Dwr Cymru/Welsh
Waters (DCWW) belief at the time that there would be a very small risk of
contamination of their reserve groundwater sites in the Vale of Glamorgan from the
proposed exploratory drilling. They also indicated that, if there was an excessive loss
of drilling fluid to the aquifer during the drilling procedure due to unforeseen
geological features being met, then this level of risk would increase. However, DCWW
have subsequently confirmed that they did not object to the planning application and,
following further discussions with the appellants, now believe that there would be an
insignificant risk of pollution of their sources given the nature of the drilling operation.
11. It is also of particular significance that DCWW indicated that they would expect the
Environment Agency (EA) to consider the vulnerability of their groundwater sources
and wider impact upon the water environment as part of the permitting process. The
EA is the relevant regulatory authority insofar as groundwater pollution is concerned.
The supporting text to UDP policy ENV 29 notes that advice will be sought from the
relevant regulatory authorities, including the EA, and Minerals Planning Policy Wales
emphasises the need to consult the EA. In this particular case, the EA did not object
to the proposals, subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions.
12. The abstraction points for the reserve groundwater resource are some 7.8km and
8.6km from the appeal site and the nearest point of the resources catchment is
located over 3.7km away. Over this distance, the geology generally dips to the south
(away from the resource) and then up and over a large anticline. Any drilling fluid lost
would have to rise over the anticline, flow against the hydraulic gradient, and cross a
series of faults with throws of at least 20-30m and around 1.5m of broken material
between the fault planes, to reach the reserve groundwater resource. The most
significant aquifer in the resource is the carboniferous limestone. This is known to
have a low primary porosity with the flow being dominated by fracture/fissure flow
and, because of overburden pressure, only the uppermost 100m or so is likely to be
effective in transmitting water. As a result, I am satisfied that the risk of drilling fluid
being transported towards the reserve groundwater sources, should there by any
losses, would be negligible.
13. Furthermore, the risk of drilling fluid being lost to the formation in the first place
would be minimised by using fluid of an appropriate density/viscosity and steel casing
cemented in place in the carboniferous limestone forming the main aquifer. The use
of a closed loop system would facilitate monitoring for any loss of drilling fluid through
observation of the levels in the tanks, with excessive losses being addressed by the
addition of materials that would swell and block the fractures where water was being
lost.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

4

Appeal Decision APP/Z6950/A/11/2167112

14. The anticipated drilling fluid is a proprietary product known as Pure-Bore.
This is a
biopolymer which biodegrades naturally within 8 to 52 weeks and is commonly used to
drill water wells without contamination problems arising. It has been accredited by
the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (part of DEFRA) for use
in the marine environment.
15. I have no reason to believe that bacteria, which would treat the product as a food
source, are not found in the aquifer, particularly the uppermost layer which is likely to
be effective in transmitting water. In any event, the manufacturer reports that it is
still capable of breaking down in connate water (water trapped in sediment or rock at
the time of deposition). Assessment using juvenile Daphnia Magna shows a minimal
toxicity indistinguishable from the degree of error involved in the test at a 1:10,000
dilution. Whilst 42% of the organisms were immobile after 48 hours at a 1:1,000
dilution, this is likely to be due to the products oxygen demand rather than any
chemical toxicity.
16. Although not recorded on any public registers, there are private boreholes much
nearer the site than DCWWs which are used to extract drinking water for consumption
by humans and farm animals. Nevertheless, the process would be comparable to that
used in the drilling of an additional water abstraction borehole. The monitoring would
ensure that, if any fluid were to be lost, its volume would be extremely limited with
high rates of dilution taking place within a limited radius of the borehole such that the
risk to private water supplies would be minimal.
17. The site has a long history of military aviation and industrial use such that it is
possible that some of the land is contaminated. Nevertheless, the top section of the
borehole would be sealed after a day or so and before drilling progressed into the
underlying limestone thereby preventing any contaminated groundwater near the
surface from migrating downwards. I note that the concrete slab on the site is broken
in places such that additional measures may be required to ensure that spilled drilling
fluid can be collected and disposed of. Nonetheless, that is a matter of detail which
could be adequately addressed by modifying the agreed condition relating to a
detailed working method statement for the drilling operation.
18. The borehole would be sealed in accordance with guidelines published by the EA in
Decommissioning Redundant Boreholes and Wells and I have no reason to believe that
this would pose a threat to groundwater supplies. The density of the drilling fluid and
the blow out preventer required to satisfy HSE guidance would provide adequate
safeguards against gas escaping to the surface.
19. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the quantity and
quality of groundwater supplies in the vicinity of the site.
Other matters

