Friday, 31 July 2020

Aggregate Industries must surely wish Tarmac would stop talking about Silverstone

It must be both embarrassing and galling for Aggregate Industries to watch competitor Tarmac crow about the "record-breaking asphalt surface" it laid at the Silverstone motor racing circuit.

How different it could have been for the so-called "racing circuit experts" from Aggregate Industries. If only it had gone right. If only riders hadn’t been injured when they aquaplaned off the company’s new asphalt at 150mph. If only races hadn’t had to be cancelled. If only the company hadn’t gagged a motorsport journalist. If only it hadn’t been such a PR nightmare. If only all this hadn't happened.

Tarmac, it will be remembered, stepped in last year to save the world-famous motorsport venue, removing and relaying the asphalt surface that had been put down by Aggregate Industries and that had caused so many problems.

This weekend sees a crowdless Formula 1 British Grand Prix at Silverstone. Tarmac has been making the most of its Silverstone rescue mission, this week calling for people to Sign up for the Tarmac ‘Surfacing Silverstone’ webinar.

‘Surfacing Silverstone – Key learnings and reflections one year on’ will provide the inside track on the installation of the iconic Northamptonshire racing circuit’s latest record-breaking asphalt surface.
Tarmac’s technical manager, Tim Smith, will be joined by special guest Stuart Pringle, Silverstone managing director, to explain how the project team worked round the clock to lay a bespoke and highly durable asphalt solution at the world-famous venue.
The session will discuss how Tarmac were able to meet the project’s exacting specification requirements, as well as the cutting-edge technology and processes used to complete the project on time.
This included a UK-first roll out of 3D GPS-guided planing – used to remove the previous track surface and adjust gradients with millimetre precision – running three paving machines in echelon to eliminate joints across the width of the track, and digital paving technology to guarantee quality during the laying and compaction of the asphalt.
Talk about rubbing salt into poor Aggregate Industries’ wounds. But its problems go further.

Tarmac intends to leverage its success with Silverstone beyond the world of motor sport:
The team will also reflect on key learnings from the project and how the techniques used could offer practical solutions and improvements in the way that major road projects are carried out in future.
Perhaps they hope that others will now be crying out for Tarmac's expertise, wanting road surfaces as good as the one laid at Silverstone.

What future now for Aggregate Industries in the motor racing world? Last year, the company was relegated to 20 tonnes of track repairs at Goodwood.

Posted by
Labels: ,

Breedon reports £10 million pre-tax loss

What impact has lockdown had on the UK building materials sector?

Breedon Group plc – the largest independent construction materials group in the UK, operating 98 quarries following a deal earlier this year with Cemex – is the latest firm to see numbers decimated by lockdown.

Breedon Group plc have reported a pre-tax loss of £10.1 million for the six months ended 30 June 2020, down 126% on last year’s first-half pre-tax profit of £39.5 million. Revenue for the half year was down 25% to £335.3 million (2019: £447.4 million) and underlying EBIT was a loss of £0.6 million (2019: profit of £49.5 million).
What impact has lockdown had on Aggregate Industries? Parent LafargeHolcim does not split out financial figures for its UK subsidiary, but in an announcement yesterday revealed:
Results for the Europe region were impacted by COVID-19 with full recovery in June. Markets in Germany, Central and Eastern Europe were resilient. Strict lockdown measures in the UK and France impacted the performance of the region. Volumes suggest a V-shaped recovery in June for the majority of markets, except in the UK.
Posted by
Labels: , , ,

Climate change ‘driving UK's extreme weather’



The UK rainfall total for 2019 was 1,227 mm, 107% of the 1981–2010 average, and 112% of the 1961-1990 average. Most of the UK received above average rainfall, with the exception of parts of East Anglia and the Home Counties, western and northern Scotland and Shetland.
According to the BBC article Climate change 'driving UK's extreme weather':
Hannah Cloke, professor of hydrology at the University of Reading, identified a number of concerning trends.
She said: "As well as extreme hot temperatures, the stand-out weather events in 2019 were the many different types of floods, causing millions of pounds worth of damage and causing misery to many people."
"The picture that emerges is of the multiple flooding threats that are facing the UK, many of which are exacerbated by climate change."
Gareth Redmond King from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) said: “These are records we shouldn’t be breaking. Tropical temperatures may be nice on occasion, but here in the UK they are a stark reminder that we are in a climate crisis."
"The whole world has to act ahead of next year’s UN climate conference; and as hosts we must urgently raise our ambition if the UK is to show global leadership."
Posted by
Labels: ,

Wednesday, 29 July 2020

Significant increase in HGVs on B3174 Exeter Road from working minerals “unlikely to be appropriate” – says report commissioned by DCC

Last year, Devon County Council ran a consultation on proposals for a new £7.2 million primary school for Thorne Farm, Ottery St Mary, with land next to the school site earmarked for 150 homes to help fund the cost. The plan is to relocate Tipton School to this site – due to flooding concerns at its current site.

