Remember Teigngrace?

Remember July 1997, when campaigners took to the trees in protest at plans by ball clay firm Watts Blake Bearne (now part of Sibelco) to divert the rivers Bovey and Teign in South Devon?

Remember when DCC approved the development, ignoring concerns of local people that this would put Teigngrace – already prone to repeated flooding – at even greater risk; ignoring concerns from Devon Wildlife Trust and Professor David Bellamy that habitats would be harmed?

Remember when the "tree-people" – including Swampy of A30 fame – moved in? Remember the march to London, to the Department of the Environment?

The intervention of the eco-warriors proved crucial, as, on July 31st, the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott ordered a temporary halt to WBB's plans.

Flikr

Remember the public inquiry in July to September 1998?

It was during the public inquiry that it emerged that WBB had got its figures wrong in calculating the impact of changing the route of the rivers. Studies also found that rare species lived along the affected route.

So much for experts, or rather those in the pay of mineral companies.

As the UK Rivers Network – an organisation that grew out of the campaign – puts it:

Devon County Council had vigorously supported the plan and the Environment Agency had casually rubber-stamped it (failing to notice a massive potential flood risk that our own hydrological experts uncovered very late in the day), even though the overwhelming majority of local people bitterly opposed it. What stopped the plan was a physical occupation of the site, followed by a determined local campaign, energetic government lobbying, and a well-fought public inquiry with environmental activists, local people, and expert lawyers working as a superb team.

One of those lawyers, Charlie Hopkins – who has submitted a number of objections on behalf of Straitgate Action Group – gives more detail:

Six weeks into the Inquiry it emerged that the flow rates used by the applicants on which their computer generated model of the artificial channels was based were unreliable. The scale of the error was such that had the river diversion gone ahead as proposed there could have been widespread flooding of the nearest town downstream, Newton Abbot. As a result of the error which emerged under cross-examination of the developer's experts, WBB were forced to withdraw the application from the Inquiry. In an almost unprecedented decision the Inspector recommended, and the Secretary of State approved, a costs order against the developers in favour of the objectors to the proposal.

Is any of this sounding familiar? Familiar to a few of the things happening at Straitgate Farm?

DCC vigorously supporting the minerals company, ignoring charities, experts and local people with their concerns for ancient habitats, mediaeval fishponds, drinking water and flooding?

Unreliable computer models, in this case the MWWT that has already proved wrong?

Do we need some "tree-people" to focus minds again?

Accidents happen

These are the beautiful mediaeval fishponds so integral to the setting of Grade I Cadhay.

Earlier this month we posted that DGT were concerned AI’s plans could turn Cadhay’s fishponds "into a quagmire". The fishponds are directly downstream of where Aggregate Industries wants to quarry for sand and gravel at Straitgate Farm. What could possibly go wrong?

It's not just mediaeval fishponds.

The photo below is of Cadhay Bog. This ancient woodland is a wetland habitat also reliant on water from Straitgate. It's a remnant of prehistoric woodland or 'wildwood' that colonised Britain after the last Ice Age.

Cadhay Bog is again directly downstream of AI’s sand and gravel quarry plans at Straitgate Farm. What could possibly go wrong?

Plenty:

Only last week, silt-laden water from a frac-sand quarry in Wisconsin left a trail of destruction after one of the ponds was breached in order to rescue a worker who drove a bulldozer into a pond. Accidents happen.

We’ve heard a lot about how the mining companies could engineer solutions to any possible disasters or any possible outcomes and all this proves is there’s no way to engineer a solution that will prevent a human error

AI has also had problems in the US and has been fined $2.75 million, "the largest ever assessed to a nationwide ready-mix concrete company", for storm water violations.

Holcim – the "planet-trasher" – has repeatedly been fined for pollution offences in the US.

Do accidents only happen in the US? Of course not:

A Derbyshire quarry company was fined £40k and £2m clean-up cost after a lagoon burst its banks flooding 50 homes and polluting a 30-mile stretch of the River Derwent with contaminated waste.

Ibstock Bricks was fined £33k after discharge from Knutton Quarry polluted a 3.5km stretch of watercourse.

Imerys Minerals was fined £75k after polluting a river in Cornwall.

Interserve Construction was fined £60k after discharging silt-laden water into a Sussex river.

A Devon quarry turned the River Teign red with pollution.

