Wednesday 31 March 2021

DCC willing to agree YET ANOTHER extension with AI

It looks like Aggregate Industries' planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm will be kicked down the tracks yet again. Will this farce never end?

Last October, we posted that Aggregate Industries had agreed with Devon County Council that the date for determination should be extended from 31 October 2020 to 31 March 2021. It was the 11th such extension. Apparently the company needed "further time to compile the additional information that has been requested". The previous decade was obviously not long enough. 

In February, we posted that it was clear that even this extension would be missed. 

This has now been confirmed in a letter from Devon County Council to Aggregate Industries, dated 11 March but made public yesterday, for the linked planning application DCC/3945/2017 to import Straitgate material into Hillhead 23 miles away: 
I am writing to ask you to formally agree to extend the period for the determination of your application until 30 September 2021. You have indicated this will give you adequate time. Please respond by email within 5 working days from the date of this letter to confirm your agreement with the extension.
At the time of writing, no reply had been posted on Devon County Council’s planning website.

Plainly there are still difficulties in the Aggregate Industries camp, despite all the noises to the contrary. Last December, the company's CEO Guy Edwards claimed the company would be submitting the additional information required "shortly". 

In February, Devon County Council’s planning officer told an interested party that Aggregate Industries was intending to submit the outstanding information "within the next two weeks." The Council’s Head of Planning advised East Devon’s MP much the same. 

That was almost 6 weeks ago. 

So what’s the hold-up this time? Was information really going to be submitted in "the next two weeks" or was Aggregate Industries – including its CEO – just playing people along? Or has the company discovered some new dilemma?

It was back in 2015 – now some 2,128 days ago – that Aggregate Industries submitted its first planning application to quarry Straitgate with a parallel application for processing, 8 miles away at Blackhill on Woodbury Common. After two public consultations, the company withdrew both applications. About 150 carefully reasoned objections were junked by Devon County Council. We posted:
How many other sand and gravel operations can there be in the UK, where 8 miles separate quarry and processing plant? We haven’t come across one yet.
In 2017, the whole thing started again but this time with processing proposed even further away at Hillhead near Uffculme, some 23 MILES AWAY. Clearly, at Aggregate Industries, climate change is for others to deal with. Anyway, another public consultation followed. Further information was supplied by the company. Another consultation.

Last year, brilliantly timed to coincide with Christmas and a global pandemic, Aggregate Industries submitted an application for a cattle crossing to facilitate its quarry plans. Two more rounds of public consultation ensued.

Of course, these are all on top of the countless consultations over the years for the Minerals Plan.

The whole thing has been a mess. Aggregate Industries doesn't care. The Council doesn't care. Attrition is plainly the strategy to shoehorn a wholly unsustainable sand and gravel quarry into the East Devon countryside, wiping out ancient hedgerows and veteran oaks, habitat for bats and dormice, irreversibly damaging drinking water supplies to more than 100 people, farms, businesses, ancient woodland and Grade I listed Cadhay, risking flooding to downstream Ottery, causing danger and delay on our roads, worsening our climate emergency.


Why the delay since 2017? One reason is water. Aggregate Industries' model of the maximum water table – the base of any quarry – has been shown to be incorrect by 1.6m in one area and 2.8m in another. Rick Brassington – award-winning Professor of Hydrogeology – said any quarrying at Straitgate Farm would permanently damage surrounding water supplies.

But the biggest delay by a farmyard mile would appear to have been caused by the cattle crossing issue. This matter has still not been resolved. On 25 March, East Devon District Council confirmed:
I have had no communication from Devon Highways so I don’t currently have a timescale for a decision.
So on we go. Seemingly, a planning application without end.
Posted by
Labels: , , ,

Police clear protesters from LafargeHolcim quarry in Switzerland

LafargeHolcim – parent of Aggregate Industries – clearly has problems on its own doorstep too:
Police on Tuesday cleared environmental protestors from a quarry in western Switzerland that they had occupied for months in a demonstration against cement maker LafargeHolcim... The activists said they were seeking to block expansion of the quarry to prevent more carbon dioxide emissions and protect biodiversity in the area.

Posted by
Labels: , , ,

Maintaining the same levels of quarried sand “just not sustainable”

Some companies are clearly making progress in the production of construction products from waste, diverting valuable waste materials away from landfill, moving towards a circular economy, moving away from the consumption of finite resources – even if take-make-waste Aggregate Industries is not. 

