It’s an understatement to say there were inconsistencies in Aggregate Industries’ planning applications.
But it's not just AI. Here’s an article about another mineral operator who can't come clean with numbers:
The application, which would replace the Copyhold sand quarry, stated incorrectly that the size of the development would be 24 hectares, just below the 25-hectare cut-off that triggers the need for an EIA automatically.
However, after council officers carried out their own measurements, they determined that the site was in fact 27.8 hectares.
...the applicant will now have to provide the additional information on the environmental impact the proposal will have, particularly because of its location in the AONB.
The operator didn't miscalculate by just a few square metres, but by 9.4 acres. The applicant also said, in trying to justify why it needs the material from an AONB rather than "meeting the need for it in some other way" NPPF 116:
Examination of the alternative supplies for West Berkshire and Reading show that without a local supply, the nearest alternative suppliers of building sand would be around 25 to 30 miles distant from Surrey and Oxfordshire.
No doubt the Council will scrutinise those numbers closely too. Nothing can be taken at face value with these companies - nothing can be trusted.