A County Tyrone quarry was fined £13k for polluting a river.

Mick George was fined £20k after its quarry polluted brooks near a SSSI site.

A Northern Ireland quarry operator was fined £14k after discharging silt into watercourse.

Accidents happen. And not just in quarries. Anywhere where there's earth moving equipment:

Aberdeen Roads Ltd was fined £280k after silt caused by heavy rainfall polluted a river.

Harron Homes was fined £120k after silt from a construction site polluted a nearby watercourse.

Miller Homes was fined £100k after silt from a construction site polluted a beauty spot.

Even in East Devon, fuel leaked into watercourses after an excavator caught fire.

Accidents happen. Well, they aren't always accidents:

Lafarge Aggregates was fined £14k for repeatedly taking more water than it was licensed to take from the River Yare, on one occasion 900% more.

As one campaigner said, pointing to an incident where Aggregate Industries was fined £13k after operating plant without authorisation:

"This shows the sort of people we are dealing with. To be in breach of environmental legislation reinforces public opinion that Aggregate Industries cannot be trusted."

An article in the quarry press, Water Pollution Wake-Up Call, reckons that:

Thames Water’s recent £20.3 million fine for polluting the environment represents a wake-up call not only for the UK’s municipal water industry, but also for anyone in the quarrying industry involved in pumping water off site and releasing it into the environment.

Although the magnitude of the fines for pollution incidents has been increasing following the introduction of new sentencing guidelines in 2014, the judgement against Thames Water established a new framework against which future fines will be set.

The 2014 Guidelines set out a standardized approach in which sentences for a pollution event are determined on the basis of not only the significance of the incident, but also the size of the company and the degree of corporate culpability.

A typical pollution incident from a quarry causes discolouration of the water, smothering of the riverbed and, potentially, the death of aquatic species. In recent court cases quarrying companies have been fined £15,000 and £35,000 for discharging silt-laden water off site, and one particular company was told by the judge that if a repeat incident occurred from the quarry in question, or another of the company’s quarries, it would be considered to be a deliberate act and so any future fine would be significantly greater.

How big a risk is water pollution within quarrying?

Most quarries have excess water to dispose of back to the environment...

And accidents will happen. If quarrying took place at Straitgate, we would be entrusting the wellbeing of Cadhay's mediaeval fishponds and ancient woodland –  irreplaceable assets – into the hands of a profit-hungry multinational. If that doesn't scare people, then they are not thinking hard enough.

EA believes ‘organised criminal activity’ has taken place at quarry south of Bristol

The impacts of quarrying don't stop when the mineral is exhausted.

Take the case of Stowey Sutton Action Group, who fought successfully in 2013 to stop "645,000 tonnes of asbestos and other non-reactive hazardous waste to be dumped at the site"; a site near Chew Valley Lake – a water supply for Bristol.

Despite this, in 2016 SSAG reported "increasingly strong smells" coming from the quarry, and "contacted the Environment Agency and B&NES Council to report lorries bringing waste to the Stowey Quarry from long distances across the UK, Ireland and the Continent".

The EA, who are now carrying out a major investigation into illegal dumping by a 'significant number of companies and individuals', stated:

We believe there to be links to organised criminal activity

Charopa Lafargei and #BiodiversityDay

Last week it was International Day for Biological Diversity. The parent company of Aggregate Industries used the opportunity to remind us:

In 2017 we signed an agreement with @FaunaFloraInt to accelerate our efforts on #biodiversity #conservation in Southeast Asia. https://t.co/nxETFe1Unb #BiodiversityDay pic.twitter.com/kDOXuQs7u8

— LafargeHolcim (@LafargeHolcim) May 22, 2018

It’s interesting that LafargeHolcim should point people towards #biodiversity #conservation in Southeast Asia, because it was only in 2014 that an article by Tony Juniper in The Guardian, "A tiny, rare snail in Malaysia has big consequences for global cement giant", told us that "For the first time ever, a 'new' species has been named after the company that has the power to either conserve or destroy it"; Lafarge – now part of LafargeHolcim – was that company:

The naming of the snail will hopefully be the catalyst for a credible conservation plan at Gunung Kanthan and lead to Charopa lafargei ultimately being a source of pride and inspiration for Lafarge, rather than a reminder of corporate indifference to the rising tide of extinction that each day gathers more momentum.

