Last month, we posted that Aggregate Industries has put a stop to public scrutiny of groundwater data for the Straitgate application. We posted how the company had confirmed:
The change in the sharing of data has come about following a review of our practice in this area and is now in-line with company policy.
Subject to the determination by DCC of the current planning application then it is likely, in the event of planning permission being granted, that there will be a planning condition / s106 obligation which requires AIUK to agree a Water Monitoring Plan (WMP). The WMP will detail a monitoring schedule to ensure the protection of water assets including private water supplies and a requirement to produce an annual Hydrometric Report. This Report will be submitted to DCC and the EA and will contain all the borehole monitoring data, so at this time it will be available for public scrutiny.
It's understandable, of course, that AI would want to keep such data on groundwater levels hidden until the publication of monitoring reports; monitoring reports that in the case of nearby Blackhill Quarry were not published until years later, or not at all.
It's understandable, of course, that AI would want to hide the data when it's had so much trouble working out what's going on with the groundwater at Straitgate Farm, with one borehole putting the groundwater 2.8m above where AI predicted, and other groundwater contours having errors the height of houses!
But there's surely another reason.
AI's seasonal working scheme has now been described as "revolutionary"; not by us, but by someone on the other side closely connected to all this.
How exciting! Local people will be thrilled. Thrilled at the prospect of being part of an experiment, where their drinking water supplies are reliant on the success of this "revolutionary" scheme; a scheme that relies on groundwater levels falling over the summer months to allow AI to quarry down to the maximum water table level, rather than leaving the 1m unquarried buffer above the maximum water table typically employed to safeguard surrounding water supplies.
Readers may recall that it took AI a long time to fully communicate this "revolutionary" scheme. And not everyone immediately grasped what was at stake. In fact, to help the Environment Agency understand things, AI was asked to produce some "cartoons":
But, to get a better handle on what's proposed, let's look up some synonyms for revolutionary:
new, novel, original, unusual, unfamiliar, unconventional, unorthodox, off-centre, different, fresh, imaginative, creative, innovative, innovatory, innovational, inventive, ingenious, modern, ultra-modern, state-of-the-art, advanced, avant-garde, futuristic, pioneering, groundbreaking, trailblazing, disruptive; rare, unique, singular, unprecedented, uncommon; experimental, untested, untried, unknown...
Et cetera. If the seasonal working scheme is indeed "revolutionary", then three cheers for AI. Perhaps it's even a world first? In which case, why wouldn't you want to keep any data secret for as long as possible. No company would share data from a prototype or experimental working model, not until it's been fully evaluated and shown to work.
And that's really the point isn't it? fully evaluated and shown to work. To date, all we've seen is AI's working model fail – before any excavator bucket has even hit the ground – and the person behind the scheme leave the company.
But if the scheme is "revolutionary" then this will surely interest DCC, who, in 2017, asked AI:
The applicant is requested to provide information on other sites either in their control or operated by another company where the proposed working technique is used successfully.
The reason being:
The MPA will wish to consider whether the proposed working technique is a "novel approach" as set out in the NPPF Paragraph: 048 Reference ID: 27-048-20140306 in respect of the requirements for [financial] guarantees on the amelioration of impacts on local water supplies should there be any technical failure.
At that point, rather than "revolutionary", AI claimed:
The restoration profile and drainage together with the incorporation of infiltration areas is designed to maintain the water environment as close to the current situation as possible and so the working techniques are not considered to be so novel as to require a financial guarantee to cover restoration and aftercare costs as indicated in the NPPF - Planning practise guidance Paragraph: 048 Reference ID: 27-048-20140306
But, in actual fact, it was so novel that AI could not point to a single other site where its seasonal working scheme had been tried before. So yes, a world first!
If this doesn't flag up big red warning signs about the whole proposal, it should at the very least require a commensurate financial guarantee to be in place – readily accessible to cover any remedial action for interruption or contamination of water supplies to businesses, farms and homes, and any consequential losses. This of course shouldn't be a problem for AI, if it's so confident of its "revolutionary" scheme.
It's the price AI must pay for having such an experimental, untested, untried scheme.