Last October, we pointed to the fact that not only would the site be just 1000m downhill and downwind of dust, PM2.5, PM10 from any mineral workings at Straitgate Farm, and directly downstream from additional runoff caused by mineral workings – but that the Thorne Farm site was in a Mineral Consultation Area, one of many that Devon County Council had plastered across the county.



At the time of Devon County Council’s consultation last year, the question of situating a primary school and 150 new homes next to a multi-million tonne resource of sand and gravel – which had been safeguarded by the Council but would effectively be sterilised by the development – had perhaps surprisingly not been addressed.

Outline planning application 20/1504/MOUT for the school and houses was lodged with East Devon District Council last week. James McInnes, Devon County Council's cabinet member for schools, said:
We've listened very carefully to local residents and have made a number of changes as a result of their input. A lot has happened with covid-19 since we held the public consultation and I believe that this multi-million pound injection into the local economy couldn't come at a better time.
If we are to build ourselves out of recession then what better way to do it than by providing the most modern educational facilities for our children, who have been among the worst affected by the pandemic.
Changes include a roundabout on the B3174 Exeter Road. But what on the subject of those sterilised minerals? To answer that point, Devon County Council commissioned a Mineral Resource Assessment which was delivered last month.

Evidence pointed to post-medieval sand extraction from the site. However, the MRA recognised:

The MRA also recognised that a significant increase in HGVs on the B3174 would be inappropriate given that "the B3174 provides the principal access to Ottery St Mary":

This surely begs the question:

If HGVs working minerals at the Thorne Farm site "is unlikely to be appropriate" for the B3174, how on earth can up to 200 HGVs a day from a quarry at Straitgate – just 1000m to the west of the proposed new school – be appropriate for the same stretch of road, particularly given the level of accidents on this stretch – some documented here – and when the impact of 150 cows crossing 4 times daily has still not been assessed?

For anyone in any doubt, this was the impact that 5 cows had on the B3174 Exeter Road recently:


Clearly the adverse impacts detailed in the MRA commissioned by Devon County Council – HGVs, noise, exhaust fumes, dust, visual impact – are not the sort of thing to put near any home, including those around Straitgate.

The MRA concluded, unsurprisingly, by saying that the millions of tonnes of sand and gravel near the site could not realistically be worked and were therefore "not of strategic importance":

The "significant constraints" highlighted could equally apply to the resource at Straitgate.

The Planning Statement for the new school and associated homes can be found here. Does the application raise any other points of relevance?

Exeter Airport had concerns about this development, just as they had with Aggregate Industries' proposal for a quarry at nearby Straitgate Farm. They were concerned that the operation of the nearby navigational beacon might be impacted, meaning "metallic substances will not be permitted within the construction of the roof elements", and neither will roof-top solar panels be allowed.

Traffic counts in September 2019 for the B3174 Exeter Road "the main highway access into Ottery St Mary from A30" were recorded as 6948 for a workday average, which again confirmed that figures previously put forward by Aggregate Industries were fiction.

On the issue of flooding for the proposal:
The design of the SUDS systems will prevent any increase in the downstream flood risk due to the development proposals. 9.11
The question is whether the SuDS have allowed for a 100 acre sand and gravel quarry upstream. One assumes not.

