On 21 June, we posted Would the S106 water monitoring plan for Straitgate be as successful as Blackhill’s? pointing to the fact that Aggregate Industries had not complied with the Section 106 agreement for hydrological monitoring at its nearby Blackhill Quarry – these being the relevant sections from the 2017 and 2016 monitoring reports:
A new monitoring report for Blackhill, dated 31 July 2018, is now on DCC's website. On the S106:
So the story now appears even worse than before, with apparently "No report on File since 2011"; the Section 106 conditioned that AI was meant to submit hydrological reports annually.
Reports have now turned up at DCC – just days after our post. Fancy that. No coincidence whatsoever.
But what good are hydrological reports years out of date? When any damage has already been done? When any remedial action may no longer be possible? AI has proposed a Section 106 for private water supplies that rely on groundwater from Straitgate Farm. But what use would that be, if AI doesn't comply with Section 106 agreements? As we posted before:
If AI can't be bothered to fulfil its Blackhill obligations, what hope is there for Straitgate? What hope for people who lose their drinking water supplies? What hope for people whose supplies become contaminated? What hope for timely action, when the last three hydrological monitoring reports for Blackhill have either been submitted late or not at all, when surface flows haven't been measured since 2011?
And it's not the first time AI has had problems with Section 106 agreements. In 2016 we posted:
Reports that were meant to be with the Minerals Planning Authority in 2013 still seem to be outstanding - despite annual reminders and the threat of enforcement action.
 |  |