Noise and vibration

20. The application proposes 24 hour working during the drilling, testing and restoration
phases, but no justification was given for this. At the Inquiry, the appellants
geologist explained that the need arose from the significant extension in drilling time
that would result from having to carry out additional operations at the start and end of
each shift and the need not to compromise the structural integrity of the borehole.
21. The application was accompanied by a Noise Assessment which shows that the night
time background noise level at the nearest dwelling (Six Wells Cottage) approximately
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

5

Appeal Decision APP/Z6950/A/11/2167112

260m away is 20 dB(A)L90. This is well below the level at which it would be
appropriate to use BS4142:1997 Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed
Residential and Industrial Areas for assessment purposes. It also predicts that,
taking account of distance and screening losses, the noise at Six Wells Cottage from
the drilling rig would have an equivalent continuous level of 25 dB(A)LAeq and, taking
account of the characteristic features of the noise, a rating level of 30 dB(A)LAr,Tr.
Allowing for a 15dB loss through a partially open window, noise levels would,
therefore, be well below the 30 dB(A) LAeq,8hr limit for sleep disturbance given in World
Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise 1999.

22. However, the Noise Assessment only considers the drilling rig whilst the operation
would also require such items as a shaker screen, pump and generator. Nonetheless,
I have no reason to doubt the evidence of the appellants geologist that the drilling rig
is by far the noisiest item of equipment. The drill rig used in the assessment
generates a typical noise level of 74 dB(A) at 1m and an unshielded 30Kva generator
has a rating of around 65 dB(A). Even if the shaker screen and pump were
individually as noisy as the rig, overall noise levels at the site would only be a few
dB(A)s higher, and could be controlled by the good practice suggested in the
assessment. Given that the predicted levels from the rig inside bedrooms with
windows partially open are well below the WHO guidance figure for sleep disturbance,
I am satisfied that the overall level would also be below the limit such that residential
living conditions would not be materially harmed.
23. The nearest offices are around 60m away and the appellants noise consultants predict
that the noise from the drilling rig would be some 48 dB(A) outside the nearest office,
with a 15dB reduction through a partially open window giving 33 dB(A) inside. This
can be compared with the 40-50 dB(A) quoted for offices in BS8233 Sound Insulation
and Noise Reduction for Buildings. For the same reasons as given for Six Wells
Cottage above, I consider that overall levels would also be below the lowest figure
quoted in BS8233 and there would not be an unacceptable impact on businesses on
the business park/industrial estate. It has been suggested that some businesses
would relocate if the appeal was allowed but, given that I have not identified an
unacceptable impact, there would be no reason for such action.
24. I recognise that tents and caravans would not achieve the 15dB reduction through a
partially open window previously referred to and that customers are attracted to the
neighbouring Caravan Park by the relatively quiet night time environment.
Nevertheless, the Caravan Park is in the region of 800m away with the Noise
Assessment predicting an equivalent continuous level of 15 dB(A)LAeq (which is lower
than the minimum consistent LA90 background noise levels measured) and a rating
level of 20 dB(A)LAr,Tr. Even allowing for a slight increase to reflect the contribution
from other plant and equipment, overall levels would still be relatively low such that
there would be no material impact on the Caravan Park or tourism in general.
25. An interested person raised the issue of noise impacts on persons with brain and
central nervous system conditions. Although they may well be more susceptible to
noise, I have no evidence that would lead me to conclude that the noise generated
would be sufficient to significantly harm the living conditions of any such persons
living in the immediate vicinity of the site. I also note that the Councils
Environmental Health Officer offered no objection on noise grounds.
26. Concerns were also raised as to vibration, but the appellants geologist has never
experienced any problems in that regard. In view of the intention to use rotary rather
than percussive drilling methods and the existence of up to 5m of made ground and
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

6

Appeal Decision APP/Z6950/A/11/2167112

glacial till which would absorb surface vibrations, I have no reason to believe that
vibration levels would pose any particular problems. The agreed condition would
provide further safeguards in this respect.