Cement companies have form in the extinction business. Another article in the same year, "Cement company blows up limestone hill and renders snail extinct" was referring to "Malaysian multinational YTL, owner of Wessex Water" and about how "Humble snails are no match for the might and indifference of the global cement industry". The article again reminded us that a mollusc was "named Charopa lafargei after Lafarge in a bid to prevent the global and aggregates giant from decimating it". Fauna & Flora International’s Asia regional director was scathing, both of the cement industry:

They tout their biodiversity pages in their websites and sustainability reports with pictures of ducks and frogs and children enjoying the wetlands created from the hills they remove. They give and receive prizes for their restoration work – but do not acknowledge what is being lost.

and of Lafarge:

They would never have taken note of the snail unless the scientists had named it after them. Lafarge did not like it ... But the reality is I had been talking with them for 15 years and you get to the point where that discussion gets nowhere. This led Fauna & Flora International to resign from their international biodiversity panel.

The company has now signed a biodiversity agreement with Fauna & Flora International in order "to help LafargeHolcim meet the biodiversity aspects of its 2030 sustainability plan":

Biodiversity loss is a major global challenge. We aim to be good stewards of the land where we operate and demonstrate that proper management of quarries can reduce and reverse our impacts and even generate positive change for biodiversity.

But nothing has changed for Charopa lafargei. It is still on the IUCN Red List of Endangered Species – "Critically Endangered, with the likelihood of extinction when quarrying operations are commenced."

And that's obviously not something LafargeHolcim would want to tell the world on #BiodiversityDay.

LafargeHolcim to cut 200 jobs as Paris and Zurich corporate offices axed

It’s not all sunshine and roses with the world's number one cement producer and parent company of Aggregate Industries. On Friday, Reuters reported:

Chief Executive Jan Jenisch said the cuts, announced by the Franco-Swiss company on Friday, were part of a plan to simplify the company’s structure and improve performance.

“This painful but necessary simplification step is key to creating a leaner, faster and more competitive LafargeHolcim,” he said in a statement.

LafargeHolcim, which employs 80,000 people globally, is at the start of a new strategy under Jenisch following the company’s underperformance in recent years.

Closing the Paris office could spark opposition in France, where the merger of France’s Lafarge with Switzerland’s Holcim in 2015 was promoted as a merger of equals.

A French unionist said that while the announcement came as no surprise following regular staff cuts in recent years, the move laid bare where the balance of power lay in the company.

“This makes it quite clear that it is the Swiss who hold the reins of power,” Sylvain Moreno of the hard-left CGT union told Reuters.

Under the plan, the group will move its operations in Zurich to its site in Holderbank, in Switzerland, where LafargeHolcim’s predecessor company Holcim opened its first cement plant in 1912.

The cuts are part of a 400 million Swiss franc ($403 million) cost-reduction programme announced by the group in March when it said it would close its Singapore and Miami offices by the middle of this year.

LafargeHolcim has lost 27 percent since the merger was completed in 2015, trailing a 32 percent gain by the Stoxx Euro 600 construction & materials index.

Earnings have disappointed and the company has also been embroiled in a scandal after it admitted paying armed groups to keep a cement factory running in war-ravaged Syria.

Aggregate Industries: ‘We’re at the heart of habitat creation’

Another week, another attempt at greenwash from Aggregate Industries:

We take responsibility for the environment and communities we operate in, which is why we continue to increase the number of planted trees for habitat creation 🌳 https://t.co/AMvvMcFBqM pic.twitter.com/SZAVwQ0sYX

— Aggregate Industries (@AggregateUK) May 16, 2018

AI says it's "at the heart of habitat creation". Of course, people objecting to the company's planning application to destroy East Devon farmland – and ancient hedgerow habitat for protected dormice and bats – will think habit destruction is more accurate.

But let's look at the tree planting claim: AI is obviously in the business of planting trees – it has to do something to make up for all the environmental damage done by its operations and all the mature trees felled in the process.

The company claims "The number of trees we plant is always rising". But it's always worth checking AI's claims. Because, if the company's sustainability reports are to be believed, AI planted 16,800 trees in 2013 (p21) and 3,400 in 2014 (p24).

So... not 4,500 in 2014, and not "always rising".

It’s the level of accuracy we’ve come to expect from AI.