A Community Consultation Summary Report has been produced. As one respondent said:
Tipton school should be in Tipton, not on the other side of Ottery right next to a quarry.
Posted by
Labels: , ,

The Groundwater Project – “Because the world needs water, groundwater”

The not-for-profit Groundwater Project casts itself as "an Evolving Platform for Groundwater Learning", with a goal "to publish educational materials, online and free-of-charge":


Groundwater is the source of drinking water for nearly half of the global population and supplies much of the world's irrigation water. Groundwater is complex, out-of-sight and mostly out-of-mind.
Humanity faces unprecedented challenges today. Our rapidly growing population and the demand for higher living standards are putting enormous pressure on our planet. Abundant and clean freshwater resources have been taken for granted, and groundwater, being invisible to human eyes, is a particular case in point. Many people have the misconception that the groundwater supply is infinite. This profound unawareness of the origin and fate of groundwater, compounded by our increasing appetite to withdraw more groundwater and the need to dispose of more waste, is the cause of rapidly growing problems associated with groundwater quantity and quality. Examples of groundwater over-exploitation and contamination appear in the news media nearly every day.
In writing the GW-Project, we tell the readers what we know as scientists...
The more people that know about the importance of groundwater the better. The UK could face water shortages in just 25 years, as we recently posted in ‘Great British Rain Paradox’:

Posted by
Labels:

LafargeHolcim’s ‘internal controls have failed again after the Syrian IS scandal’


We posted how a UN report by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar listed LafargeHolcim – parent company of Aggregate Industries – as having ties to construction companies controlled by the Myanmar military, the Tatmadaw, who now face charges of genocide against the Rohingya people:
Company leadership links between Lafarge, now LafargeHolcim, with Sinminn Cement, a MEHL subsidiary company... The Mission finds that any foreign business activity involving the Tatmadaw and its conglomerates MEHL and MEC poses a high risk of contributing to, or being linked to, violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law.
Our post has recently been attracting high traffic levels, appearing on the first page of this Google search:

Clearly something was going on, and indeed it was.

Last weekend, SonntagsZeitung, a Swiss Sunday newspaper, published Wie LafargeHolcim in Burma am nächsten Skandal vorbeischrammte. Myanmar Now followed, with Swiss cement company backtracks on plans to sell to military cronies. This article pointed to the report by SonntagsZeitung’s journalist Konrad Staehelinhad:
The world’s largest cement producer is liquidating its Myanmar assets and reversing its previously stated intention to sell to its military-linked partners, after reporting in the Swiss press shed light on the possible impact on human rights of the sale.

More details can be found in the Myanmar Now article, but here are a few excerpts:
In June, LafargeHolcim said it was selling its shares [in a cement project] to companies owned by two of the project’s investors, Hla Myo and Ye Myint, according to reporting by journalist Konrad Staehelin in the German-language SonntagZeitung newspaper.
Both men are close allies and business partners of the military.
Staehelin, who has previously reported for Frontier Myanmar, wrote that the company likely knew about the potential problems with their partners but only pulled an “emergency brake” on the sale once the issue became public.
“Compared to the company’s intentions expressed in June for the sale, this is a 180-degree turn,” he wrote. “There is no other plausible explanation for this but that LafargeHolcim, confronted with SonntagZeitung’s reporting, switched course.”
“For LafargeHolcim, the liquidation of the Burma business means a write-down of a few million. More serious is the fact that internal controls have failed again after the Syrian IS scandal.”
Eva Mairinger, head of media relations at LafargeHolcim, said the company ceased operations in Myanmar in 2018, and claimed LafargeHolcim – which had previously been involved in funding terrorists in Syria – "takes all necessary measures to ensure we operate according to the highest standards of governance and human rights around the world":
We are now in the process of liquidating the dormant company and do not intend to sell anything.
Justice For Myanmar welcomed LafargeHolcim’s volte-face:
We see that by halting a planned sale to their business partners, who are members of the military cartel, LafargeHolcim is denying a future revenue stream to the Myanmar military, who are war criminals. Justice For Myanmar calls on LafargeHolcim to undertake the liquidation with full transparency and ensure it has no impact on human rights, in accordance with their responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights.

Posted by
Labels: , ,

Greater Exeter Strategic Plan dealt a blow

The Greater Exeter Strategic Plan, an emerging plan proposing the spatial strategy and level of housing and employment land across the four Devon council areas of East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge, has been dealt a blow after East Devon councillors recommended pulling out of the process.

The GESP had proposed some 53,000 houses be built across those four areas between 2020 and 2040, as Cllr Claire Wright explained.

