Remember the S106 groundwater agreement that Aggregate Industries didn’t comply with at Blackhill Quarry – for years?
Now another AI quarry in Devon has the red seal of Non-Compliance. At Westleigh Quarry "a new access ramp [was] constructed contrary to approved plans", and contrary to conditions that stipulate:
No development shall be carried out other than in strict accordance with the approved plans... unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority.
Readers can find DCC's site monitoring reports for quarries in Devon here.
Westleigh is currently the subject of planning application DCC/4007/2017 to vary the approved working scheme to extract an additional 600,000 tonnes. We've recently posted about the problems that Westleigh has brought to Burlescombe, here and here.
AI is obviously not in any rush to comply with these planning conditions, given that:
The condition was identified as requiring compliance (within 12 months) and listed as AMBER ‘work required’ on 1 August 2017.
And DCC is obviously in no rush to enforce these planning conditions, given that the Council now:
Requires Compliance by the following date 08/08/2019
Two years – for merely "amended working plans... to accurately reflect the circumstances across the site" where AI should be working in strict accordance with the plans – gives the reader another example of how much importance, how much urgency, both mineral operator and council attach to conditions.
It was the same with the neglect of AI's S106 obligations at Blackhill, where annual hydrological monitoring reports were submitted late or not at all:
So, what hope is there for Straitgate, and the aquifer AI wants to quarry into, when there's such disregard for planning conditions? What hope is there that people wouldn't lose their drinking water supplies, or that supplies wouldn't become contaminated?
And what hope is there for people who lose those supplies, if there's such disregard for timeliness and urgency? How long would it take – "in the opinion of the County Council, in consultation with the Environment Agency, on the balance of probability..." – for DCC to swing into action? How long would it take – "in the opinion of the County Council, in consultation with the Environment Agency..." – for AI to restore alternative supplies, temporary or permanent? How long would people be without water? Days? Weeks? Months? If AI were to be found guilty – "on the balance of probability" – the company promises action "forthwith". But does that mean 2 weeks, 2 months or, as above, 2 years? Does than mean before or after the consultants and lawyers have had their say? What's that promise worth without a number? What's that promise worth with such failings and lack of urgency elsewhere in the county?
Think it couldn't happen? Here are some examples of how much notice the minerals industry takes of planning conditions and water tables; in one case "residents [had] no basic water supply for in excess of 13 months".