Protected species

27. The Countryside Council for Wales notes that the site is within 800m of a known lesser
horseshoe bat maternity roost site and in an area where great crested newts are
known to occur. It indicates that the nature of the proposals and resultant effects
such as noise, vibration and lighting have the potential to affect both species. The
appellants Ecological Assessment demonstrates that the site has negligible potential
as dispersal, foraging and hibernating grounds for great crested newts, and offers very
low potential for supporting commuting and foraging bats – as confirmed by the
results of the single nights survey undertaken. It is also noted that the high level of
existing lighting on the industrial park is a contraindicative factor for foraging and
commuting lesser horseshoe bats.
28. It states that the effect of noise on bats is very complicated and difficult to predict
with numerous studies showing that noise levels decrease foraging efficiency and in
some situations even very low changes in noise levels can lead to roost abandonment.
Conversely, provided background levels are consistent, lesser horseshoe bats have
been found roosting in large numbers beneath motorway bridges and in the middle of
industrial complexes. There does not appear to be any published literature suggesting
that great crested newts are particularly sensitive to increased noise levels and there
is very limited published information documenting vibration impacts on bats or great
crested newts.
29. The Noise Assessment predicts an equivalent continuous level of 15 dB(A)LAeq (which
is lower than the minimum consistent LA90 background noise levels measured) and a
rating level of 20 dB(A)LAr,Tr from the rig at the lesser horseshoe bat roost and great
crested newt ponds. Even allowing for a slight increase to reflect the contribution
from other plant and equipment, noise impacts would still be low, and vibration levels
at these locations would not be significantly higher than background levels.
30. On the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the proposal would not
harm protected species.
Traffic, visual impact, and dust

31. Interested persons are concerned as to the volume of traffic that would be generated.
However, the site is on a business park/industrial estate which is likely to generate a
substantial volume of traffic including HGVs, which would be further increased if all the
plots/units were occupied. In contrast, the proposal would involve around 18 HGV
movements to bring plant and equipment to the site at the start, a similar number to
take them away at the end, together with around 8 regular HGV servicing movements
per week. This is unlikely to be significant in the context of overall HGV movements
to the business park/industrial estate.
32. The site is in relatively poor condition and is largely surrounded by
industrial/commercial buildings. In such circumstances, the temporary siting of a 12m
high rig and associated equipment would not have an unacceptable visual impact.
Given the intention to use a drilling fluid, I have no reason to doubt the Councils view
that there are no objections to the scheme on the basis of dust.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

7

Appeal Decision APP/Z6950/A/11/2167112

Conditions

33. The Statement of Common Ground includes a list of conditions with reasons agreed
between the Council and appellants. Subject to the specific matters addressed below
and minor modifications in the interests of clarity and precision; I am satisfied that
these are necessary and should be imposed for the reasons given.
34. Minerals Planning Guidance Note: The Control of Noise at Surface Mineral Workings
(MPG 11) advocates setting limits at noise sensitive properties. However, given the
very discrete area of the proposed operations, as compared to most mineral extraction
sites, the Councils Environmental Health Officer favours setting limits on individual
items of plant in this case. I accept his reasoning and agree that the limit should be
set at that of the drilling rig used in the Noise Assessment.
35. I have already referred to good practice recommended in the Noise Assessment and
adherence thereto, as well as measures such as acoustic enclosures, could be secured
by an additional condition requiring a noise mitigation scheme to be subject to prior
approval and thereafter complied with. I have also referred to the need to modify the
agreed condition requiring the detailed working method statement for the drilling
operation to incorporate measures to collect and dispose of spilt drilling fluid.
36. The agreed condition on transporting the rig, drill pipes, cabins and other equipment
to the site conflicts with guidance in Circular 35/95 on The Use of Conditions in
Planning Permissions to the effect that planning conditions are not an appropriate
means of controlling the right of passage over public highways. Furthermore, the
business park/industrial estate is likely to attract a substantial number of HGV
movements throughout the day. Those associated with the proposal would be unlikely
to result in a significant increase such that I see no reason to restrict these
movements to night time.
37. The submitted Ecological Assessment includes a number of recommendations to
mitigate the potential impacts on protected species. Those relating to lighting could
be addressed by requiring lighting to be subject to prior approval, which would also
control light pollution in general. Limiting drilling operations to the period between
October and March to coincide with the period of lowest bat activity should be
conditioned. This would also ensure that drilling operations would not coincide with
the holding of the National Eisteddfod in the vicinity during August of this year and
that they would take place when there is less likelihood of bedroom windows being left
open at night and the Caravan Park being at its busiest. The six recommendations on
operational procedures could be covered by the noise mitigation scheme previously
referred to.
38. The suggested monitoring at the bat roost would require the agreement of the
appropriate landowner and there is no guarantee that this could be obtained. In any
event, the predictions are that noise levels at the bat roost would be very low with
vibration not being significantly above background levels. Subject to limiting drilling
to certain months and the noise mitigation scheme, monitoring is not necessary.
39. Because the proposed drilling fluid is a standard one accredited by DERFRA, the EA
sees no need for it to be subject to an ecological assessment. As spent drilling fluid is
to be treated as controlled waste and disposed of accordingly, the EA does not
consider it necessary for it to be tested to see if mobilisation of hazardous substances
from underlying strata has taken place. I accept the advice of the Agency and will not
impose conditions relating to these matters.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

