The Devon Minerals Plan says any proposal to quarry Straitgate Farm:
should include provision for alternative supply in the event of derogation of private water supplies resulting from mineral development.
The questions have always been: How would those alternatives be provided – to people, farms and livestock, wetland habitats in ancient woodlands, even a Grade I listed house and its mediaeval fishponds and tea rooms. How could they be deployed in a rapid manner, given many of the above are miles from a mains supply? How would the whole thing be policed? How could Aggregate Industries be relied upon – when it has stopped public scrutiny of Straitgate's groundwater data and has had a record of non-compliance with previous Section 106 agreements concerning water?
Of course, without knowing how, the Council is unable to properly assess Aggregate Industries’ scheme. As we posted in Alternative water supplies: EA’s remit is ‘objectives and outcomes, not solutions’, according to a specialist planning lawyer:
if there’s a problem which might be caused by the development, the LPA must know how that problem will be mitigated, and then assess such mitigation.
You would think all this would be even more important, given that Aggregate Industries’ scheme is, according to Professor Brassington, "untried anywhere else in the country" and "will not work in practice when the machine operators will be left to dig with little guidance."
So, what progress has been made on securing those details of how mitigation would be provided? What progress has been made since this email was sent by Devon County Council to Aggregate Industries’ consultants SLR back in 2015 in connection with the company’s first application to dig up the farm. The email concerns a number of matters including "Derogation or contamination of water supplies", for instance:
Please also note that those on private water supplies may not wish to be connected to the mains and may wish for a more natural supply from a new borehole or well. Additionally, the provision of a 30 year mains water supply may not be considered acceptable to those who currently enjoy free water. If a natural free source is lost then the responsibility for its replacement should be taken on in perpetuity.
What progress has been made in resolving DCC’s concerns, 5 years on?
Whilst it is now clear from Aggregate Industries’ Hydrogeological Assessment Appendix D Water Supply Survey just how many properties could be affected – how many people, how many farms, how many livestock, whether there’s any mains water nearby, etc etc – a number of these supplies have still to be monitored, Cadhay for example, and there is still no clear idea of how exactly alternatives water supplies would – in the real world – be provided.
You might have thought, given that we are now in 2020, and that email was written in 2015, that some of those issue might have been resolved by now – if they could be.
This was the state of Aggregate Industries' wholly inadequate draft Section 106 back in 2017:
Any dispute between the parties on any matter arising under this agreement shall be referred to an Arbitrator for arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act 1996.
Any dispute between the parties on any technical matter arising under this agreement shall be referred to an Independent Expert in such matters, having not less than 15 years experience – details of appointment of Expert to be agreed.
An Independent Expert is somebody like Professor Brassington. It is not some body like Amec Foster Wheeler (now known as Wood) who has already been caught whitewashing Aggregate Industries’ water reports.
But all this opens another can of worms. Who wouldn’t think that Aggregate Industries, or its insurers, wouldn’t dispute that they were at fault – given the potential costs involved? And then where does that leave people, if the independent expert proves to be not so independent, and the setting for a Grade I listed house is "turned into a quagmire"?