Here are three recent examples:

Oliver Rees, managing director of SRC Group commented:
Every six months we're recording significant increases in the volumes of material we're moving. As we grow it's just not sustainable – both for us as a business and for the environment – to maintain the same levels of quarried sand and aggregate products. We see recycling as a significant part of our operations and it’s the right thing to be doing for the environment. We’re diverting around 800,000 tonnes of construction and demolition waste from landfill each year; producing sand and gravel for reuse in construction and creating prefab concrete lego blocks for retaining structures as well as paving. 
 
Yorkshire Water’s press release states:
Biffa collects the grit from more than 600 treatment works and transports it for processing into a blended aggregate which is ready for the construction sector to use in materials such as concrete blocks

 

Tarmac’s rubber-modified asphalt:
... incorporates the rubber of up to 500 waste stream tyres in every kilometre of highway surfaced, depending on the thickness of the road. This would help to reduce the up to 150,000 tonnes of rubber waste which is exported annually from the UK as fuel for cement kilns, primarily to countries in North Africa and the Indian subcontinent.
Posted by
Labels: ,

Thursday 25 March 2021

‘Note: All models have uncertainty / margin of error’

Over the last year, the pandemic has exposed us all to a variety of sobering forecasts and models. 

 

Even though the four groups were all looking at the same pandemic, there was a range of projections. 

However, the chart came with a warning: 
Note: All models have uncertainty / margin of error 
Which is to be expected when you have limited data. Any expert knows that. 

Any expert except the ones working for Aggregate Industries, who have for years failed to answer the simple question: How accurate is your model of the Maximum Winter Water Table – when it has been guesstimated with just 6 numbers? 

As we said in this post last year, AI still won’t come clean on accuracy of MWWT: 
The MWWT – the maximum winter water table – would be the base elevation of any quarry at Straitgate Farm. It is a model, a prediction of what might be happening across some 55 acres, based on water levels recorded in just 6 piezometers. The accuracy of this prediction would matter less if Aggregate Industries were planning to leave a safety margin, an unquarried buffer, above this surface – but it is not.
Aggregate Industries’ consultants, Amec Foster Wheeler now Wood*, clearly needed the help of a dictionary to understand tolerance. As we posted: 
All AFW was attempting to do was to obfuscate, to confuse, to muddle the EA. All AFW was doing was showing the difference between how two techniques (kriging and radial basis) have interpolated 6 measurements to predict groundwater levels across 55 sloping acres. All AFW was showing was the difference between one inaccurate model and another inaccurate model. This is not a tolerance, it is a difference. What AFW has NOT done, for very obvious reasons, is to consider – at least in public, for the benefit of locals, the Council and the EA alike – the inherent inaccuracies of each of those techniques. 
But muddle the Environment Agency it did. The Agency clearly didn’t grasp that all models have uncertainty / margin of error and subsequently wrote in an email in June 2018: 
We have reviewed the document and we are satisfied that it answers our questions about the derivation of the Maximum Winter Water Table grid.
However, some experts do get it. Professor Brassington warned: 
The MWWT for this site has been defined by using a computer model as the number of piezometers (six) are insufficient to cover the quarry area in sufficient detail. Computer models of groundwater systems are good at showing changes in groundwater levels although they are poor at showing the actual amount of such changes. As a result, the computer model derived MWWT surface is unlikely to provide an accurate representation of the real maximum groundwater levels... 
I am concerned that there is a very steep hydraulic gradient across the site, from around 152m in the west to less than 135 m in the east, and the limited number of piezometers used to grid the water table surface. Variations in the shape of the water table cannot be contoured based on the number of piezometers used in the application... The steep hydraulic gradient combined with limited monitoring, in my opinion, is likely to result in errors in the actual depth to maximum groundwater across the site. 
Prof Brassington was sufficiently concerned to recommend: 
an unquarried buffer of at least 3 m is left above the maximum water table to minimise the negative impacts.
It's all a matter of which experts Devon County Council should trust: consultants who whitewash reports to help clients win as much material as possible, or an award-winning Professor who has made "an outstanding contribution to hydrogeology." Tough call.

* In other news, Aggregate Industries' water consultants Wood have sets aside an extra $151 million to settle corruption and bribery probes at Amec Foster Wheeler, reports the FT. The Serious Fraud Office launched an investigation into Amec Foster Wheeler in 2017, as we posted at the time.
 
