Chris Wakefield commented on "Comments"
Jan 8, 2020
Read your latest post: EA “will not be providing further responses” – but now accepts base of any quarry at Straitgate will have to be raised again, this time to reflect 1990 groundwater levels.So the old Environment Agency has chucked in the towel, fed up with protecting the Environment, which is the very thing you would imagine they would take seriously given that they are called the 'Environment Agency'. Maybe it's the 'Agency' bit of their title that is giving them trouble, and they are maybe thinking the agency they provide must not overstep some basic free market principles that a large multinational in pursuit of profit (the holy grail of economics over the last 40 years) must prevail over small time local irritants who stand in their way by coming up with cogent and incontrovertible arguments that seek to actually protect the environment, who point to the science that shows how irresponsible and damaging approval of a quarry would be to the hydraulic complexities of Straitgate and to the climate, who point to the people that have lived on it, with it and benefited from it in a totally sustainable way over hundreds of years, and by these means perplex and frustrate the multinational, who must now look for other methods, beyond its derelict application, for deliverance.The direction is ominously sliding towards the death of fair play - if you're losing the argument (they lost it way back in fact), then shut down the dialogue, exclude adverse opinion, look for ways around the the problem - press for relaxations in this or that provision, lobby for a little post Brexit de-regulation in Minerals operations and trim down even further the emaciated planning provisions that is the NPPF. What is most noticeable in all this is the moral bankruptcy of AI's efforts to push this through. They haven't a leg to stand on except the facilitation they get at DCC which really ought to step up and protect its manor from hostile incursions like this.If ever AI get their planning approval, it will signal the triumph of gutter politics over the great British tradition of fair play, and all of us, everywhere, will be the worse for it.
John Sheaves commented on "Comments"
Sep 27, 2018
I wish to comment on the note on this website posted on Sunday 16th about remarks I made at the West Hill hustings.In your post (presumably by Roger Giles as he was the only person taking copious notes in the meeting), it implies that I really do not care about the quarry or it’s impact on the environment which is not true. What I was trying to talk about at the hustings whilst being rudely interrupted by Councillor Giles (who then was rebuffed by another Councillor) was that we needed robust assurances in place by the quarry company before deliberation and we have not received them yet. In addition, some of the environmental issues highlighted as key concerns by some people have no strong scientific foundation and could be interpreted differently by experts and for both these reasons my personal view is that we do not have enough information yet to deliberate on a proper evidential basis. Therefore I cannot oppose this proposal yet. But that also means that I cannot support it yet either! I would only support it in any case if proper environmental safeguards and bonds were in place. Had I been elected, I would have been seeking assurances on these issues. I did not say that ‘you cannot get access to the documentaion’ as quoted, I said that I had not accessed key information which is different - that would be down to me if elected. The information on this website for example (which I was referred to has an understandable slant to it (it is after all a pressure group website with a single purpose) which therefore and understandably has to be questioned.
Unknown commented on "Comments"
Apr 27, 2015
So AI plan to extract 1.2 m tonnes of aggregate over five years from Straitgate Farm, transporting the material to Blackhill for processing. We have assurances about the number of trucks being little more than those which have hauled from Marsh Broadmoor to Blackhill, I understand that the permission to process at Blackhill runs out in December 2016, just twenty months away. Where will the material then be processed? It is highly likely that a suitable area will be cleared to erect a processing plant at Straitgate, which will then make it more economical to excavate the next 1.8 M tonnes without the need for transport but with the cost of removing unsuitable Ottery Sand, but the district is short of sand? Should this happen, will it then become economical to extract the whole 8 M tonnes of aggregate, despite upsetting the water table? I believe we are not getting the whole story, AI must make it clear where they expect to process material after December 2016 or my supposition may become fact. I understand that we need aggregates, the initial plan is not too unreasonable, but if it develops we could see a massive hole in the landscape for the next thirty years.
Unknown commented on "Comments"
Jan 23, 2015
1. Most of the old quarry sites I see around devon aren't restored, they are just moth balled. It is cheaper that way, and they just stay as scars on the landscape.2. If DCC really wants this sand out of the ground in could be done locally and they could retain their assets, rather than siphoning them off to a foreign company.3. The only people I ever hear making comments like yours actually work for Holcim or similar. How very clever of you...
Unknown commented on "Comments"
Oct 1, 2013
Hi can you answer a question for me, if you wanted to build an extension/patio or any other sort of building work to your property how would you do it ?, if it wasn't for the quarries doing this you could not build, or repair the roads that YOU drive on. The quarries down in Cornwall and the one at Blackhill have been grassed and had trees planted, so give nature time to take hold and you will not notice the scar.
