Thursday 30 May 2019

Professor of Hydrogeology says ‘ANY quarrying at Straitgate would cause problems’

An extensive and damning new report has been produced which seriously undermines Aggregate Industries’ plans to quarry Straitgate Farm. An expert in hydrogeology, tasked with looking at the plan's impact on Cadhay's drinking water supplies and listed mediaeval fishponds, concludes:
My assessment of the proposed quarry is that it will cause problems to the groundwater system.
The expert is Professor Rick Brassington Eur Geol Eur Ing BSc MSc CGeol FGS CEng MICE FCIWEM, an independent consultant who has more than 50 years of professional experience in hydrogeology, and who has authored more than 30 scientific papers and two hydrogeology textbooks. More recently, Prof Brassington gave evidence at a public inquiry in relation to an application for a sand and gravel quarry on the edge of Hertford. The appeal by the applicant was dismissed – a decision endorsed by the Secretary of State last month, as we posted – based in large part on the risk to public water supplies.

In the case of Straitgate, Prof Brassington recognises that:
The groundwater resources that lie beneath the area around the proposed Straitgate Farm site are fundamental to the lives of more than 100 people in their homes and to the local businesses that they run. 6.6
The Environment Agency has a statutory duty to protect such "precious groundwater resources":


Before looking at Prof Brassington’s report in more detail, let’s remind ourselves what DCC’s Mineral Plan – "the policy framework for decisions by Devon County Council on planning applications for mineral development over the period to 2033" – says on groundwater in Policy M21:
The sustainable development of minerals should seek to conserve and enhance other natural resources, and proposals will be permitted where they would: (a) not harm the quality, availability and/or flow of surface water and groundwater and the integrity and function of the water system, both surrounding and, where relevant, within the site;
Let’s also remind ourselves how AI and consultants Amec Foster Wheeler tried to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes – including the EA – in their most recent response on hydrogeology:
The reduction in thickness of the unsaturated zone during works and post site restoration will not have any effect on groundwater quality. 2.17.7
It’s clear that Prof Brassington couldn’t disagree more. He says "any proposals to quarry at Straitgate Farm will impact on the fragile groundwater system and cause the flows of springs to decrease and the quality of the water also to deteriorate" 5.7.

He says the EA has not recognised that this groundwater resource is "very sensitive and fragile", and says "the EA should… strongly object to the proposal":
The EA states that its policy is to provide protection to sensitive areas where groundwater resources are of fundamental importance. It is strongly suggested here that the number of groundwater sources in the area around Straitgate Farm and Cadhay House where alternative water supplies are not easily available at an affordable cost means that the aquifer that feeds the local springs falls into this category. 5.2 ... it is strongly suggested here that the EA has not recognized that the hydrogeology and groundwater resources of this area are very sensitive and fragile. 5.5 It is strongly suggested here that the proposal will have a large impact on the local groundwater environment that is not recognized in the AMEC reports and therefore the EA should require the application to be refused. 5.9
He says AI’s and AFW’s efforts have been "to ensure that the maximum volume of stone can be removed from the site rather than to provide adequate protection for the groundwater resources" 5.8, and calls on DCC to refuse permission:
For the reasons stated above, Devon County Council is asked to refuse planning permission for the operation of the site. The method of working that is proposed is untried anywhere else in the country and is designed to maximize the sand and gravel dug with no regard to the changes it will inevitably bring to both the quantity and the quality of the groundwater and the springs it discharges through. Both these changes will cause difficulties to the users of these private water supplies. 6.13
Prof Brassington says AI’s unorthodox scheme is "untried and untested" and would not work in practice:
this operational procedure is too difficult for typical machine operators 4.20 [and] will not work in practice when the machine operators will be left to dig with little guidance 4.24.
On the subject of AFW’s guesstimate of the maximum winter water table – the MWWT, the base of any quarry – Prof Brassington says:
...the MWWT is not a representation of the maximum water table readings for the proposed quarry site. 4.16 ...the MWWT elevations proposed are not accurate and are out by almost 3 m in places 4.24.
In contrast to AI’s and AFW’s assumption that "the recent winter months of 2012/13 and 2013/14 [are] indicative of peak levels 4.2.11", Prof Brassington points to base flows from the Salston Stream – one of the four watercourse emanating from the site, whose flows are recorded by the EA – and says:
It can be concluded that the higher base flows in 1976/77 and 2000/01 would have resulted in higher groundwater levels across the site in a similar way that higher levels have been observed in the late winter of 2017/18. 4.23



