A planning application for a major quarry extension will be determined this week by the Dartmoor National Park Authority. The DNPA’s Development Management Committee will meet on 15 January 2021 to determine Glendinning’s planning application 0322/16 to extend Linhay Hill Quarry, a limestone quarry near Ashburton adjacent to the A38 in the Dartmoor National Park in Devon.
But has a conflict of interest arisen by the DNPA’s engagement of consultants Wood – a company which works closely with Aggregate Industries, owner of the other three limestone quarries in Devon?
The application for Linhay Hill has taken several years to arrive at committee, after a tortuous journey. The DNPA’s website currently shows some 763 documents. The South West Business Council, which produced "a report into impacts on the Devon economy following delays securing planning permission", points out Glendinning has taken "6 years of effort and nearly £2 million of expenditure" to get this far.
i) that the proposed scheme constitutes Major Development; (ii) that there are exceptional circumstances and the development would be in the public interest; (iii) that permission be GRANTED subject to conditions and the completion of a s.106 Planning Obligation Agreement.
whilst recognising:
Officers consider that the proposed development would lead to significant environmental effects on landscape and visual impacts which cannot be fully mitigated. These effects are localised and mitigation has been proposed to reduce the level of effect which would result. Officers are of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances for the proposed development and that it would be in the public interest. There is considered to be a need for the development, that it will contribute to the national need for minerals and that there are no feasible means of meeting the need in another way.
According to the Report, public representations amount to "22 letters of objection; 214 letters of support; 10 ‘other’ letters; 1 petition objecting with 24 signatories."
It may surprise some to know that this 'delayed' application has still taken less time to arrive at committee than Aggregate Industries’ application to quarry Straitgate Farm – despite the difference in scale.
Aggregate Industries’ application for Straitgate, which has dragged on since its first application was validated in June 2015, is to extract barely a million tonnes of saleable sand and gravel.
Glendinning’s application for Linhay Hill Quarry, which was validated by the DNPA in June 2016, is for more than 30 times that amount.
Glendinning is seeking to deepen its existing quarry, established in 1958, and extend into 32 hectares of adjacent land. The company’s Environmental Statement says this “will yield sufficient material for a further 60 years at the quarry’s current rate of extraction”. Given that Linhay Hill Quarry "produces over 500,000 tonnes of this limestone annually", the proposal would be for 30 million tonnes or more.
This extension is not about increasing productivity or profit for Glendinning. It is about maintaining our current business activity which employs 240 people directly, sustains an estimated 180 further jobs in the wider economy and contributes £6 million a year to the Devon and Dartmoor local economy from the procurement of goods and services.
Glendinning’s quarry and proposed extension are in the Dartmoor National Park. According to the NPPF:
Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks… 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… etc.
The company’s Environmental Statement, however, argues:
There are only three other major quarries in Devon producing limestone (which are all operated by the same international company). As such, the quarry is an important strategic asset for the South West, both for supply of limestone and for providing competition in the market.
Around 2 million tonnes of limestone are sold in Devon each year. According to Devon County Council's latest, but now out of date, Local Aggregates Assessment, 2018 saw crushed rock sales of 2.45 million tonnes, of which limestone made up 84%. The LAA says:
If the life of Linhay Hill Quarry were not to be extended through the application referred to..., then Devon would face a position whereby the remaining limestone supply from within Devon would be controlled by one company with no effective competition other than through importation of limestone from outside the county.
The one company referred to is Aggregate Industries – subsidiary of cement giant LafargeHolcim, which would surely welcome the closing of Linhay Hill Quarry: less competition, higher prices, higher profits.
The delays in securing permission for the Linhay Hill extension have been caused by a range of problems. In particular, concerns have been raised about the groundwater implications of deepening the quarry and the effects of dewatering, particularly on land stability and sinkholes, including under Ashburton and the A38 Devon Expressway. Professor PL Smart warned "there is a significant risk that dewatering may extend under Ashburton":
I do not know of any other quarry site in the UK where planned abstraction may lead to the dewatering of mature buried karst underlying a large urban area (Ashburton). I do not believe that there has been adequate consideration of these issues in relation to the area of the CBLF which underlies Ashburton, and has most probably already, and certainly will be impacted by the proposed Quarry development.
It has been argued that existing sinkholes around the area have been caused by the Linhay Hill Quarry, and that the deepening and extension will only make matters worse. The Officers' Report says:
The limestone geology (the Chercombe Bridge Limestone Formation) on which Linhay Hill Quarry is located is a karst formation. Karst formations are where parts of the rock formation have been dissolved by acidic waters, forming systems of cracks, caves and channels through which water can flow. As water flow changes through the karst system, such as from seasonal changes to rainfall, the different areas of the limestone can either open up to create new routes through which water can flow (from dissolution or erosion) or the closure of existing routes through the deposition of sediments carried by the water. Changes to the water flows and the subsequent geological changes that can occur can create changes to both ground and surface water flows, and potentially issues like flooding and also can create land stability issues through the creation of sinkholes.