Meanwhile, at Straitgate, this is what's left of some of those 3,400 trees AI planted in 2014:

Planning system ‘not working in interest of communities or nation’

... concludes a review set up by the Town and Country Planning Association:

There has also been a significant loss of public trust in planning. A stark comparison can be drawn between the post-war consensus over the value of planning and the highly polarised contemporary arguments which play out over issues such as housing and energy. This process is part of a profound change in civil society, manifested in declining political participation and a loss of trust in ‘experts’. Clearly planning is not solely responsible for this wider political trend, but planning decisions are one of the greatest catalysts of local political activity because of their direct impact on people’s lives.

If there is one striking conclusion to be drawn from the work of the Raynsford Review to date, it is that the current planning system in England does not work effectively in the long-term public interest of communities or the nation. Putting this right requires a forensic examination of the current planning system and the many myths which surround it. It also requires a clear acknowledgement that the system needs to work in the interests of all. It should not be a system designed for the convenience of those who administer it, although it should be efficient and effective. Neither can it be a system which operates simply in the interests of the private sector, or one dominated by any particular vested interest. It must strike a balanced settlement in which the development needs of our communities are met in the most sustainable ways, and in which all parts of the community have a real voice in the decision-making process. This will always be hard to achieve; but, while a perfect system may be beyond our reach, a much improved one is not.

SLR: ‘Reserves at Haldon Quarry not needed because of Straitgate’

This is a tale that links Straitgate Farm with "42 hot tubs" and a derelict quarry:

At the end of 2017, permitted sand and gravel reserves in Devon stood at 6.2 million tonnes – according to DCC. This represents a landbank of over 12 years, based on a 10-year sales average that now stands at 0.516 million tonnes. If sales were to continue at this rate there would be a shortfall of 2.0 million tonnes by the end of 2033 (the period covered by the Devon Minerals Plan) – before the provision of any of the new sites designated in that Plan. More details here.

Devon's permitted sand and gravel reserves have fallen in 2017 by more than sales. In part this is due to planning permission lapsing at Haldon Quarry near Exeter Racecourse.

This is a soft sand quarry that has been unworked (and unrestored – as these photos show) since around 2007, and is now the subject of planning application 17/03000/MAJ for "a luxury holiday site - including 42 hot tubs". This is an application that has raised a number of objections, including from the Devon Stone Federation who considers that "the proposal would sterilise an important underlying mineral" and remarks:

The future supply profile for sand and gravel is constrained and the recently adopted Devon Minerals Plan has had to allocate additional sites for extraction to maintain the landbank until the end of the plan period. It is clear that there is a potential issue developing in the relationship between the location of the reserves making up the landbank and the spatial pattern of working to be pursued if the latter is to reflect, within geological constraints, the anticipated pattern of demand in the future.

DCC has also voiced concerns:

Haldon Quarry has a history of mineral planning permissions, of which the most recent (granted in April 2013) lapsed in April 2017 but with restoration and aftercare remaining to be complied with... the applicant should be required to provide a Mineral Resource Assessment if it is considered that the mineral resource is not of current or potential economic value.

But the applicants helped along by consultants SLR have other ideas:

The adopted Minerals Plan establishes that permitted reserves of sand and gravel stood at 7.01 million tonnes in 2015 and average production was at 0.56 million tonnes (see para 5.3.4). The Plan goes on to identify two preferred areas which contain up to 9.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel [Straitgate, with up to 1.2 million tonnes but arguably much less, and Penslade near Uffculme] which together will be sufficient to maintain the landbank over the plan period which runs until 2033… The reserves at Haldon are therefore clearly not necessary to maintain sand and gravel supplies in the County over the life of the Minerals Plan… it is clear that re-introducing mineral extraction back into an area which has become one of the major visitor destinations in the County would be challenging.

It was of course SLR that helped AI with its original planning application for Straitgate Farm in 2015, the application that subsequently had to be withdrawn.

But what’s noteworthy in all this is that the over-provision of 9.2 million tonnes in the new Minerals Plan – to cover a 2 million tonnes shortfall – is being trotted out as a reason why an existing sand quarry near Exeter is now not needed and "42 hot tubs" are.