An eight week consultation on the document was due to take place this Autumn, but following the decision of East Devon, that will not be taking place now, with Exeter, Teignbridge and Mid Devon councils now facing discussions over how and if they proceed with the GESP.
Posted by
Labels:

Can ecological compensation schemes achieve “No Net Loss”? Scientists say NO

Earlier this month, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave a speech:
When we destroy nature, we undermine our very foundations. Every country faces a choice as they map out their recovery - store up problems by sticking with the status quo, or get back on our feet by building back better and greener. In our own country, nature has been in decline for decades.
If we are to protect species and habitats and also deliver biodiversity net gain, we need to properly understand the science to inform these crucial decisions. And we should ask ourselves whether the current processes are as effective or efficient as they could be.
Later this autumn we will be launching a new consultation on changing our approach to environmental assessment and mitigation in the planning system. If we can front-load ecological considerations in the planning development process, we can protect more of what is precious.
Many are concerned that "changing our approach to environmental assessment and mitigation in the planning system" means that we are heading towards a "deregulatory race to the bottom". They can hardly be blamed for thinking that, given Boris Johnson's recent claim:
Newt-counting delays are a massive drag on the prosperity of this country.

Needless to say, neither BBC News nor the Local Government Association were able to find any evidence that wildlife surveys were delaying development. Craig Bennett, head of the Wildlife Trusts, said "the PM's speech was pure fiction".

Given their concerns, 18 charities have now called for "locally accountable and democratic" planning rather than further deregulation.

The letter says: “Further deregulation of the planning system would erode the foundations of any green and just recovery long before the first brick is laid. Nowhere else in the world is such a deregulatory race to the bottom being considered.
“It would be completely out of touch with the public mood, when two thirds of people reported wanting to see greater protection and investment in local green spaces after lockdown. This surge of appreciation for quality local green spaces is just one indicator of the increased appetite for action to tackle the housing, climate and nature crises head on.”
Crispin Truman, chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “Environmental impact assessments are the foundations for this, protecting not only vulnerable wildlife and nature but landscapes, our built heritage and our health.”
As it stands, the NPPF says:
170. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: ... d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;
Only 12 months ago, updated Planning Practice Guidance on the natural environment was issued, with much reference to biodiversity net gain:
The National Planning Policy Framework encourages net gains for biodiversity to be sought through planning policies and decisions. Biodiversity net gain delivers measurable improvements for biodiversity by creating or enhancing habitats in association with development. Biodiversity net gain can be achieved on-site, off-site or through a combination of on-site and off-site measures. It may help local authorities to meet their duty under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
Indeed, new biodiversity net gain duties were introduced for councils and developers:

The government's response to a consultation on biodiversity net gain proposals outlines a number of new requirements for local authorities and applicants in an effort to make sure future development improves the natural environment.
The guidance suggests that measures to achieve net gain may involve creating new habitats, enhancing existing habitats, providing green roofs, green walls, street trees or sustainable drainage systems. But it makes clear that the policy does not override existing protection for designated habitats. Councils also "need to ensure that habitat improvement will be a genuine additional benefit, and go further than measures already required to implement a compensation strategy", it adds.
Net gains for biodiversity sounds great, doesn’t it? Who could disagree with that?

But let’s see how net gains for biodiversity works in practice. Let’s look, for example, at a planning application for a sand and gravel quarry in East Devon; let’s look at Aggregate Industries' planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm:

The last time anything of substance happened with this application was in 2017. In that year, Devon County Council issued a Regulation 22 request to the company, asking a range of questions, including:
The MPA requests in tabular form an ecological balance sheet clearly setting out losses and gains of habitats (and a clear timetable for gains to be implemented) in the context of issues the issues raised in this Reg 22 request. The information submitted is confusing, particularly in the light of requests made by the airport. 4.5
Through its ecology consultants, the company responded:
The Biodiversity Impact Assessment is summarised in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. Based on the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, and the proposed development footprint, the application site represents 130.06 biodiversity units before development, and 183.96 after development; a net gain of 53.90 biodiversity units. 2.15
Amazing stuff. As if by magic, a net gain for biodiversity is conjured up.

Clearly it's all bonkers. Many will rightly wonder how something as invasive and damaging as a quarry can achieve a net gain for biodiversity. Many will rightly wonder how such a net gain can be calculated with such certainty and such precision, and to two decimal places too.