The Devon Karst Research Society wrote:
...our Society is not convinced that E. & J.W. Glendinning is a sufficiently responsible, reliable or suitably informed outfit to be allowed to remove a large mass of Devon’s mature karst. The insufficiently researched environmental consequences are not worth thinking about. When the karst has gone, it will be too late to meliorate the inevitable environmental damage.
Glendinning instructed consultants Atkins to fight its corner. The DNPA engaged consultants Wood:
Wood (Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Ltd), then known as Amec Foster Wheeler, was appointed by the DNPA to review the planning application and ES. Two requests have been made by Wood since June 2016 for further information to ensure that the ES meets the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (the EIA Regulations). These requests were made in December 2016 and September 2018 under Regulation 22 of the EIA Regulations...
What did Wood have to say? Quite a lot, but here’s a taster:
…as the quarry deepens and extends shallow groundwater conditions in an area around the quarry and extension could be affected, with potential consequences for groundwater-dependent surface water features and the possibility of further sinkhole development.
Wood considers that there is benefit in further investigation, in that it would allow more informed decisions to be made regarding the impacts that the proposed quarry extension could have on the water environment and also in terms of land stability.
Wood considers that the applicant’s proposals with regard to mitigation are not yet adequate, particularly given the current limited understanding of the hydrogeological regime and the potential impacts of the quarrying proposals.
...a number of concerns have been expressed regarding the adequacy of the EIA. Wood considers that the importance criteria are not sufficiently rigorous in a number of respects...
Wood considers that the current consideration of mitigation in the HIA and ES is limited, particularly given the current level of hydrogeological conceptualisation.
It was an interesting choice of consultants for the DNPA to make. Wood, previously Amec Foster Wheeler, is responsible for groundwater monitoring and associated annual reports for the three limestone quarries owned by Aggregate Industries listed above. Did the DNPA ask Wood if it had any ongoing relationship with Aggregate Industries, the party who would stand to gain most from Linhay Hill’s demise? Did the DNPA not wonder whether engaging Wood might appear to be a conflict of interest?
Has the use of Wood affected the application in any way? It would certainly seem so. In July 2020, Atkins provided "a comparative overview of the information submitted in support of planning applications for three different limestone quarries in Devon, namely Stoneycombe Quarry, Moorcroft Quarry and Linhay Hill Quarry", making the case:
...the comparison is considered useful because the Water Environment Impact Assessments prepared for Moorcroft and Stoneycombe Quarries were undertaken by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited, now called Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited. Wood is acting as consultants to the Dartmoor National Park Authority in the consideration of the planning application for the extension of Linhay Hill Quarry, and therefore the documents submitted in respect of these other quarries can be considered as a useful guide to the level of detail considered sufficient and appropriate as supporting information in each case.
All three quarries operate in karstic limestone with instances of sinkholes / stream sinks in the surrounding water environment. In all cases the limestone deposit extends beyond the immediate environs of the quarry, and underlies built up areas and strategic transport infrastructure nearby
Furthermore, Wood seems to have influenced the Environment Agency's position:
We understand that Wood (as DNPA’s consultant) have recommended staged monitoring and mitigation conditions. We are inclined to support such an approach.
The Officers' Report recommends "given the uncertainty…. a further 3 years of hydrological monitoring works prior to any extraction", and concludes:
The proposed development will lead to changes in the groundwater regime in the vicinity of the application site through the process of drawdown. These changes are also likely to lead to some effects on surface waters and possibly land stability in this area. However, the type of effects that are likely to result are considered able to [be] appropriately managed by the monitoring and mitigation schemes: which can be managed by the proposed conditions. This approach is considered to be in accordance with Environment Agency guidance on hydrological assessments within karst formations.
This month, correspondence from Atkins points to Glendinning agreeing to additional monitoring,
in order to provide a further level of comfort reassurance to the DNPA, the EA, and hopefully to members of the Caton Group as well as the wider public, which is consistent with Glendinning’s responsible approach to the environmental context of the quarry and the proposed extension.
Be that as it may, and any conflicts of interest aside, it’s not surprising that many see extending a major hard rock quarry in a National Park, with unknown impacts on land stability and groundwater, as misguided – however much monitoring is in place.
EDIT 29.1.21
RESOLVED: That, permission be GRANTED subject to the amended conditions as detailed below and the completion of a s.106 Planning Obligation Agreement.
