In August, we posted that:
... go-ahead was given in Nottinghamshire for a 59-hectare quarry extension – on an unallocated site. More farmland will be lost – this time ten arable fields and one pasture field – for 3.6 million tonnes of sand and gravel; we obviously couldn't care about food any more, despite warnings from the World Wildlife Foundation that "Humanity must produce more food in the next four decades than we have in the last 8,000 years".
Just a month or so later, go-ahead has now been given for another quarry on an unallocated site, this time for 3.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel in the Shropshire green belt. The planning application generated "an unprecedented level of objection", but it made no difference; another 44.5 hectares of farmland will be trashed.
We highlight this, not because of the parallels between Aggregate Industries' application to quarry Straitgate Farm, where 42.5 hectares of best and most versatile farmland would also be lost – for less than a third of the sand and gravel that’s being sought in Shropshire – but because of Shropshire Council’s more cautious attitude to groundwater. The planning officer’s report says:
The maximum extraction depth of 106m AOD would only occur over 3 hectares and this would remain over 10m above the regional groundwater table which fluctuates between 93mAOD – 96mAOD.
There was concern by objectors that the maximum groundwater level beneath the site may have been considerably underestimated. The officer summed up the hydrology concerns accordingly:
Hydrology: Concern that the quarrying operations will result in an adverse impact on local water resources which are vital for agriculture, ecology, heritage and which provide the only source of drinking water for some local residents. Concern that insufficient information was provided with the application to allow the nature of any potential impacts to be adequately assessed. Not all local water resources and features were identified in initial surveys by the applicant’s consultant. Disturbing the groundwater will create serious problems for anyone who benefits from it.
In other words, similar concerns expressed by local people around Straitgate. However, in the case of Shropshire Council they proposed conditions such that:
Working not to proceed within the proposed bottom 2 metres of the excavation unless appropriate criteria are met with respect to groundwater monitoring, including maintenance of an appropriate freeboard above the permanent groundwater table.
Appropriate freeboard?
The applicant is willing to accept a condition ensuring that a minimum freeboard is retained above the aquifer. A freeboard of 2m is suggested, using results of the proposed groundwater monitoring scheme. In practice however, the applicant’s hydrological data indicates that any freeboard is unlikely to be less than 8m.
And it’s not unusual to specify a 2m freeboard; we’ve posted about this before in AI doesn’t want to leave 1m to protect water supplies; would it like to leave 2m?
What freeboard – or safety margin – is proposed above the maximum winter water table at Straitgate, where drinking water supplies to over 100 people are at risk? Zero, zilch, zip, nada, nothing.