It’s all smoke and mirrors. As we wrote in our response at the time:
Quite how ripping out 1.5km of ancient hedgerow up to 4m wide - habitat for EPS dormice and bats, felling 6 mature oak trees, removing 6000m2 of advance planting objected to by the airport, not restoring for 10-12 years, and replacing natural history hundreds of years old with saplings and tree tubes, can show a net biodiversity gain defies logic and common sense. 74
But it’s not just us who questions the jiggery-pokery of ecological compensation schemes. Scientists, including from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, have recently published a paper:
Sonter, L.J., Simmonds, J.S., Watson, J.E.M. et al. Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals. Nat Commun 11, 2072 (2020).
It's worth noting the Introduction:
Halting biodiversity loss and securing ecosystem services are fundamental challenges facing humanity. While industrial development is often important for pursuing economic goals, it places immense pressure on ecosystems. In response, many nations have adopted ecological compensation policies to address the negative impacts of development projects, often in an attempt to achieve “No Net Loss” (NNL) of biodiversity and other related goals, such as securing the provision of ecosystem services valued by local people. These policies invoke the “mitigation hierarchy”, where biodiversity losses from development are first avoided wherever possible, then minimised and remediated and, finally, offset to generate commensurate biodiversity gains elsewhere. Hundreds of compensation policies exist worldwide, including corporate standards and requirements set by financial institutions; yet, their contribution to conservation goals remains uncertain at global, national and even local scales. Indeed, some compensation policies appear to facilitate ongoing biodiversity losses and cause further damage to ecosystem services.
The paper examined the effectiveness of different forms of ecological compensation schemes for developments such as palm oil plantations or mines in achieving "No Net Loss" of biodiversity. It found that, no scheme achieved no net loss:
We use spatial simulation models to quantify potential net impacts of alternative compensation policies on biodiversity (indicated by native vegetation) and two ecosystem services (carbon storage, sediment retention) across four case studies (in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mozambique). No policy achieves NNL of biodiversity in any case study.

That’s something to bear in mind when consultants working for Aggregate Industries – reading tea leaves or whatever other mumbo-jumbo – claim:
the application site represents 130.06 biodiversity units before development, and 183.96 after development; a net gain of 53.90 biodiversity units.
But, to be fair, it’s not just Aggregate Industries; all developers are at it. No wonder our planet's in a mess.

Posted by
Labels: , ,

Gloomy prognosis for UK construction

Arcadis has downgraded its tender price forecast for 2020 to minus 4% in London and minus 3% in the regions, with the risk of further deflation into 2021.

Savills estimates that 171,000 new homes will be built in England this year – 44pc less than last year. Their researchers believe housebuilding might not return to 2019-20 levels until 2022-23, even assuming the economy bounces back next year.
Posted by
Labels:

AI’s plan to extend Chard quarry would have ‘significant adverse impact on AONB’


Last month, we posted about Aggregate Industries' planning application to extend Chard Junction Quarry in the Dorset AONB, highlighting that, even though the company had modified its scheme to quarry 830,000 tonnes of sand and gravel at Westford Park Farm over some 7 years, Natural England still had concerns:
Although the scheme is a substantial improvement on the previous proposals the scheme will nevertheless inevitably result in the loss of fields of a rural character within a natural landform in the Axe Valley Character Area. The final restored fields and associated habitats will make a notable extension to the areas of restored quarries within the general locality resulting in unavoidable detrimental effects on the protected landscape of the Dorset AONB.
This week, Dorset Council Landscape Officer made their views known. It won’t have been the sort of response Aggregate Industries was hoping for:
I have a concern that a detrimental effect on this part of the AONB is unavoidable with assessment C not being met of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. The proposed quarry extension with its associated haul road is considered to have the potential for a significant adverse landscape impact on the character of the designated Area of Outstanding Natural beauty.
172. Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks the Broads. The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:
a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;
b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and
c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated
Aggregate Industries may be forced back to the drawing board again, but can quarrying ever be compatible with an AONB designation?
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Friday, 17 July 2020

Canal barges to transport sand & gravel from new quarry – to cut carbon footprint


A planning application 20/01159/FUL has been submitted for a new quarry at Stanley Ferry near Wakefield; 1.6 million tonnes of sand and gravel would be extracted at a rate of 150,000 tonnes pa.

Sand and gravel would not leave the quarry on local roads, as a new wharf would be constructed on the Aire and Calder Navigation canal to transport the sand and gravel by barge to a concrete plant at the side of the River in Dewsbury.
Two lakes will be created to be used for angling and amenity purposes. In addition... the two lakes will provide vital additional flood attenuation storage to aid flood relief downstream of the site.
A quarry in this location would greatly reduce the overall carbon footprint of the local construction industry and reduce harmful emission contributing to global warming.