Posted by
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday 24 March 2021

DCC's Chief Executive warns us not to go back to our old unsustainable ways

A "message of thanks and hope" was sent out by Devon County Council this week reminding us to reflect on the past year, including on Devon’s carbon emissions: 
Over the last year real progress has been made to create a roadmap to show the way to a net-zero Devon by 2050 at the latest.  
The Devon Climate Emergency Response Group (DCERG) and its appointed group of experts, headed by Professor Devine Wright, have created an interim draft carbon plan. That plan will become the blue-print to show what we must all do - residents, councils, businesses alike - to ensure that Devon reaches its net-zero ambitions.  
Since the first lockdown we have been encouraging more walking, cycling, and advising people on how to get around safely while social distancing. Pavements have been widened, new paths created, and roads have narrowed to accommodate greener travel options.  
Research last summer showed that Devon's carbon emissions reduced by almost a quarter during the first lockdown.  
"We have an opportunity to introduce transformative change, and not just tinker around the edges," said Professor Devine Wright.  
Chairman of the DCERG, Dr Phil Norrey said: 
"The lockdowns have given a glimpse of how a more sustainable Devon might look, feel and sound. 
"There is a huge opportunity to improve our public health, our resilience and our wellbeing, as well as address the climate and ecological emergencies.  
"We must be careful not to fall back into the same old routines. We all must think differently about the way we work and the way we travel."

So if Devon County Council’s Chief Executive Dr Norrey, Chairman of the Devon Climate Emergency Response Group, warns us not to go back to our old polluting ways, what must be done? 

DCERG's draft interim Devon Carbon Plan says transport accounts for 31% of Devon’s greenhouse gas emissions, so "reducing emissions from transport is key to successfully reaching net-zero." How is this to be done? Follow a "hierarchy of action". What's top of the list? "Reduce the need to travel". 

Obvious really. Not embarking on needless multi-million mile haulage schemes for new sand and gravel quarries should also be obvious.

Posted by
Labels: , ,

Net zero pledges by world’s largest polluters ‘distant and hollow’

The deluge of corporate climate pledges are yet to translate to meaningful action, as only a handful of the 159 companies responsible for more than 80 per cent of global industrial emissions have set adequate targets, the influential Climate Action 100+ investor group has reported. 
The investor group, which is the largest alliance with 575 institutions that collectively manage $54tn in assets, found in its latest benchmark analysis that almost all of the pledges are both distant and hollow. 
Less than 1 per cent of the companies analysed had set a short-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 2025, at the latest, that covered the bulk of their emissions — though more than half had promised to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. 
Only six companies had committed to aligning their future capital spending with long-term emissions reduction targets. 
Only five had committed to aligning all their own political lobbying with the Paris climate agreement that seeks to limit global warming to 1.5C with a red line at 2C.  
Companies that were serious about greening their operations must outline “short and medium term targets, and clear decarbonisation strategies and related capital expenditures,” said Mindy Lubber, chief executive of Ceres, a US investor group that is a CA100+ steering committee member.
Is the parent company of Aggregate Industries – cement giant LafargeHolcim, which dumped 146 million tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere in 2020 – serious about greening their operations? Not according to the Climate Action 100+ analysis:
 

Posted by
Labels: , ,

Let’s call greenwashing out for what it really is

In 2011, the UK Green Building Council launched a task force to combat greenwashing in the construction industry; Aggregate Industries was on the steering group. 



Of course, it's a lie. Aggregate Industries is not cutting carbon in everything it does. Aggregate Industries' plan for Straitgate shows that. Aggregate Industries' track record on emissions also shows that. So let’s call greenwashing out for what it really is:
 
Posted by
Labels: ,

Sunday 21 March 2021

Has AI thought through all of the alternatives?

A description of the reasonable alternatives (for example in terms of development design, technology, location, size and scale) studied by the developer, which are relevant to the proposed project and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects. 
It’s something to look out for when Aggregate Industries finally gets around to submitting revised and long-awaited documents to support its application to quarry Straitgate Farm, to check that all reasonable alternatives have been addressed – including but not limited to the do-nothing option, site access, phasing, processing location, mode of transport.
 


Well ok, no one is suggesting Aggregate Industries employ Straitgate's cows to haul sand. 