The Minerals Plan is clearly not providing the "sustainable management of Devon’s minerals" it promised: not if the greenfield site at Straitgate is now being used as a reason why another "important underlying mineral" should be sterilised. As the Minerals Plan states:

Policy M11 expresses a preference for the extension of an existing aggregates quarry to secure new resources rather than development of a new quarry, in recognition of the generally lower level of impacts on the local environment and communities and the benefits of utilising existing infrastructure. 5.3.7

AI’s Blackhill closing down sale distorts Devon’s S&G sales figures for 2017

We posted about Blackhill’s closing down sale last year; about how:

HGVs have been streaming out of Blackhill Quarry in an obvious push to clear the stocking area before the end of this year - when both this area and the plant area are due to be restored.

Whether discounted or not, a substantial amount of material was sold out of Blackhill towards the end of last year, and ended up not only being being transported to ready mix concrete stocking yards across Devon, but also being included in the 2017 sales figures.

How much material was involved? In 2015, in a failed attempt to extend processing operations at Blackhill in an area surrounded by European nature designations, Aggregate Industries claimed:

Blackhill Quarry currently occupies approximately 60,000m2 of surface area for material stockpiling, equating to some 140,000 tonnes of material storage capacity. 6.42

What was the impact of this clearance on Devon’s sales figures?

According to DCC, in 2017 Devon’s sand and gravel sales were 598,000 tonnes – a rise on 2016 figures that closely matches Blackhill's storage capacity.

Last year was otherwise a period of subdued construction activity when, according to MPA and government statistics, almost all regions in the UK – including the south west – saw falls in sand and gravel sales.

Environmental Impact Assessments: Are they worth the paper they’re written on?

How accurate are EIAs? Particularly concerning the impacts of surface mining on groundwater? If the UK is anything like the US, the answer is not very; in fact, mostly not at all.

Major developments, as damaging to the environment as Aggregate Industries’ plan for Straitgate Farm, need EIA. It is a statutory process governed by UK and European Law. An Environmental Statement sets out the results of the EIA process.

The aim of Environmental Impact Assessment is to protect the environment by ensuring that a local planning authority when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a project, which is likely to have significant effects on the environment, does so in the full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and takes this into account in the decision making process.

The aim of Environmental Impact Assessment is also to ensure that the public are given early and effective opportunities to participate in the decision making procedures.

Experts are drafted in to produce these environmental assessments, but invariably it seems councils are told that any impact will be insignificant or minor or can be mitigated away and that everything will be fine. Friends of the Earth bemoan the fact that:

In practice, the ES is often a sales document for the applicant and there have been increasing calls for an independent commission of EIAs to take them out of the hands of those with a vested interest in seeing schemes approved.

The quality of ES can be surprisingly poor, with developers often keen to do the least possible to get the application through, so it is vital local people go on asking critical questions of the applicant and local authority planners.

A paper titled: Myth and Momentum: A Critique of Environmental Impact Assessments complains:

EIAs are now often contracted to the lowest bidder, with a focus often more on achieving mandated deadlines, rather than on product quality. In some cases, more expertise and resources may be put into winning a contract than completing it, with the important scientific work being done cheaply by newly graduated bachelor’s degree holders or inexperienced interns.

In the case of Straitgate Farm, where plans for surface mining bring risks to groundwater, flooding and a whole host of other things - we’ve already found that AI’s EIA has been riddled with a catalogue of fiction. Consultants Amec Foster Wheeler (now Wood), bankrolled by the world’s largest cement multinational, have produced an assortment of hydrological assessments likewise predicting that everything will be fine:

By working the quarry above the highest known water table and therefore dry, there is not expected to be any direct impact on any groundwater dependent features. 6.2.1

However, despite apparently being "defined with confidence", some of Amec’s predictions have already failed. Reason no doubt why Amec has so far refused to put a number on that level of confidence – even to the EA. Some of Amec’s reports have also been whitewashed.

In the US the equivalent of EIA is the Environmental Impact Statement. In 2006 a study was published – with the support of Earthworks, a nonprofit organisation in Washington DC "dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the adverse impacts of mineral and energy development while promoting sustainable solutions":

Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: The reliability of predictions in Environmental Impact Statements. Kuipers, J.R., Maest, A.S., MacHardy, K.A., and Lawson, G. 2006.

The overall purpose of this study is to examine the reliability of pre-mining water quality predictions at hard rock mining operations in the United States. To our knowledge, no effort has previously been made to systematically compare predicted and actual water quality for mines in the U.S. or elsewhere.