What if that MWWT surface were remodelled to accommodate those elevated maximum water table readings? Prof Brassington says that even then:
A revised MWWT would not be acceptable as the groundwater system in the area is vulnerable and any quarrying would cause problems. 5.6
On the subject of groundwater quality, Prof Brassington says:
The proposed quarrying operation will reduce the groundwater recharge and reduce the spring flows. This is likely to lead to water shortages and the hardship that this brings. 6.2
Why? Because:
the aquifer is relatively thin and any reduction in the recharge it receives caused by an increase in runoff from the overburden used to make the protective layer… will make it even thinner thereby reducing the volume of groundwater held in storage. This will reduce the flows of the springs and could easily make them incapable of providing the volume of water required for drinking purposes. 3.25
Furthermore:
The reduction in the unsaturated zone will reduce the time taken by percolating waters to reach the water table. As a result, there will be less time for the chemical and biological processes that develop the groundwater chemistry and the spring water will be more acidic and have a lower dissolved mineral content. 6.3
Not only that, but:
... the flows of both the Cadhay Wood Stream and the Cadhay Bog Stream will reduce as well as the various springs that flow into these woodlands. This will have a detrimental impact on the viability of the ecosystems that is expected to be permanent. 3.30 ... reduced flow of the Cadhay Wood stream will impact on the Cadhay mediaeval fishponds. 6.10
On the infiltration areas proposed, to protect Ottery from flooding, Prof Brassington says:
The proposed infiltration areas are sited where maximum groundwater levels have been recorded, as little as 0.43 m below ground surface, seemingly rendering them unworkable. 4.49
It’s all damning stuff, and Prof Brassington is unequivocal in calling for the application to be refused. If DCC nevertheless ignores such advice, putting the profits of a multinational before the security of drinking water supplies for local people, Prof Brassington says that extra safeguards would be needed:
If Devon County Council are minded to grant permission for these proposals, despite the evidence given in this report, they are asked to ensure that an unquarried buffer of at least 3 m is left above the maximum water table to minimise the negative impacts. It has already been demonstrated that the MWWT surface cannot be modelled accurately, neither can the MWWT be reliably adhered to during the operational phase. 6.14
AI, on the other hand – in its profit-hungry-wisdom – has proposed a 0m unquarried buffer above the maximum water table to safeguard water supplies – not "at least 3m". Furthermore:
If Devon County Council do grant permission for these proposals, they are asked to ensure that Cadhay House is included in the Section 106 properties and that this document specifically states that AI will promptly fund without any delay a replacement water supply to all those impacted by their workings. 6.15
Why is all this is so important? Water is of course essential for life, essential for people, businesses and wildlife. The fact that AI and consultants AFW – for the sake of an inconsequential and ever-decreasing amount of sand and gravel, not essential for the local or national community – are willing to play fast and loose with the security of private water supplies to three livestock farms and 100 or more people around Straitgate – plans that Prof Brassington says would "lead to water shortages and hardship" – is shameful.

What’s also shameful is that not only were AI’s legal assurances for alternative water supplies "unfit for purpose", but that AI was not prepared to include Cadhay in any Section 106 agreement covering alternative water supplies and/or compensation in the event of a failure caused by any quarrying at Straitgate Farm. According to DCC:
The view of AI remains that the information provided means that the risk is negligible and therefore does not need to be taken into account in the EA or the s.106.
Of course, if that risk were indeed negligible, it would have been painless for AI to indemnify Cadhay from any losses arising from quarrying activities. The fact that they won’t infers the company is fully aware of the risks and the potential financial exposure. It should be obvious to anyone that disruption of water supplies to Cadhay – a Grade I listed Manor House – would be catastrophic to the upkeep and maintenance of this historic treasure.

Prof Brassington’s report can be found here. It has been sent to DCC and the EA.

Tuesday 28 May 2019

What do council declarations of ‘climate change emergency’ mean for planning?

We recently posted that DCC has declared a 'climate emergency'. Last week, another press release from Devon County Council announced 'Devon charts a course towards carbon neutrality'.

It's certainly a move in the right direction. DCC has pledged £250,000 towards developing a Devon Carbon Plan – a 'road map' to reduce carbon emissions – and has set up a Devon Climate Emergency Response Group. There are also plans for a 'citizens assembly' to ensure Devon’s residents have a voice in the process. DCC’s leader John Hart said:
Only by working together with strategic partners can we develop and implement an effective plan to ensure that Devon is on the right trajectory to meet the IPCC’s carbon reduction recommendations.
But what does DCC’s declaration of a 'climate emergency' actually mean? Others have recently been asking the same question:


In particular, what does a council's declaration of 'climate change emergency' mean for planning? An article by PlanningResource tackles that very question, and quotes Ben Kite, managing director of environmental consultancy EPR, who argues:
What it hopefully does is create an expectation both within an authority and externally that those policies that are already in place and relate to climate change will have an elevated priority. So, if a planning decision is being made or something goes to appeal, those policies will carry a bit more weight.
For example, with DCC declaring a climate emergency you would hope the council might be slightly less eager to dismiss Objective 1 of the Devon Minerals Plan – see below – encapsulated in policies M1, M20 and M22, when it finally determines Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm and haul the as-dug material a total of 2.5 million miles for processing:
Within geological constraints, secure a spatial pattern of mineral development that delivers the essential resources to markets within and outside Devon while minimising transportation by road and generation of greenhouse gases, supporting the development of its economy while conserving and enhancing the County’s key environmental assets.

‘Time’s up for a golden age of corporate greenwashing’

... runs a headline in the Financial Times of all places. It’s a warning to companies such as Aggregate Industries and parent LafargeHolcim, masters of greenwash, experts in speaking fine words about climate change, but in reality doing very little about it.


We’ve posted enough times on this blog about AI’s abysmal record on reducing its CO2 emissions, in direct contrast to the nonsense it publicly spouts. We’ve posted that If AI’s record is an example of corporate action on climate change, we’re all screwed and how AI now emits nearly 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 each year – more than 3x the amount it did in 2006, and 5x the amount it did in 1999, but tells the world:


We’ve also posted about LafargeHolcim: how LafargeHolcim has a way with numbers – CO2 emission numbers; how it claims to be "at the forefront of efforts to mitigate climate change", and yet total net CO2 emissions have continued to increase in 2018, as they did in 2017 and 2016, but nevertheless tells people:


As the FT article says:
Too many still profess to care about the climate, especially those in industries struggling to impress concerned investors and consumers, or hire bright young recruits, yet fail to match the scale of their rhetoric with action.
Aggregate Industries and LafargeHolcim would certainly be on that list. But "Time’s up for a golden age of corporate greenwashing", says the article, pointing to the unusual but notable statement by one CEO, who says people should avoid buying his company’s products. Virgin Group's Josh Bayliss warns:
It’s definitely true that right now every one of us should think hard about whether or not we need to take a flight.
In a warning to polluters like AI – the author of the FT article reckons the climate debate is shifting:
I am willing to bet that companies failing to match their green claims with solid action face far greater risks than they ever have before.
Business Green – where the Josh Bayliss story first appeared – says the "pressure on brands to prove their environmental credentials has ratcheted up several notches since the start of the year":
There has scarcely been a more a precarious time to operate a globally recognisable brand. Consumer awareness of ethical and environmental issues is higher than ever, bringing with it far loftier expectations for the products and services people spend their money on.
About time.

Sunday 19 May 2019

Ottery’s new mayor

Hearty congratulations are due. One of Ottery St Mary's longest standing councillors and 'servant' of the town has been elected as mayor, reports the Sidmouth Herald.

The new Mayor of Ottery St Mary, Cllr Roger Giles was elected as he has a wealth of experience having been a Councillor of the Town Council since 1991. He has also been a member of Devon County Council for Ottery Rural from 1993 to 2013 and a member of East Devon District Council Ottery Town from 1995 to 2019.
Over and above everything else Roger has done for the community, he has for very many years – long before 2012, when he wrote the article below – also been a vociferous campaigner against a quarry at Straitgate Farm. Roger also served on DCC’s Development Management Committee for many years – a committee responsible for determining mineral planning applications. He therefore knows unsustainable development when he sees it.

What Roger wrote in 2012 is just as applicable today – 7 years on, with no sign of Aggregate Industries having dealt with multiple outstanding constraints including on groundwater and flooding – as it was then:
Bizarrely DCC wants to see a new quarry opened at Straitgate Farm on prime farming land, in attractive countryside, when there is an existing quarry at Hillhead, near Uffculme, with sand and gravel resources that could meet Devon's needs for many decades to come.
DCC admits that there are “significant constraints” to quarrying at Straitgate. In addition to the noise and dust problems that would be caused to nearby residents, DCC refers to “the underlying water table and consequent impacts on private water supplies and nearby wildlife sites” as being significant constraints.
The underlying water table meets the drinking water needs of something like 100 people. That drinking water source might well be lost.
The “nearby wildlife sites” are Cadhay Bog and Cadhay Wood. They have both been designated as County Wildlife Sites containing ancient woodland which are dependent on receiving a regular supply of water from the Straitgate Farm area. Quarrying at Straitgate would almost certainly result in intermittent flows of water causing Cadhay Bog and Cadhay Wood to dry out and be damaged.
Even more worrying is the impact on flood risk in Ottery. The water table at Straitgate Farm is the source of the Thorne Farm Stream, which caused such devastation on much of western Ottery in October 2008. It is also the source of two other streams which caused flooding at Cadhay and Coombelake on the same night.
The likelihood of quarrying at Straitgate is that the present “sponge effect” - gradual absorption and gradual release of rainwater, would be replaced by sudden run-off (and dry spells). It is quite incomprehensible to me that DCC can be so reckless as to press ahead with quarrying at Straitgate Farm when the devastation on the Thorne Farm estate and elsewhere is such a stark and recent memory.
Quite why DCC is considering quarrying at Straitgate, when there is no need, and where there are so many significant constraints is something that you may wish to ask DCC.
Indeed.