Aggregate Industries did look at alternatives for its first application in 2015. When previously arguing the case for processing Straitgate's material on Woodbury Common in the East Devon AONB, the company claimed: 
Processing at Hillhead may be feasible, but would generate a massively greater quantity of CO2 from the additional mileage required to be travelled. 8.48
What is now proposed? Processing at Hillhead. The cost: a haulage scheme of 2.5 million miles. 

According to the above regulations, Environmental Statements should include:
A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment resulting from, inter alia:... (f) the impact of the project on climate (for example the nature and magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions)
In 2019, Devon County Council, which has declared its own climate emergency, advised Aggregate Industries – "in the spirit of helping to address issues" – to contact experts at Exeter University to help it explain away, to greenwash?, the "massively greater quantity of CO2 from the additional mileage". What a sympathetic council.
Posted by
Labels: , , , , , ,

AI’s parallel application for Hillhead gets new description – and loses quid pro quo

The planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm, DCC/3944/2017, was submitted in 2017 in tandem with another application, DCC/3945/2017, for the: 
Importation of up to 1.5 million tonnes of as raised sand and gravel from Straitgate Farm into Hillhead Quarry for processing, together with the widening of a 400 metre length of Clay Lane at Hillhead Quarry, near Uffculme, Cullompton, EX15 3EP
An integral part of the application at Hillhead are proposals for the widening of Clay Lane from its junction with the A38 to the entrance of the Hillhead Quarry/Broadpath sites. The widening of Clay Lane will allow lorries to pass each other safely whilst travelling in opposite directions and remove the need for lorry traffic associated with our operations at Hillhead to travel past existing residential properties on Broad Path.
In its supporting statement for Straitgate, Aggregate Industries touted the widening scheme as a quid pro quo, a 'benefit' to undo the harm of transporting as dug sand and gravel 23 miles to Hillhead: 
The proposal to widen Clay Lane at Hillhead will bring benefits to residents at that site and will go some way to mitigating the transport impact of the haulage distance. 6.11 
Rather than wait 10 years or more for a planning application to work the Penslade minerals, for this to become a reality, this application proposes to bring about the widening of Clay Lane much earlier. This must be of great benefit to residential amenity and carry significant weight in the decision making process. 5.5.9  

Since the widening of Clay Lane is no longer an integral part of the Straitgate and Hillhead applications, this benefit no longer exists to mitigate the haulage distance from Straitgate to Hillhead, and no longer carries significant weight in the decision making process.

Planning application DCC/3945/2017 is now simply described as: 
Importation of up to 1.5 million tonnes of as raised sand and gravel from Straitgate Farm into Hillhead Quarry for processing at Hillhead Quarry, near Uffculme, Cullompton, EX15 3EP
So, pray tell, what benefit will Aggregate Industries now try to sell – to mitigate the transport impact of the haulage distance and the enormous associated emissions?
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Planning committee reports ‘a fertile ground for judicial review challenges’

Earlier this year, permission for an intensive chicken farm was quashed:
 
The case was brought by campaign group Sustainable Food Knighton (SFK), which argued that the council had not taken all environmental impacts arising from the development into account when granting permission, in particular those stemming from the need to spread manure on fields. 
The consent order said the council "accepts that there was no evidential basis for the officer's conclusion that the impacts on amenity from the proposed development would be acceptable because the fields were unlikely to be spread with manure from the proposed development more than twice per annum".
According to Local Government Association guidance, updated in 2019, planning committee reports are a "fertile ground for judicial review challenges". The LGA adds that the chance of such challenges is:
particularly so where there is a risk that the officer may have inadvertently misled the committee, therefore tainting the resulting decision
concluding that an officers' report considered by the council's planning committee was 'materially misleading' regarding the scheme's impact on sunlight and daylight.
The judgement explained that members of the Development Committee:
may well have reached a different decision on the merits had the Officer's Reports not been misleading
Devon County Council are obviously aware of the risks. Here are two communications released through a Freedom of Information request in connection with the Straitgate application. From November 2017: 
How much are you going to be able to give me in the final highways response regarding how we have taken on board these many representations from external objectors? I'm only asking as some of the issues may have to be "seen" to have been discounted if we are to avoid JR on this one... 
"Seen"? 