The report found that:

... nearly all the mines that developed acid drainage either underestimated or ignored the potential for acid drainage in their EISs. 7.1.1

... most case study mines predicted no impacts to surface water quality after mitigation are in place, but at the majority of these mines, impacts have already occurred. 7.1.2

... most mines predicted no impacts to groundwater quality after mitigation were in place, but in the majority of case study mines, impacts have occurred. 7.1.3

Furthermore, when surface mining was in close proximity to groundwater - as it would be at Straitgate:

Of the 15 mines with close proximity to groundwater and high acid drainage or contaminant leaching potential, all but one (93%) have had mining-related impacts to groundwater, seeps, springs, or adit water. p184

Straitgate Farm would obviously not be a mine with "high acid drainage or contaminant leaching potential", but the point to take away from all this is that the EISs, and those highly qualified consultants in the pockets of their mining friends, had made predictions – and 93% of them were wrong!

Read that in conjunction with Amec’s "there is not expected to be any direct impact" – and no wonder local people have no faith in AI’s house of cards.

Of course, UK consultants might claim to work to a higher standard than their US counterparts or might claim to have fewer conflicts of interest. But what we do know is that Amec is not infallible; we have already seen that. What we do know is that another well respected hydrogeologist disagrees with Amec’s conclusions.

It is for these reasons that caution should prevail at Straitgate - when there are so many people reliant on the site for their drinking water. It is for these reasons that AI’s so-called trigger levels for 'emergency winter working' – which would have failed this year with a dry winter followed by a very wet spring – are a nonsense. It is for these reasons that, if quarrying were to be permitted at Straitgate, there should at the very least be - as originally intended and as standardly deployed elsewhere - a 1m unquarried buffer maintained above the maximum water table; it is the very least that local people relying on wells and springs for their drinking water deserve - given the propensity for consultants to be wrong.

The joy that AI brings to other communities

You don’t have to go far to see the impact of Aggregate Industries’ quarries on local communities.

AI claims:

Our people and the communities in which we operate are important to us. We are committed to being a responsible partner, effectively contributing to improving the quality of life of the members of our workforce, their families and the communities around our operations.

But judging by a long list of objections to a planning application from AI last year, some residents living around Westleigh Quarry near Burlescombe would beg to differ.

They do not paint a picture of AI’s operations "improving the quality of life". Far from it.

Objections to application DCC/4007/2017 to vary the working scheme at Westleigh Quarry tell a story of dust inside and outside homes, of noise, of blasting vibration, of HGV problems on unsuitable roads, of damage to roads going un-repaired, of rules continuously being broken, of a complaints system that doesn't work, even of a "Section 106 condition from the 1997 Application [that] remains unfulfilled".

[This last point obviously won't instil any confidence for those 100 or so people around Straitgate hoping that a S106 agreement would take care of any problems that AI and its excavators might cause to their drinking water supplies.]

AI says that the "communities in which we operate are important to us"; one respondent to the Westleigh application claimed AI treats local residents "with utter contempt".

It was a similar story in Uffculme in 2013 for AI’s retrospective bagging plant planning application:

Arrogance of Company; no local consultation; contempt for local community...

It’s not just in Devon either. Here are two posts we made in 2014 and in 2013 about AI’s community relations in Staffordshire:

The reality is that Aggregate is sticking up two fingers to the wishes of the people of Uttoxeter.

In 2014 we posted how Community engagement is not about being nice; it’s the fourth pillar of CSR, about how:

... it is about companies being part of, not apart from, society.

Of course, Westleigh is on a different scale to any operation that would be permitted at Straitgate Farm: It is a hard rock quarry; extraction involves blasting; processing plant is on site; output is 800-900k tonnes pa – roughly one Straitgate a year. It already has planning consent until 2046; but that’s not enough for AI – the 2017 application is looking to extract an additional 600k tonnes over a 9-month period.

But issues with AI’s Westleigh Quarry go further back.

Whilst AI’s application of 2017 made a point of saying that "mineral extraction has occurred at Westleigh Quarry since at least the early 1800s", it made no mention of the Westleigh Quarry Community Survey that was performed – following a long history of complaints – in 2014.

This was an independent survey, jointly funded by the Parish Council, DCC and AI, that produced a long list of measures that, in the community’s view, would improve matters.

DCC is now holding a consultation – Responding to community concerns – Westleigh Quarry – seeking views on two of the measures put forward. Anyone with an interest has until 7 June to respond.