Friday 17 May 2019

LafargeHolcim has a way with numbers – CO2 emission numbers

If the cement industry were a country, it would be the third largest emitter of CO2 in the world. LafargeHolcim – the parent company of Aggregate Industries – is the largest cement producer in the world. In 2018, it produced 205 million tonnes of cement – 7 million tonnes more than the previous year.

The company tells us that "LafargeHolcim is at the forefront of efforts to mitigate climate change". It has published its 2018 Sustainability Report.


Throughout the report you’ll find various claims, for example:
In the Environmental dimension, the most significant externality is our CO2 emissions. These account for 75 percent of our total cost to society, and represent the largest negative impact of our operations. In 2018, our net CO2 emissions per tonne of cementitious material decreased to 576 kg CO2/tonne, a 1 percent reduction from 2017 and equal to a 25 percent reduction compared with 1990 emissions. This exceeds our year-on-year reduction objective and positions us well to deliver our new carbon reduction target of 520 kg CO2/tonne by 2030.
Clearly there’s no urgency from LafargeHolcim to tackle our climate emergency, when "a 1 percent reduction… exceeds our year-on-year reduction objective". LafargeHolcim says:
Our 2018 performance of 576 kg of net CO2 per tonne of cementitious material has positioned us as the most carbon-efficient cement and concrete company in our peer group…. With our revised target of 520 kg CO2/tonne by 2030, we remain the most ambitious company in our sector.
Heidelberg Cement – with their plans to realise 'CO2-neutral' concrete by 2050 – might say otherwise:


But as our climate crisis unfolds, and millions of people are displaced from their homes, the world will watch to see whether these cement giants – LafargeHolcim, Heidelberg and others, all driven to sell increasing amounts of cement in this economic-growth-is-everything world we live in – make any serious reductions to their enormous carbon footprints. Cement production, by its very nature, is energy and emissions-intensive due to the the extreme heat required to produce it; around half of the CO2 emissions arise from the thermal decomposition of limestone, which cannot be eliminated by alternative fuels or increasing efficiency.

LafargeHolcim "source 18 percent of [its] energy from alternative fuels, low carbon fuels and biomass". LafargeHolcim’s press release talks about alternative fuels, claiming:
In 2018 LafargeHolcim treated 52 million tonnes of waste which equals more than ten times the total yearly household waste generation of Switzerland. This increase of 6 percent versus 2017 makes the company one of the largest waste processors. More than 11 million tonnes – an increase of 10 percent over 2017 – were used by Geocycle, the company’s global waste management business, as a fuel for kilns or as alternative raw materials using co-processing technology. This process leads to the conservation of natural resources and contributes to the overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
It all sounds very laudable, including the "overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions." But that’s not the end of the story.

LafargeHolcim makes year to year comparisons of CO2 difficult. Take the net CO2 emissions in 2016. These are recorded in three reports, as three different numbers – see below. In the 2016 Sustainability Report, 2016 was recorded as 140 million tonnes, in 2017 Sustainability Report, 2016 was recorded as 126 million tonnes, in the 2018 Sustainability Report, 2016 was recorded as 115 million tonnes. Similarly for 2015. The reason?
We use the WBCSDCSI Cement CO2 and Energy Protocol version 3.1 to calculate CO2 emissions between the 1990 baseline and the reporting year. For CO2, all historical data have been recalculated according to the Protocol, to enable comparison of data over time. Historical data are also restated to reflect changes in consolidation of companies and acquisitions/divestments.
Let’s stick to the 2018 report. Here, LafargeHolcim focuses on a kg of CO2 per tonne number – in fact, 576 kg CO2/t appears eight times in the report, written in varying sizes of text, plainly because of that virtuous 1% reduction from the 2017 figure. But the "total cost to society" is not on a per/tonne basis, it is on a total CO2 emissions basis.