In another communication about the cattle crossing issue in February 2018: 
... so the question is – what do we do to move it forward in a way that doesn’t lead us to a JR if its approved or costs if its refused?
Posted by
Labels: ,

Friday 19 March 2021

Oil firms knew

The oil industry knew at least 50 years ago that air pollution from burning fossil fuels posed serious risks to human health, only to spend decades aggressively lobbying against clean air regulations, a trove of internal documents seen by the Guardian reveal.
The documents, which include internal memos and reports, show the industry was long aware that it created large amounts of air pollution, that pollutants could lodge deep in the lungs and be “real villains in health effects”, and even that its own workers may be experiencing birth defects among their children. 
But these concerns did little to stop oil and gas companies, and their proxies, spreading doubt about the growing body of science linking the burning of fossil fuels to an array of health problems that kill millions of people around the world each year. 
Geoffrey Supran, a researcher at Harvard University who has studied the history of fossil-fuel companies and climate change, said:
The response from fossil-fuel interests has been from the same playbook – first they know, then they scheme, then they deny and then they delay. They’ve fallen back on delay, subtle forms of propaganda and the undermining of regulation. 
Of course, this has nothing to do with LafargeHolcim. The world's largest cement company – parent of Aggregate Industries – claims it’s keen to clean up its game. So keen in fact, that who do we find in the role of Chief Sustainability Officer, now with added responsibility? Why, a professional with 27 years experience in the oil and gas industry of course. Surprised? Did anyone really think LafargeHolcim was serious about the climate emergency?

Posted by
Labels: ,

Aggregate Industries' vision of the future?

Is this really the image Aggregate Industries has in mind when thinking about "A world that works for all!" – a world devoid of any trace of biodiversity?
 

The photo shows a housing project in Ecuador – slightly beyond Aggregate Industries' territory.
Posted by
Labels:

Thursday 18 March 2021

Sales of sand and gravel in Devon fell 7.6% in 2019

Devon County Council has now provided 'interim' sand and gravel sales figures for 2019. Sales were 0.500 million tonnes, down 7.6% on 2018. Nationally, sales of sand and gravel were down 5.4% in the same year, according to the MPA. 

The 7.6% fall in Devon comes on top of a 10% fall in sales in 2018, a year that saw the national figure up 1.3%. The long term trend in sales of sand and gravel in Devon continues to decline.
 


At the end of 2019, reserves of sand and gravel in Devon stood at 4.199 million tonnes. 

Devon County Council is hoping to release sand and gravel figures for 2020 "within the next month or so." They are unlikely to show any improvement, given that national figures were down 12.4%.
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Wednesday 17 March 2021

MPA bemoans ‘£100 million tax raid on mineral industry’

The Mineral Products Association – the trade group representing Aggregate Industries and friends – has criticised the government's decision on red diesel.
 

…red diesel will be available only to agriculture and the rail sector. Users of off-highway construction machinery will have to pay an extra 46.81 pence per litre for their diesel, paying the standard tax rate of 57.95 pence per litre rather than the subsidised red diesel rate of 11.14 pence per litre. 
On red diesel it is a disappointing decision that is really just a soft target tax raid. Our sector pays its fair share of environmental taxes already and has a great track record on reducing carbon and contributing to biodiversity net gain.
Of course, when Mr Jackson talks about the mineral sector having "a great track record on reducing carbon" he obviously can’t have Aggregate Industries in mind. Carbon emissions from Aggregate Industries – the UK subsidiary of cement giant LafargeHolcim – are 5x what they were 20 years ago, and were still rising the last time the company bothered to report them. 

In which case, you might think, that can only mean spectacular carbon reduction from Messrs. Breedon, Cemex, Hanson, Tarmac et al. But given that the sector’s CO2 emissions from, for example, cement production were 695.6 kg/tonne in 2016 and by 2019 no better at 702.4 kg/tonne, according to the MPA’s own figures, you’re left wondering what a great track record looks like.

Perhaps the £100m tax raid will help focus industry minds, to use fossil fuels more carefully.

Posted by
Labels: , ,

New EU rules to prevent greenwashing could have “huge repercussions”


On 10 March, the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulations were introduced by the EU. Designed to prevent greenwashing, all asset managers will have to make detailed environmental, social and governance disclosures to potential investors. 