Devon Minerals Plan misleading on ‘relevant planning history’ for Straitgate Farm

Having had years to get its water story coherent, Aggregate Industries’ current planning application for Straitgate Farm is a hydrological mess: The Environment Agency and DCC are still awaiting fundamental information. The documents submitted are all over the shop. Some have been whitewashed. Some contradict others. The accuracy of the MWWT has already been shown to be a joke. The seasonal working scheme cannot work for large parts of the site. It’s a shambles.

Unlike AI, Hanson was straightforward and upfront when applying to DCC for permission to quarry the same material at Town Farm near Burlescombe:

The scheme proposes extraction within the Pebble Beds to 1m above the highest recorded water table level. C3.1

Unlike AI, Hanson did not have over 100 people relying on its site for drinking water; unlike AI, Hanson did recognise the importance of a 1m unquarried buffer*.

Were there any clues that water would present such a problem for AI at Straitgate? There had been an earlier planning application for the site in 1967, but according to the newly adopted Devon Minerals Plan – which designates the site a Preferred Area for future sand and gravel extraction – refusal was nothing more than a matter of prematurity:

Planning permission for sand and gravel extraction was sought in 1967… The proposal was considered premature and refused following a public inquiry.

But DCC failed to mention something. The application wasn’t just premature; it wasn’t just a question of waiting a few more years.

No: In 1967, ECC made planning applications to quarry not only Straitgate Farm, but also land at Blackhill and Colaton Raleigh. These applications related to a total of 1347 acres, of which 844 acres were to be excavated. The need was based – as it transpired – on some ridiculous forecasts. The Devon River Authority (now the EA) objected to all three applications. There was a Public Inquiry in July and August of 1968. The Inspector’s findings, which were endorsed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, were issued in July 1969. On the issue of water, the Inspector concluded:

408. Bearing in mind the above facts I am of the opinion that:- (b) In the case of Blackhill and Colaton Raleigh sites… (e) As the likely effect on water supplies, as advised by the Assessor and set out below, would be material, and the practicability of the recharge proposals put forward at the inquiry is in doubt, it is undesirable that either of the applications as submitted should be approved… (g) In the case of the Straitgate site… (j) The same considerations regarding water supply are applicable as set out in (e) above. (p) For this reason any approval [for Straitgate] would be premature, and my recommendation not to allow that application also is on that basis, apart from water supply considerations.

It would be easy for DCC to claim that this refusal was a long time ago, that it had forgotten all about "water supply considerations". It would have been easy to claim this, if the manner of the 1960s refusal hadn’t been carefully referenced in the new DMP; it would have been easy to claim this, if it wasn’t for the fact that the EA told DCC about these "water supply considerations" before the DMP was adopted:

Our understanding is that risks to groundwater (and water supplies) were an integral part of the reasons for refusal by the Inspector in 1967 and not just on the grounds that the proposal was considered ‘premature’.

Why wasn’t the DMP subsequently amended? Who knows? Plainly it wasn’t in DCC’s interest: If a planning application for Straitgate Farm was only "premature" in 1967 then surely now – some 50 years later – it’s not. And when you’ve been championing a flagship Preferred Area allocation for five years you hardly want to talk about pesky risks to groundwater; not when you’ve put a line through the 1m unquarried buffer to protect surrounding water supplies.

Whatever the reason, the DMP is obviously misleading on the subject of "relevant planning history" for Straitgate Farm.

What’s more, if DCC was aware of "water supply considerations", why was it so gung-ho on the allocation of Straitgate Farm in the DMP, so willing to overlook the site’s other inherent problems, so ready to ignore the objections from hundreds of people, so eager to rule out a multitude of other sites that the EA thought "may [be] preferable in environmental terms"?

Readers can draw their own conclusions.

* The unsaturated zone above the water table affords protection of the aquifer from surface pollution, allowing adsorption, attenuation and degradation of contaminants prior to reaching the water table. Removal of lower permeability clay layers from within the Pebble Beds could also remove some protection from the groundwater. During the operation of the site pollution may arise from the extraction and restoration activities. The pollution may be in the form of fuel, lubricants and other fluids associated with the operator’s machinery. C3.1

In contrast to Devon, plant move at Dorset quarry will ‘bring climate change benefits’

In contrast to Aggregate Industries’ nonsensical scheme in Devon, the one that proposes to haul each load of as-dug sand and gravel a climate-unfriendly 75km round trip for processing, Dorset Council has granted permission for Raymond Brown Group to move its processing plant at Binnegar Quarry – thereby saving 4km for each round trip.