You’ll find that number only once in the report. It’s easy to miss, being buried on page 65 in very small text. Lets compare total net emissions from 2018 – "restated to reflect changes in consolidation of companies and acquisitions/divestments" – with previous years. Readers might be surprised to learn that rather than an "overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions" and rather than the claim that "LafargeHolcim further reduces CO2 emissions" in that tweet above, that LafargeHolcim’s net CO2 emissions have in fact increased in 2018 – by 2.5%.

2016 – 115,000,000 tonnes CO2

2017 – 118,000,000 tonnes CO2

2018 – 121,000,000 tonnes CO2

It’s hardly surprising. All that enthusing about a 1% reduction in kgCO2/t has been swamped by LafargeHolcim selling 3.5% more cement.

To put that 121 million tonnes* of CO2 into context, it is equivalent to the emissions from 31 coal-fired power stations. To sequester this amount of CO2 would require 142 million acres of forest – an area more than twice the size of the UK.

It’s not just us that's picked this up. Global Cement reports:
LafargeHolcim reduced its net CO2 emissions per tonne… However, data from its Sustainability Report 2018 shows that both its overall gross and net emissions grew. Its net CO2 emissions from cementitious material increased by 2.5% to 121Mt.
Remember, this company is apparently "the most ambitious company in our sector" and "at the forefront of efforts to mitigate climate change".

If LafargeHolcim won’t cut its emissions in the face of this climate crisis, what might make a difference? Demand. If construction companies moved away from specifying so much concrete, and towards specifying greener materials, for instance. As the boss of construction group Skanska UK says:
Concrete is one of the big carbon emitters, largely due to the cement products that are within it. If our supply chain could, let’s say they are constructing a 200mm thick concrete slab, if they could make it just 180mm thick, then it would automatically save 10% of their emissions. It can be as simple as that in some cases.
I think we’re seeing a growing number of investors and funders to construction projects that are starting to require the way that buildings are being made to be a lot greener. There are a number of green funds that look very carefully at what they are funding and the way it is constructed.
For the sake of ours and a million other species, let’s hope this movement towards greener building practices starts to reduce emissions. Because we can’t rely on LafargeHolcim, who keeps merrily pumping out more and more CO2 – whilst the ecological and climate catastrophe, day-by-day, year-by-year, becomes more and more serious.






* Net CEM CO2 emissions. Total gross direct CO2 emissions 135Mt. Total indirect CO2 emissions 30Mt. Source: LafargeHolcim Sustainability Report 2018

So, is LafargeHolcim financially back on track?

This week, LafargeHolcim reported "very good market demand globally", according to Reuters, beating sales and profit expectations during its first quarter, with cement demand forecast to increase by 2 to 3 percent this year. LafargeHolcim’s CEO Chief Executive Jan Jenisch told reporters:
"In Europe we have very good order books in most of the countries. Germany continues to have very strong construction activities, so does France, so does eastern Europe. The formerly more difficult markets in the south are all growing again."
However:
Britain, in the midst of a messy exit from the European Union, was the exception in Europe, Jenisch said, adding he expected a 2% volume decline there this year.
LafargeHolcim’s subsidiary in Britain is of course Aggregate Industries.

So, is LafargeHolcim financially back on track after the €42bn merger of France’s Lafarge and Switzerland’s Holcim in 2015?

This month, the company pulled out of the Philippines, and, following divestments in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, will now no longer have a foothold in Southeast Asia. Proceeds of $4.9 billion "will be used to pay down debt." As Global Cement puts it:
when the world’s largest cement producer leaves an entire sub-continental market it deserves mention... That’s a region with 651 million inhabitants or around 8% of the world’s total population. All of those people need cement and other building products as their nations build houses, infrastructure and so on. And LafargeHolcim is no longer there.
Our strategic decision to divest South East Asia was executed with very attractive valuations allowing us to achieve a new level of financial strength.
However, The Manila Times paints another picture in the articles "Issue-plagued Holcim calls it quits" and "The mess Holcim leaves behind". It uses phrases such as "controversy-plagued" and "scandal-ridden", and talks about non-compliance of Environmental Compliance Certificates, numerous complaints about noise and dust, about dust-related allergies and respiratory problems, about officials accusing Holcim Philippines of damaging corals and other marine life:
For LafargeHolcim, the end of its Philippine sojourn represents a double loss, for which it only has itself to blame. Having bailed out the Indonesian market due to a huge overcapacity in that country’s cement industry, the company could have made great strides here where demand far outstrips demand [sic]. Instead, it cut corners and generally behaved as though the market situation obviated the need to follow any rules, and for that, it has been penalized with a diminished reputation, the loss of a strong foothold in a lucrative market, and the dubious honor of being a case study in bad strategy.
According to The FT's Lex column, LafargeHolcim still has some way to go, the merger of Lafarge and Holcim having "failed on its own metrics":
Since the deal, LafargeHolcim has sold businesses with an enterprise value of SFr8.4bn ($8.3bn). Sales have suffered from sluggish economies.
Returns on invested capital were meant to improve by 3 percentage points by 2018. Mysteriously, no 2015 group figure was published. Less surprisingly, economies of scale did not emerge.
Annual reports show ROIC of just 5.2 per cent in 2016, rising to 6.5 per cent last year, barely more than its cost of capital.
LafargeHolcim’s shares have fallen a quarter since the merger, trailing global building material stocks by a third. Jan Jenisch, the chief executive since September 2017, has cut central costs, risking French ire by closing the prestigious Paris offices. He aims to lift group ROIC above 8 per cent by 2022.