Maria van der Heide, head of EU policy at ShareAction, called the new regulations "groundbreaking": 
It allows investors to compare between different products and how sustainable they are and see what asset managers are doing to integrate sustainability.
Marcus Björksten, lead portfolio manager for Fondita Sustainable Europe, one of Europe’s best-performing sustainable funds, said: 
Greenwashing is a real problem. Nowadays, every second fund is claiming it is in some way sustainable. The reporting will make it very difficult to have greenwashing.
But what about the effect on companies?
 
The new rules could have far-reaching consequences for asset managers — not just in Europe but around the world as investment firms are forced to demonstrate they are serious about sustainability. They will also influence the decisions of listed companies which will find themselves under pressure to focus more on ESG issues or risk losing investor capital. 
Mirza Baig, global head of ESG research and stewardship at Aviva Investors said: 
The consequences of companies being exposed for a lack of commitment or a lack of follow through [on ESG issues] will more likely result in a shift of capital and a more direct hit to their share price.
Perhaps, in time, pressure will be brought upon cement giant LafargeHolcim, parent of Aggregate Industries, practitioner in the art of greenwashing, a company with grandiose claims of reinventing, of low-carbon, net zero, et cetera, et cetera: 
As the world’s global leader in building solutions, LafargeHolcim is reinventing how the world builds to shape a world that is greener, smarter and that works for all. A world that is low-carbon and circular for a net zero future. A world driven by innovation and digitalization making more with less. A world that improves quality of life for all. 
You’d hardly know this was the same company that emitted 146 million tons of CO2 in 2020 – more than many countries. 

At the same time, some warn the financial impact of climate change issues are not being accounted for:
 
Listed companies appear to be competing with each other to be the most forthcoming on climate change disclosure.... Less good though is the disclosure on the financial impact of climate change issues. If, say, a company was likely to face a bill in the future to buy permits to emit carbon, that is an impact that could be accounted for. 

For example, in the EU, companies which emit carbon are required to reduce these by 2030. Effectively they have carbon budgets. They can use up some of their own carbon credits, provided freely by the EU, or buy carbon credits in a traded market to offset their emissions. 

Buying credits is a rising cost. The EU has cut back on the supply of available credits for industry and accelerated the required rate of emission reductions in the 40 years to 2030 from 40 per cent to 55 per cent. This has helped push the EU carbon price to $48 per tonne, up 83 per cent in one year. 

…the sums are not trivial for companies, particularly in sectors such as steel and cement which emit large amounts of carbon. 
You can understand the concern. BP "assumes a $100 per tonne cost for its emissions for 2030." Back of the envelope calculations show LafargeHolcim generated emissions in 2020 worth 3.7x the company’s recurring earnings before interest and taxes. Hardly an insignificant sum.
Posted by
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday 16 March 2021

Why doesn’t AI’s RSA mention the accidents?

The Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, submitted by Aggregate Industries to support its planning application for a cattle crossing across the B3174 Exeter Road, to facilitate its plans for a quarry, claims to: 
...review the road safety aspects of the proposed highways proposals associated with the proposed construction of a new farm access and modified cattle crossing arrangements at Straitgate Farm in Ottery St Mary. 1.10 
You might expect such a review to assess the accidents that have happened on this road – given that many have occurred in the very location proposed for the crossing, one even involving the telegraph pole that features on the front cover of the RSA itself. 


So – given Aggregate Industries' consultants supplied a brief to the auditors which apparently included "collision data" – isn’t it strange that the company’s Road Safety Audit makes no reference to these:

Isn't it strange – considering ALL the above occurred in the very same location proposed for the crossing?
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Thursday 11 March 2021

Controversial plans for Cumbria coal mine on hold

Last month, we posted Cumbria mine decision shows ‘contemptuous disregard for future of young people’. Today, better news:
 
A new coal mine in the UK appears doomed after the government bowed to pressure to further delay planning approval. Robert Jenrick, the communities secretary, ordered a public inquiry into the £160m project near Whitehaven in north-west England, citing concerns about climate change. 
Cumbria county council, the planning authority, approved the plan in October. Jenrick gave the final go-ahead in January. But after vociferous lobbying by green groups and activists, including Greta Thunberg and Sir David Attenborough, the council said it would re-examine the application. West Cumbria Mining, the developer, launched a judicial review into that decision last week and now Jenrick has stepped in. 
A public inquiry will last more than a year, putting off the issue beyond the COP26 climate talks in November. WCM has already indicated that further delay would cause its Australian investors to scrap the project, which has cost £36m so far.
 