The operator is hoping, again in contrast to the never-ending charade that Devon County Council is facilitating for Straitgate:
Under normal circumstances, a decision would be expected in six months - by September/October 2020. Site operations would likely start in Spring 2021 with the first barge loads departing from the new Canal wharf later that year.
In a sign of the times, no public consultation has yet been carried out:
Although the Coronavirus pandemic has meant it has not been possible to carry out a public consultation prior to the submission of the application for the Stanley Ferry Quarry, we encourage local residents to submit any queries or questions through our website and our Twitter channel.
At the time of writing, @SF_Quarry has 15 followers.


EDIT 19.8.20 Opposition mounts over Stanley quarry plans. Objection from the EA. 

Posted by
Labels: ,

Thursday, 16 July 2020

UK minerals industry once had great hopes for frac sand

The UK minerals industry had looked forward to fracking. It had great hopes for the profits that would come from frac sand; the huge amounts that would be needed to be quarried from greenfield sites across the country. As we posted some years ago in Fracking and sand:
Some companies in the minerals industry will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of fracking in the UK, if the US is anything to go by. Much has been said about the environmental damage of fracking, its impact on groundwater, its impact on the climate; less has been said about the silica sand - frac sand - suspended in the toxic concoction of chemicals pumped underground, needed to prop the fractures open - "a single fracked well can require 10,000 tons of industrial silica sand”. This BGS presentation maps the UK silica sand deposits.
If the UK is to embrace fracking, it must be ready to embrace an increase in silica sand quarrying, and the carcinogenic silica dust that goes with it.
Fortunately, "fracking is over...", if the UK energy minister is to be believed. But it wasn’t a change of heart from government. Economics is destroying the frackers’ dreams, as indicated recently when US shale gas pioneer Chesapeake Energy filed for bankruptcy. Frac sand producers and their investors are also paying the price:





The UK’s Mineral Products Association will have read the news too, and – realising the game’s up for frac sand – has had a recent push to highlight the mineral’s other uses:

Posted by
Labels: ,

DCC set to use Strava to identify popular cycling & walking routes for repairs

Strava is set to be used by Devon County Council to decide where some of the additional £27m of spending on Devon’s roads will be allocated... the extra spending will go towards roads that are used by cyclists or walkers...
An extra £6m will be spent on Devon’s principal road network, with £3.2m extra of bridges and structures, with £17.7m to be spent on smaller roads, such as ‘C’ and unclassified roads, with a focus on improving the condition and resilience of high-usage local route networks.
By coincidence, it wasn't many months ago that we mentioned Strava on this blog. We posted What Strava tells us about AI’s haul route – how Aggregate Industries had claimed one local route network was hardly used by anyone, and how Strava showed otherwise:
In the past, Aggregate Industries' consultants have disputed that Birdcage Lane is used by pedestrians:
The roads adjacent to the application sites are not ideal for pedestrian use. 
4.1
It was of course nonsense. Aggregate Industries, if asked, would no doubt still dispute that these quiet lanes have amenity value. Show us the proof, they might say. And modern technology does.
Strava: a social fitness network, that is primarily used to track cycling and running exercises, using GPS data.
Click on the screenshot below to show the pedestrian use of Birdcage Lane:

Strava also tells us about the B3174 – the road that Aggregate Industries wants to use to haul sand and gravel. The company's previous TA said the B3174 was unattractive to cyclists. The latest TA is silent on the matter of cyclists and the interaction with up to 216 HGV movements a day, save for:
3.2.13 There are no designated cycle routes within close proximity of the proposed mineral extraction site, however proficient cyclists may utilise the network of quiet lanes.
Clearly they use more than just the quiet lanes. The screenshot below shows cyclist use of the B3174:

It was yet another example of Aggregate Industries' consultants saying one thing, and reality – with the help of some modern technology – telling us the reverse.

But it's good that Devon County Council are recognising the benefits of Strava to identify popular high amenity pedestrian routes across the County. It means the data presented above can hardly be disputed.
Posted by
Labels: , , , , ,

E-scooters are too dangerous – bemoans HGV-dependent minerals industry

No mode of transport is risk-free, including electric scooters. The use of e-scooters in public is already permitted in many European countries. Proponents say they will ease pressure on public transport amid the coronavirus crisis, as well as cut carbon emissions and air pollution. Middlesbrough has just become the first place in the UK to trial e-scooters.

Nevertheless, the Mineral Products Association – the trade body representing the companies whose HGVs pound our roads, regularly harming even killing pedestrians and cyclists – has already reached a decision, and has called for e-scooters to be banned:
The MPA and its members have worked hard over the years promoting shared road safety and we believe that introducing new, more dangerous types of vehicle is neither safe nor sensible.