‘New drive to cut carbon emissions across Devon’

Devon’s ruling Cabinet has agreed to set aside £250,000 towards an initiative to persuade organisations, communities and individuals to do more to reduce global warming.
Council leader John Hart says Devon has to do more.
He wants to bring together public bodies across the county with business representatives and the utility companies to support urgent action on the climate emergency.
"We clearly can’t do this alone but I want Devon to take a lead in bringing organisations, communities and individuals together to take action.
"This is an issue that affects us all and requires action from all of us from large-scale corporate concerns to the individual resident.
"That’s why I’ve asked the Chief Executive, Phil Norrey, to lead on this to demonstrate how seriously we are taking it."
This comes at a time when there are calls for the UK's planning system to evolve to help deliver a net zero carbon target. The Committee on Climate Change’s recent report Net Zero The UK's contribution to stopping global warming warned:
Realising deep emissions reductions in buildings will require co-ordination and co-operation across all levels of Government, industry, businesses and householders… with evolution in the planning system to keep pace with Government ambitions.
Whilst Devon County Council’s planning remit is limited, it is nevertheless responsible for determining planning issues relating to mineral, waste and county council developments. It is therefore responsible for determining Aggregate Industries’ planning application for a quarry at Straitgate Farm – with its climate-busting 2.5 million mile haulage plan to process the material 23 miles away.

Wednesday 15 May 2019

‘The importance of the Ottery St Mary wellfield’

Those reliant on springs, wells and boreholes in the area for their drinking water supplies will know all about the importance of groundwater – and how important it is that we protect it.

Next week, the Ottery St Mary Heritage Society has arranged for Marcus Adams, a hydrogeologist from South West Water, to discuss the 'The Groundwater Resource under Ottery'
. Visitors welcome.

Monday 13 May 2019

Whilst AI is failing on CO2 emissions, other companies now promise dramatic cuts

Aggregate Industries' record on cutting CO2 would be laughable, if our bioclimatic crisis wasn’t so serious.


Of course, it’s not just AI that should be ashamed of its climate record. In 2018, the government’s official climate change adviser criticised the UK housebuilding industry, saying the "the industry should be ashamed of itself".


A majority of voters would now support radical action to slash greenhouse gases, a new poll has found.


Why should the UK act? As the birthplace of the industrial revolution, the UK has large historical emissions, and – if global CO2 emissions are allocated using per capita calculations – is more responsible for global warming than any other country. As the chair of the CCC recently warned:

In the last few days, some companies have been shaken into making promises to slash emissions. Bosch says it will be carbon-neutral by 2020, and even one company in the construction sector: BAM – a Dutch construction-services business – has committed to halving emissions by 2030:
Royal BAM Group group director of sustainability Nitesh Magdani said: "This medium-term CO2 reduction target will influence BAM to drive innovative solutions for our own operations as well as products and services which we provide to others. This target supports our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in our business and through our value chain, and paves the way to meeting our strategic target for a net positive impact by 2050. We hope this motivates others as well to achieve the level of impact needed. We can only do this together!"


Unless they want to be seen as pariahs, risking reputational damage and losing their social licence to operate, companies may have little choice but to change. John McDonnell has threatened that a UK Labour government would delist companies from the London Stock Exchange that don’t do enough to tackle climate change, saying his plans were about:
weeding out those that are not taking it seriously.
We’ve got to signal now that we’re being serious about tackling climate change. And we’re going to use every lever of government we possibly can to enable that to happen.
There is new urgency to the public discourse – both in the UK and overseas. Some would say we’re at the dawn of a new era – a frightening new era that will see our very existence under threat. Business as usual is not an option, if we want to survive. A low-carbon future is the only direction we have.