8

Appeal Decision APP/Z6950/A/11/2167112

Overall conclusion

40. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal does not conflict with UDP
policies MIN 1 and ENV 29 and that the appeal should be allowed.
E Jones

Inspector

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

9

Appeal Decision APP/Z6950/A/11/2167112

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr G Davies, Solicitor The Vale of Glamorgan Council
He called
Mrs Hayley I Kemp The Vale of Glamorgan Council
BSc(Hons) MSc MRTPI
FOR THE APPELLANTS:
Miss T Osmund-Smith, of Instructed by Mr G Roberts, Acuity Legal
Counsel
She called
Mr Cliff Patten MRTPI Cliff Patten Planning Services
Mr Oliver Taylor BSc Oliver Taylor Geological Consultancy
MSc FGS DIC
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mr A Cairns MP Member of Parliament for The Vale of Glamorgan
Cllr G John Ward member for Llantwit Major
Cllr R Thomas Ward member for Llandow/Ewenny
Mr A Chyba The Vale Says No! and Bridgend Green Party
Dr C A Pearce Cowbridge and Llanblethian Residents Group
Mr G Clubb Friends of the Earth Cymru
Mr K Stockdale Barry & Vale Friends of the Earth
Mr I Benjuya Anderson Associates (S.W.) Ltd.
Miss L Evans Local resident/business
Capt. P M Bowers Local resident
Mrs K Gray Local resident
Mrs N Thomas Local resident/business
Mr M Hancock Local resident

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

10

Appeal Decision APP/Z6950/A/11/2167112

DOCUMENTS

1 Councils notification of Inquiry and list of those notified
2a-c Bundle of 3 late representations received by the Council
3 Councils Response to Appellants Costs Application
4a-b E-mail trails re. submission of Messrs Patten & Taylors Statements of
Evidence
5 E-mail from Hunter Acoustics re. noise at closest offices
6 Noise Impact Assessment, Revision 1
7 Ecological Assessment
8 E-mail re. Pure-Bore Drilling Fluid
9 Appellants Costs Application
10 Letter from Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing,
submitted by Mr Cairns
11 Three Nooks Farm Timeline, submitted by Mr Chyba
12 Executive Summary of Review of requirement for sealing investigation
boreholes by Prof. Robert Chaplow of R Chaplow Associates Ltd.,
submitted by Mr Chyba
13 Extract from The Wall Street Journal, submitted by Dr Pearce
14 Mr Clubbs further submission
15 Barry & Vale Friends of the Earths Statement
16 Mr Benjuyas further statement
17 Mrs Thomas Statement
18a-c Appellants Inquiry Bundles 1-3

Documents 4 to 9 and 18a-c were submitted by the appellants

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

11

Tha RA publishes a journal called NEW HUMANIST, to which I subscribe, and its most recent edition contains an comment piece by freelance writer, James Gray, that states that anti-science dogma is damaging the Greens. It is well worth a read.

It appears to have been prompted by Green Party London AM, Jenny Jones, endorsing the recent anti-GM protests in Hertfordshire. He quotes criticism of this by Nick Cohen, in The Spectator, who labelled the protest organisers a “quasi-religious movement”, and adherents of the “green faith”, harbouring “an almost pagan delusion that nature is pure and must be saved”. I am not sure that he intended the patent irony of such over-the-top dogmatic language, but I understand what he is getting at, don’t you?

Gray goes on to point us towards Mark Lynas’ The God Species, which opines that “There’s a sense that a substantial proportion of conventional eco-philosophy is not based on rational empirical evidence…… They claim to be comfortable with science on climate change, but show the reverse inclination when it comes to issues like GM and nuclear power.”

