Earlier this year, we posted how Aggregate Industries had suffered a resounding 7-0 defeat when two planning applications to re-open a limestone quarry in the Mendips came before Somerset County Council, and how planning officers – including the one who championed Straitgate Farm's inclusion in the Devon Minerals Plan – had recommended that previously agreed planning conditions and S106 agreements, intended to protect local communities, be cast aside.
Aggregate Industries had proposed "enabling recommencement of extraction within Bartlett’s Quarry in parallel with, rather than upon completion of, extraction at Torr Work." The company’s 7-0 defeat was clearly an indication of how enamoured the local community was with the idea.
Cllr @MikeSRigby: "I think this hinges on the issue of cumulative impact. Less than a year ago, we were sufficiently concerned about this to impose this condition - I wonder what has changed since then, aside that the applicant wants the stone?" #LDReporter #Somerset
— Daniel Mumby (@DanielMumby) January 14, 2021
"The case that @AggregateUK has made about the justification for running both quarries in tandem is weak. The capacity of Torr is a business issue for them, not a planning issue for us." #LDReporter #Somerset
— Daniel Mumby (@DanielMumby) January 14, 2021
But Aggregate Industries must be hard of hearing. It has now submitted another two planning applications SCC/3833/2021 and SCC/3835/2021 for essentially the same proposal. The company’s supporting statement reads:
Somerset County Council refused the two applications (ref SCC 3742/2020 and 3748/2020) for the modification of the Torr s106 agreement and the removal of condition 2 of Schedule B of planning permission 2016/0025/CNT to enable Bartletts Quarry to re-commence quarrying of carboniferous limestone. The reason given for refusing both applications was as follows:The applicant has provided insufficient evidence that the benefit of the removal of restrictions to allow Bartlett’s Quarry and Torr Works Quarry to operate in tandem would outweigh the harmful cumulative effects on local communities and environment from their concurrent working, which is contrary to Policy SMP3 of the Somerset Minerals Plan (2015-2030).This revised submission therefore seeks to provide additional evidence on the benefits of allowing Bartletts Quarry to re-commence quarrying of carboniferous limestone including the nationally significant contribution Somerset makes to the country’s mineral supply and the benefits of enabling Torr to maximise rail exports and the local employment, investment and training opportunities that the minerals industry provides.
What "additional evidence"?
...to further reduce the potential for cumulative effects of Torr and Bartletts operating concurrently it is now proposed to include the output from Bartletts Quarry wholly within the consented 8 million tonne a year limit for Torr.
Genius. But is that seriously meant to persuade those 7-0 decision makers, given that the current 5.5 million tonne output from Torr Quarry would therefore still allow 2.5 million tonnes to be output each year from Bartlett's Quarry – with all the same controversial cumulative effects that would go with it?
Which part of 7-0 did Aggregate Industries not understand? Ignoring local democracy is hardly a way to endear yourself to the community. Aggregate Industries once said:
Relationships with local communities can sometimes be strained. The nature of quarrying means that most of the environmental and social impacts are felt locally. We try to manage these effectively by both management and communication to the local community.
That was 20 years ago, but no wonder relations with communities become strained, if the company goes around wanting to rip up previously agreed planning conditions and S106 agreements.