Posted by
Labels: ,

Highways England reiterates concerns

Highways England has responded to the additional information supplied by Aggregate Industries in relation to planning application 20/2542/FUL, which details the use of flashing warning lights "to facilitate an efficient crossing point for the current dairy herd at Straitgate Farm." 
Highways England… continues to offer no objection to the application on the basis that the frequency of livestock crossing movements does not increase over those set out in Table 1 of our formal planning response dated 31 December 2020. Any increase to the proposed frequency and/or duration of road closures of the B3174 over those set out in Table 1 will not be supported without appropriate assessment to ensure an unacceptable impact on the safe operation of the strategic road network does not occur.
What does "Table 1" in Highways England's earlier response say about the "150 Dairy cows"? 
As needed by exception, approximately 4 daily movements 3 times per year.
By contrast, Aggregate Industries would need regular cattle crossings to facilitate a quarry at Straitgate. 

Why is Highways England concerned that this should not become a regular crossing point for the current dairy herd, with all the associated delays? Highways England says: 
Given the proximity of the crossing point to the A30 westbound offslip, any increase in the frequency of livestock crossing movements and therefore the period of time the B3174 will be closed may result in queuing vehicles extending further back towards the A30, and potentially onto the A30 mainline which will be considered as having an unacceptable impact on highway safety…
Posted by
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday 10 March 2021

AI’s claim – that flashing lights solve cattle crossing conundrum – based on a Road Safety Audit that bizarrely assumes ‘no additional livestock movements’

Aggregate Industries has now supplied further information to East Devon District Council in connection with its planning application 20/2542/FUL for "a new agricultural access to facilitate an efficient crossing point for the current dairy herd at Straitgate Farm" across the B3174 Exeter Road.

This application is required for Aggregate Industries' plans to open a quarry at Straitgate. As the company explained in 2017:
1.5 To supplement the grazing needs of the tenant’s dairy herd it will be the intention of the applicant to provide a new dedicated route for cattle from the existing milking parlour at Straitgate Farm to the land south of Exeter Road. The new route would include a proposed cattle crossing on the B3174 Exeter Road. The number of daily movements over the proposed cattle crossing at times when the dairy herd is grazing the land south of Exeter Road would be twice in each direction. 
However, Aggregate Industries has been trying to find a way around this issue for almost four years. The company’s plans would swallow almost 90% of the available pasture for mineral extraction and associated infrastructure. Some 150 dairy cows would need to cross Ottery’s busiest road up to four times daily to replacement pasture. 

Nevertheless, we are all aware of the problem, including – as we discovered through a FOI request – Devon County Council’s Chief Planner, who in November 2017 remarked:
...it seems to me that it [is] inherently unsafe to have any beasts crossing such a fast straight road.
After four years, Aggregate Industries now thinks it’s found the solution – judging by new documents lodged with EDDC. 

Following on from our last post on the issue, a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has now been supplied, with the recommendation that flashing amber lights be installed "positioned 20m from crossing point". 

If that was all that were needed, you might rightly wonder why all the delay.

The problem is – it’s not all that is needed. Flashing lights will do nothing to solve the potential delays – including to emergency vehicles on their way to Ottery’s hospital. Flashing lights will do nothing to stop vehicles backing up to the A30 Daisymount junction. As Barack Obama famously said: "You can put lipstick on a pig - it's still a pig". 

Even the Traffic Signs Manual document supplied by Aggregate Industries confirms this is no fix: 
10.6 Such signing is not intended as a solution for anticipated problems on planned new roads, major improvements, or where at other sites the movement of cattle would frequently obstruct traffic for a period of more than three minutes.
Clearly, we're not talking about 3 minutes here. We’re talking about a herd of 150 slow moving dairy cows, not a herd of galloping wildebeest. We’re talking about closing the main route into and out of Ottery for an hour each day – four crossings of 15 minutes each.
    

And lest we forget, the position Aggregate Industries has chosen for this cattle crossing has a visibility distance of only 160m, which does not even meet the required minimum, given that the 85th percentile vehicle speed eastbound was recorded as 58.2 mph:
But let’s look at the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit from one-man-band outfit "Sterling Road Safety". How did it conclude that the absence of advanced warning signage was the only problem? What information were the auditors provided? Who briefed them? According to the RSA:
1.5 The Road Safety Audit was undertaken in accordance with the Road Safety Audit Brief instructions provided…
1.12 Paragraph 2.1 of the Audit Brief describes the proposals and the livestock movements involved. In the interests of clarity, the Auditor’s understanding of this is that:… No additional livestock movements are proposed and crossings will occur at broadly similar frequencies and times of day as at present;
Who supplied that brief? Why, Aggregate Industries’ very own traffic consultant, of course. 