Dorset’s Head of Planning was obviously pleased to report:

Due to the reduction in distance that the off-highway dump trucks would need to travel there would be a reduction in the emissions of Carbon Dioxide.

and that furthermore:

there would be highway safety benefits because off highway dumpers would no longer need to cross the public highway

When Devon’s Head of Planning eventually reports on Straitgate, no such claims will be possible; in fact, quite the reverse.

Greenwash - don't you just get sick and tired of it?

Greenwash is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as:

Disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image.

and on Wikipedia as:

a form of spin in which green PR or green marketing is deceptively used to promote the perception that an organization's products, aims or policies are environmentally friendly

Here's a recent example from Aggregate Industries:

#Sustainability is at the heart of everything we do 🙌 We’ve defined specific targets which are fundamental to achieving and maintaining sustainable climate goals. Download our report to discover our focus areas https://t.co/Eq5uZY3iXM pic.twitter.com/wkKoGo8Rcu

— Aggregate Industries (@AggregateUK) February 20, 2018

Obviously #sustainability is not at the heart of everything AI does, otherwise it wouldn't be planning a ridiculous multi-million mile CO2 intensive haulage scheme for Devon - detailed most recently here.

Click on the greenwash label for other examples.

OK, so greenwashing has been around some time, and AI is obviously not the only offender. But the application for Straitgate is an indication that still, in 2018, sustainability considerations are not driving AI's modus operandi.

Which is disappointing, because in 2011 the UK Green Building Council - whose mission is to "radically improve the sustainability of the built environment" - set up a Task Group to combat greenwash. And who should be on the Task Group but AI.

Did AI really want to combat greenwash? Or was it more about being seen to be doing something about it? In other words, more greenwash?

Devon landscapes at threat from NPPF changes, warns CPRE

An article from DevonLive:

CPRE Devon is urging people to take immediate action to object to the wording of a lengthy consultation document – the National Planning Policy Framework - which sets out the Government’s policies on proposed developments and how they are applied.

The campaigning organisation says the proposed new wording of the NPPF is vague and ambiguous and leaves National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty across the South West without the high level of protection they currently have from developers.

Paragraph 115 of the existing NPPF says: “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.”

But these key words are omitted in the proposed version. The new Paragraph 170 says only: “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”

The consultation is open until this Thursday, May 10. Comments and objections can be made online or by email to: planningpolicyconsultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk

DGT concerned AI’s plans could turn Grade I Cadhay’s fishponds “into a quagmire”

The Devon Gardens Trust wrote to DCC this week in response to the Straitgate Farm planning application. The DGT is part of The Gardens Trust, "the Statutory Consultee on development affecting all sites on the Historic England Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest". The Gardens Trust warned:

The water supply to the fishponds comes from a spring located just below the extraction site at Straitgate Farm, a mile to the west of Cadhay. The fishponds have relied on the spring as a source of water for over 500 years. If the proposed extraction disrupts the spring and the water supply, the fishponds which are an essential and important future of the gardens at Cadhay, will be turned into a quagmire, to the considerable detriment of the historic designed landscape.

We've posted about the mediaeval fishponds before. They are integral to the setting of Grade I Cadhay.

It’s our open afternoon this Friday 4th May. 2-5 pm .
Open to everyone. So come and visit the #Walledgardens#lakes #flowers #countryhouse #creamtea #cakes
We look forward to seeing you.https://t.co/Z55o2D7ZXu pic.twitter.com/KO4aKN3855

— Cadhay House (@CadhayHouse) May 1, 2018

We've also posted about how even the 1967 planning application for Straitgate left an area unquarried in an effort to protect the spring for these ponds.

Not only have AI's current plans made no such allowance, but recent water levels at PZ2017/03 - the nearest piezometer to the spring - have put the base of AI's proposed quarry AT LEAST 1M BELOW the maximum water table at this very location. No wonder people are concerned.

Locating a quarry upstream of these precious listed assets - allowing a profit-hungry-multinational to remove a million tonnes of sand and gravel from the hill above the spring supplying water to the ponds of this "glorious Elizabethan manor set in an unspoilt landscape" - is just asking for trouble.

Photo: Matt Austin