The MPA might remember the old adage:
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones
Because HGVs kill. Minerals industry HGVs kill. Aggregate Industries’ HGVs kill.



As we posted, some of Aggregate Industries' drivers clearly have an issue with road safety laws.



On the basis that HGVs are dangerous should they also be banned?
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Hopes fade for V-shaped recovery

This week the OBR painted a bleaker picture for the UK economy, forecasting lasting economic damage from the coronavirus pandemic. Hopes for a V-shaped recovery are fading after the UK economy grew just 1.8% in May, having fallen 20.4% in April.


Posted by
Labels:

Thursday, 9 July 2020

Does AI always exaggerate the amount of mineral recoverable from its quarries?

Mining can be an inexact business, as Rio Tinto found out last week when at one project reserves were "slashed" by up to 17%.


Aggregate Industries on the other hand is not running complex underground Mongolian copper projects. It runs bog-standard open-cast sand and gravel quarries. Despite that, the company really does seem useless at working out how many tonnes of material it can wrestle from the ground at any one site.

Would a fortune-teller have more luck? Or is there something else going on? Does Aggregate Industries consistently overestimate the amount of mineral available at a new site – to exaggerate the 'benefit' that planners must weigh against a proposal’s environmental damage?

Last week, we posted about Aggregate Industries’ application to extend Chard Junction Quarry in the Dorset AONB, but that wasn’t the only one the company lodged with Dorset Council for this site in 2020.


At the start of the year, application WD/D/20/000313 appeared. The Supporting Statement says:
This planning application seeks permission to vary conditions 5 and 6 of planning permission number 1/D/12/000079 to vary the Phase 3 and 4 Working Plans together with the Restoration Plan and the associated Cross Section Plan of the development relating to the “Carter’s Close” working area at Chard Junction Quarry, Thorncombe, Chard, Dorset. 1.1.1
In May 2012, (the Applicant) received planning permission for the extraction of a further 1.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel as an extension to Chard Junction Quarry, Chard, Dorset. The permission extended the Hodge Ditch working area in an easterly direction towards Forde Abbey. 1.7.1
Phases 1 and 2 of the Carter’s Close working proposals are now complete. However, when entering into Phase 3 of mineral extraction, the sand and gravel reserves were found to be significantly shallower than anticipated and the Lower Lias Mudstone (clay) outcropped earlier. As a consequence, it was not possible to work the quarry as approved under drawing number 943/PL10A. The impact of the clay outcropping earlier continued into Phase 4 further reducing the volume of sand and gravel reserves and again, preventing the company from complying with drawing number 943/PL11A. Following further geological assessments, it was calculated that the impact of the clay outcropping earlier was a decrease in the reserves within the Carter’s Close working area of circa 300,000 saleable tonnes. 2.3.2
Gee. Two out of four phases. 300,000 saleable tonnes. That’s quite a mistake. A 20% mistake. That can be the difference between making a profit and making a loss.

How much does a mistake like that cost? If we assume a lowly £30/tonne, that’s lost sales of a not insignificant £9 million. In reality, the sum may be higher, given a 0.8 tonne bulk bag of 20mm Chard gravel retails for £75 or more, and Aggregate Industries claims there's:
strong demand for Chard gravel... mostly manifested in the sought after 20 mm single sized golden gravels decorative stone of which represented 50% (92,626 tonnes) of 2017 sales.
Whoops. Surely heads must have rolled.

But it’s not the first time this has happened. Aggregate Industries has something of a track record in this small region of the South West. In fact, the company has now significantly overestimated the resource figure in four local sand and gravel quarries:

At Marshbroadmoor, the original planning application promised 1.1 million tonnes, but, due to 'geological faulting', no more than 200,000 tonnes ever came out.

At Venn Ottery, an application to "vary conditions" also had to be made after the company reported "an error with the previous estimated amount" and revised reserves down by 1,200,000 tonnes, almost 50%.

At Houndaller, a "re-evaluation of reserves" lost in the region of 700,000 tonnes.

And now Chard Junction. That’s a cumulative 3.1 million tonnes across just four relatively small sites.

You wonder if Aggregate Industries makes any money at all in this part of the world, given the size of those mistakes. Isn't it critical for any company who wants to make a profit from digging up stone to know how much material it can expect to find, so it can work out operating costs, margins, prices, etc?