So the recommendation for flashing lights is on the basis that: 
2.1 The Auditors have noted that the proposals do not change the number of crossings undertaken or the eastbound SSD, and also that livestock should be in the carriageway for less time than at present. The reduced exposure time should reduce the likelihood of collisions occurring.
Livestock in the carriageway for LESS time than at present is plainly a bonkers assumption, given that if almost 90% of the grazing pasture from the farm were taken for quarrying, the farmer would be forced to seek alternative pasture on the south side of the road; 150 cows would be forced to cross the road up to four times daily during the lifetime of the quarry.  

The auditors have evidently not even read Aggregate Industries’ own Supporting Statement for the same application which tells us: 
3.1 The application proposal comprises the construction of a new agricultural access to facilitate an efficient crossing point for the current dairy herd at Straitgate Farm. 
Currently, this location is NOT a regular crossing point for the current dairy herd – so how on earth can LESS movements be assumed? Given these misguided assumptions, the conclusions of Aggregate Industries’ RSA are patently worthless, and so therefore is the proposal to rely on flashing lights. 

The application is open for comments until 24 March. 
Posted by
Labels: , , ,

Monday 8 March 2021

LafargeHolcim “is a systematic polluter” says Greenpeace Switzerland

Since 2013, we have posted how the company that would ultimately profit from any quarrying at Straitgate Farm would be the same company accused of pollution and human rights violations, devastating livelihoods of local communities; just click on pollution or human rights labels or posts like:
Last year, research by Greenpeace Switzerland found that LafargeHolcim – the parent company of Aggregate Industries – "is responsible or is expected to take responsibility for at least 122 cases of environmental pollution and human rights violations in 34 different countries."
 

Greenpeace’s report is in German, but here’s a Google Translation of one page: 
Number of cases (122) countries (34) Scandals / subject areas
2 Egypt Regulatory Violations
1 Algeria Violation of labor and trade union rights
2 Argentina air pollution
1 Bangladesh Regulatory Violations
1 Benin air pollution
2 Brazil Air pollution, hazardous waste incineration, exceeding emission limits, health hazards, tax evasion, price fixing
43 China air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste incineration,Noise nuisance, others 1 Costa Rica air pollution
1 Germany Exceeding the emission limit values
3 Ecuador air and water pollution
4 Guinea air pollution, health hazard
14 India air and water pollution, environmental degradation, noise pollution, Hazardous waste incineration, health impairments, regulatory violations, cartel agreements, tax evasion
2 Indonesia environmental degradation, tax evasion
1 Jordan water pollution, health hazard
2 Cameroon air and water pollution, health hazard
2 Kenya air pollution
1 Colombia Incineration of hazardous waste, cartel agreements
3 Lebanon Illegal limestone mining, air and water pollution, Exceeding the emission limit values, bribery
1 Morocco air pollution, health hazard
3 Mexico environmental degradation, hazardous waste incineration, air and water pollution, Health hazard, human rights violation
1 Myanmar human rights violation
7 Nigeria environmental degradation, air, soil and water pollution, exceedance the emission limit values, noise pollution, health hazard
1 Peru air pollution
4 Philippines Illegal hazardous waste incineration, water pollution, violation of labor and trade union rights, regulatory violations, health hazards
2 Romania Illegal hazardous waste incineration, emission limit values exceeded, price fixing
1 Zambia pollution
2 Zimbabwe air pollution
1 Slovenia Exceeding the emission limit values, health hazard
3 Spain Illegal mining, exceeding emission limits, air, soil and Water pollution, cartel agreements
2 South Africa cartel agreements, violation of labor and trade union rights
4 Syria Support for Terrorist Groups, Unfair Business Practices
1 Tanzania environmental degradation, air and soil pollution
2 Uganda air pollution, child labor
1 USA cartel agreements
Matthias Wüthrich, Head of the Corporate Responsibility Campaign for Greenpeace Swiss, said:
The sheer number of proven and probable cases is a scandal in itself. That alone shows that LafargeHolcim is a systematic polluter.  
 
Posted by
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)