Gray further makes the point by highlighting some of the distinctly mystical language used (albeit occasionally only) in the seminal A Blueprint for Survival (1972) and Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful (1973).

It is up to all of us within the Green Party today to reflect on these perceptions of our movement. I have spent enough time in the party now, and grown to know a wide cross-section of members from across the country, to recognise that these perceptions are a perfectly valid description of some elements within the party. But it is also my feeling that these elements are very much in a minority, although some are quite influential. We need to challenge them and, if they prove dogmatically intransigent, drive them away – as they do nothing but undermine our credibility.

Thankfully, Gray recognises that these elements within the Party are indeed being challenged by a new generation of resolutely pro-science activists. He quotes Bex Holmes, environmental scientist and Scottish Green Party activist: “If you’ve not been trained to use an evidence based approach to form your opinions then you will be likely swayed by emotional campaigns”. She urges rationalists within the party to get actively involved and insist on evidence-based policies.

I could not agree more. The key issue here is recognising and acknowledging good science and being able to discern bad science. Bex Holmes rightly stresses that this takes training – training that all-too-many would be politicians (in all parties) simply do not have. If we are to win the arguments and, even more importantly, present workable solutions in our policies, we have to guard against dogmatic knee-jerk reactions and build our manifesto on good science and rational thinking – even when it is not part of our utopian visions. We must not fall into the trap that always mires the other main parties, and pretend we know all the answers. Healthy scepticism while the jury is out is fine. The ‘precautionary approach’ is what we often call it these days. But we must not close our minds to sound evidence before us, or else those ‘quasi-religious’ jibes will have substance.

Sign this petition

This e-petition has been created by a Green Economist that I hold in great esteem – Molly Scott Cato. More than this though, it aims to bring down an institution that I have personally loathed for more than 30 years (see: http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Barclays#Controversies ) . Do the whole world a favour and sign it – please! (Andy)

Leader:
Pippa Bartolotti
Natalie Bennett
Peter Cranie
Romayne Phoenix –
http://www.romayneandwillforgreenleadership.org.uk/romayneabout.html

Deputy Leader:
Caroline Allen
Richard Mallender
Alexandra Phillips
Will Duckworth –
http://www.romayneandwillforgreenleadership.org.uk/willabout.html

All members will be balloted in due course.

Bridgend Chair, Andy Chyba’s view

The joint ticket of Romayne and Will represents a Green Left dream ticket as far as I am concerned and gets my full support.
I have been promoting Romayne’s candidature since Caroline’s announcement about standing down.
They present the strongest ecosocialist credentials, and are also the only cohesive partnership on offer.

It is my firm conviction that the Green Party has to position itself unashamedly to the left and pronounce itself as the radical, progressive, ecosocialist and anti-capitalist party. Romayne has proven credentials in promoting these values.

Romayne is perhaps currently best known for her work as the Chair of the Coalition of Resistance. COR is a broad movement of active resistance to the Con-Dem government’s budget intentions. Affiliates include MPs, trade unionists, economists and many others. Romayne was recently part of a delegation that visited Greece, meeting, amongst others, with Alexis Tsipras, leader of the Syriza Party that that came a close second in elections there recently. During her time as a Councillor in Lewisham, Romayne was one of the group of six Green Councillors that succeeded in securing the London Living Wage for Lewisham employees.

We also have to be avowedly internationalist and outward looking as the challenges humanity faces are global challenges. This message is especially important to us here in Wales as we have to contend with, and differentiate ourselves from, the inwardly focussed environmentally aware left wingers in Plaid Cymru. Nationalism is the inevitable fatal flaw in the Plaid Cymru manifesto. As no lesser mind than Albert Einstein said: “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.”

Romayne and Will understand the need for collaboration, support and coordination with groups who support our aims across the world. With Derek Wall elected to the GPEx post of International Co-ordinator alongside them, with your help, we will have the strongest possible team to manage this crucial area of policy and practice.

I therefore urge all members, first and foremost, to do their own due diligence, as I have done, and come to their own conclusions.

If any Bridgend member would like to share their views and promote any candidate on this blog, again as I have done right here, then I will happily publish this here for you. Just forward it via email as usual. Anyone, of course (member or not), can also use the Comments facility to continue the debate.

But for those interested in my advice, that advice is clear enough: VOTE FOR ROMAYNE & WILL FOR THE GREEN PARTY LEADERSHIP.