What future will there be for the polluters – Aggregate Industries and parent LafargeHolcim among them – in this new era, where the spotlight of attention will increasingly shine on CO2 emissions and the actions companies are taking – or not taking – to cut them, where companies will be increasingly judged – financially and morally – on their environmental performance, where the huge ethical issues of climate justice and climate equity will increasingly dominate?

Another day – another accident on the B3174 Exeter Road...

... Aggregate Industries' proposed haul road for up to 200 HGVs a day:


Sand: ‘the environmental catastrophe you’ve probably never heard of’



The problem, according to the WEF, is that:
Estimates suggest that between 32 and 50 billion tonnes of aggregate (sand and gravel) are extracted from the Earth each year, according to a report from the WWF, making it the most mined material in the world.
In 2012 alone, the UNEP estimates enough concrete was created to build a wall around the equator measuring 27 metres high by 27 metres wide.
According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), sand mining of river deltas, such as the Yangtze and Mekong, is increasing the risk of climate-related disasters, because there’s not enough sediment to protect against flooding.
The solution? According to the WEF:
While pressure on governments to regulate sand mining is increasing, more needs to be done to find alternatives for use in construction and for solving the world’s continuing housing crises.
Breaking the reliance on concrete as the go-to material for building houses, by increasing the tax on aggregate extraction, training architects and engineers, and looking to alternative materials such as wood and straw, would also reduce our demand for sand.

The Mineral Products Association – the trade association that supports Aggregate Industries and others – thought it would add its tuppence worth, with a briefing on sand supply "as a contribution to the current global debate regarding the availability, access to and consumption of sand":
The MPA’s new report clarifies that the UK is not running out of sand and construction aggregates, has robust regulatory systems, and industry operating standards are generally high, which allows the delivery of a sustainable supply of aggregates from extracted and recycled sources.
The MPA agrees with the WEF about the problem:
These enormous development demands are putting increasing pressure on global materials supply and, significantly, creating adverse environmental impacts due to a lack of effective management of resources and associated illegal activity.
But on potential solutions? Here’s where the MPA – a proponent of digging holes in the ground, and cheerleader for its aggregate multinational friends, and who clearly would not countenance "breaking the reliance on concrete as the go-to material" – deviates from the WEF. It has come up with four "potential solutions" of its own, one of which is:
Third, resource and minerals businesses have a responsibility to act sustainably wherever they operate and to evidence such responsibility, for example through independently-audited environmental management and responsible sourcing standards (ISO 14001 for environmental management systems and BES 6001 for the responsible sourcing of construction products).
A responsibility to act sustainably wherever they operate – including the UK presumably. Perhaps Aggregate Industries didn't get the memo – when it planned its unsustainable multi-million mile HGV haulage scheme for Straitgate Farm.

Don’t always trust the minerals press to tell the whole story

Take the Silverstone debacle. Tarmac gear up for Silverstone resurfacing, says Agg-Net – "a specialist publishing and exhibition company that serves the quarrying, recycling and natural stone industries":
This essential track maintenance work will take place over 20 days between 10–30 June and will see a bespoke and highly durable asphalt solution laid that has been specifically designed to withstand the high demands and stresses of vehicles competing in professional racing series.
And indeed Tarmac has been called in by our premier motor racing venue – as we posted in Silverstone to be resurfaced again – this time by Tarmac.

But you mustn’t always trust the minerals press to give the whole story.

Because, bizarrely, Agg-Net’s article manages to entirely avoid mentioning Aggregate Industries. They avoid mentioning that AI resurfaced Silverstone only last year, or that AI suffered a PR nightmare when riders aquaplaned off its new asphalt at 150mph and sustained serious injuries and races had to be cancelled, or that AI tried to gag a journalist over the affair, or that AI’s promised investigation into what went wrong has still not been made public, or that Tarmac has only been called in to redo AI’s malfunctioning work. Funny that.

But we’re being a bit harsh on Agg-Net. Because, as in too much journalism today, Agg-Net has simply rehashed a press release. Whose? Tarmac’s.

How very decent of Tarmac – as a competitor – not to make the most of AI’s troubles. Other construction journalists have been less kind:

It will be the second time in two years that Silverstone has been resurfaced. The surface laid by Aggregate Industries last year has come in for criticism for its performance in wet weather.
The circuit was relaid by Aggregate Industries before the season began last year but complaints about the surface by drivers led to the cancellation of the MotoGP race.
Aggregate Industries - who carried out the initial resurfacing project before last season’s race - launched a full review of its work after race promoter Dorna was forced to cancel the race for the first time since 1980 after the start was delayed by six hours as repeated efforts were made to clear standing water. It had to refund 56,000 ticket holders.