Or are these re-evaluations par for the course? Are they already factored in?

In other words, when Aggregate Industries submits a planning application, does it not only underplay the environmental harm, but also overplay the 'benefit'? Did the company, for example, exaggerate the size of the 'benefit' available at Chard by 300,000 tonnes to help tip the planning 'balance' to win permission to work in the Dorset AONB – an area supposedly afforded the highest level of protection under planning policies? Is it doing the same again at the adjacent Westford Park Farm extension – also in the AONB?

There are parallels here with Straitgate Farm’s inclusion in the Devon Minerals Plan.

For the Chard Junction extension in 2011, Aggregate Industries' original application claimed:
Geological modelling, quarry design and reserve assessment has proven 1,500,000 saleable tonnes of mineral exists at Carters’ Close. This is classified as Measured Mineral Resource according to the Pan European Reserves and Resources Reporting Standard 2008. 2.4.5
"Proven". It’s a strong word, and later shown to be wrong to the tune of 300,000 tonnes. In an attempt to add further credence, note the reference to PERC. For anyone interested:
PERC is the organisation responsible for setting standards for public reporting of exploration results, mineral resources, and mineral reserves by companies listed on markets in Europe.
In the same year, Aggregate Industries made claims about the resource at Straitgate, to help it win inclusion for the site in the Devon Minerals Plan:
a saleable tonnage of 3,450,000 tonnes has been proven for the proposed phase one extraction area, and 3,795,000 tonnes has been proven for the proposed phase two extraction area.
"Proven" again. Those 7 million tonnes would certainly have looked attractive to a Minerals Officer keen to fill a hypothetical shortfall based on futuristic sand and gravel projections. But the number quickly fell apart when it was clear one half of the site was unworkable, leaving Devon County Council to go out to consultation the following year claiming:
Test drilling indicates up to 3.6 million tonnes. Lifetime of site approximately 10 years based on 350,000 tonnes per year.
Even that wasn’t true, and for its 2017 planning application Aggregate Industries had another guess:
Resources were re-calculated accordingly and currently amount to 1.2 million saleable tonnes. "Resources are classified as Measured Resource according to PERC Standard 2013". Calculations have been undertaken by Chartered Geologists. 1.4.6
Note that "proven" has gone, and the words "currently amount to" point to future re-evaluations, but at least references to PERC and "chartered geologists" have been added in an attempt to make the statement look authoritative.

Once upon a time, it was thought Straitgate could yield 20 million tonnes. So much for calculations by chartered geologists. The site has been nothing but a disaster for the company – even before any permission to dig.

Whether calculations are undertaken by chartered geologists or fortune-tellers, whether proven or embossed with golden PERC standards, 1.2 million saleable tonnes is not available at Straitgate – as we’ve posted in What ‘benefit’ is left for AI at Straitgate Farm?

Neither is Aggregate Industries – with forecasting estimates adrift by hundreds of thousands of tonnes, errors of 20% at Chard, 50% at Venn Ottery, 80% at Marshbroadmoor – correct with the finger-in-the-air re-evaluation of Straitgate's resource – an impossibly precise "0.8% reduction" based on "a realistic assessment of the change in [maximum water table] arising from the readings in April 2018".

Since then the Environment Agency has at last accepted that the base of any quarry at Straitgate will have to be raised yet again, this time to reflect elevated 1990 groundwater levels which in one location are 2.8m higher than Aggregate Industries’ prediction – a prediction consultants claimed had been "defined with confidence".

The proposed base will therefore have to be re-interpolated to include this figure, and lifted accordingly. Aggregate Industries has yet to say publicly how much further this will cut the available resource. All we know is that any guesstimate could of course be wrong by 20%, 50% or even 80%.

It is the diminished benefit, the diminished, unproven, questionable amount of sand and gravel at Straitgate that must be weighed against the very real destruction of an East Devon farm, the very real risk to drinking water supplies to more than a hundred people, to Grade I listed Cadhay and its gardens, the very real loss of ancient hedgerows and veteran trees, habitat for bats and dormice, and the very real damage to our climate from a 2.5 million-mile haulage scheme.

With Aggregate Industries' woeful track record at forecasting tonnes in the ground, how can anybody have any faith that the claimed benefit at Straitgate would turn out as advertised? Aggregate Industries' planning applications clearly have that fast-food tendency – to over-promise and under-deliver.

Posted by
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)