Thursday 9 May 2019

Another accident today on B3174 Exeter Road


How could this dangerous stretch of the B3174 be suitable for Aggregate Industries' plans for up to 200 HGV movements a day, when there are already so many accidents? What impact would AI's 44-tonne lumbering HGVs add to the mix? Two lorries have already come off the road in 2019 – here and here.

Wednesday 8 May 2019

Silverstone to be resurfaced again – this time by Tarmac

Silverstone is clearly wanting to avoid a repeat of last year’s fiasco – when its track was resurfaced by Aggregate Industries, and races were subsequently cancelled. Readers will be all too aware of the fun and games that ensued – covered in way too much detail on this blog.

Next month, the track will be resurfaced again – this time by Tarmac, who will be "working closely with Dromo, an Italian circuit consultant company" – at a reported cost of up to £5m. Silverstone will hope these parties really are racing circuit experts.


It’s unlikely they’ll make a worse job, judging by Lewis Hamilton’s comments about last year’s resurfacing:
The people they hired did the worst job ever. It’s the bumpiest track I’ve ever experienced
Have the lawyers left the scene yet? Seemingly not, according to Silverstone's MD Stuart Pringle:
We are considering the options available to us as regards last year’s resurfacing
Why Tarmac? In another interview:
In the end, Aggregate decided they didn’t want to do it and they stepped back, so we’ve gone with Tarmac.
The journalist that AI tried to gag, Mat Oxley, writing in Motor Sport Magazine, quotes hopeful Mr Pringle as saying:
Dromo has very exacting standards and Tarmac are well up for this – they are very aware that the eyes of the world are on them. Dromo’s Jarno Zaffelli has a very precise methodology and his approach to the design of the asphalt mix is very scientific. Tarmac want to get it right and even they are learning from Dromo.
To me, the big deal is that Dromo are involved. They know what they are doing
with the obvious inference that somebody else didn't.




Tuesday 7 May 2019

Is there any life left in AI’s application to quarry Straitgate, or is it just “resting”?

Aggregate Industries has again failed to meet an agreed extension of the determination date for its planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm.

Nothing has changed – at least publicly – since the last extension was agreed.

Devon County Council has agreed yet another extension with Aggregate Industries for the period for determination of its Straitgate application - the seventh - this time from 31 March to 28 June 2019.
What has been achieved since the last extension, or the one before, or before that?
Who knows? DCC is still awaiting information it requested from AI some 18 months ago.
This latest extension date – like the many before – has now been missed, given that the submission of any further information would require at least 30 days of public consultation before DCC’s next DMC meeting of 5 June.

Local people – who have had this threat of major development in the open countryside hanging over their lives for years – will draw their own conclusions from these continual delays. Plainly DCC is beyond caring, despite knowing that:
Is it acceptable to have more than one agreement to extend the time for determination?
Yes, if agreed by all parties, but good practice would be to make sure the first, agreed new target date was realistic given the work to be done, so a further agreement wouldn't be necessary.
Clearly, in the case of AI’s applications to quarry Straitgate, "good practice" went out the window long ago. Incredibly, even for this charade, DCC and AI will now be looking to agree their 8th extension to the determination date.

The last batch of information from AI – the Regulation 22 responses, which raised even more questions – was supplied to DCC almost 2 years ago. AI’s initial application went live almost 4 years ago.

Is there any life left in AI’s proposal to haul material millions of miles across Devon, contrary to Objective 1 of the Devon Minerals Plan which aims to:
secure a spatial pattern of mineral development that delivers the essential resources to markets within and outside Devon while minimising transportation by road and generation of greenhouse gases
or – in this newly climate-conscious era we thankfully, at last, find ourselves in, with David Attenborough, Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion et al. shaming our politicians into calling a climate emergency and the CCC calling for net-zero emissions by 2050 – has AI’s polluting and unsustainable application "ceased to be"? Is it "pushing up the daisies"? Is it in fact an ex-application? Or would AI representatives, on the contrary, remind us of its "beautiful plumage" (in this case a relatively small pile of sand and gravel) and have us believe "It’s not dead, it’s resting"?

Thursday 2 May 2019

MPA reports Q1 dip in sales, and spams every MP with the news

The Mineral Products Association – the trade association representing Aggregate Industries et al – has reported a sluggish start for construction-related mineral products in 2019; seasonally adjusted sales volumes for aggregates had the sharpest decline.

Someone at @MineralProduct was plainly concerned about this – and presumably the impact that the Brexit impasse is having on the cement and aggregate multinationals – and spent this afternoon spamming all our MPs with the news: