In 2015, Aggregate Industries' documents supporting its application to quarry Straitgate Farm explained:
The need for new mineral reserves is a material consideration which is to be balanced against the assessment of the acceptability (in terms of environmental harm) of the proposed development (often referred to as the planning balance).
The company advised decision makers that the planning balance was "weighted in favour of a positive determination". Well it would, wouldn’t it?
The [Environmental Statement] demonstrates that there would be no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, local amenity or human health... It has not identified any instances where planning policy is not complied with, and the planning balance is therefore weighted in favour of a positive determination..
Despite the bravado, it transpired that Aggregate Industries got nowhere near determination, either positive or negative. The company could not demonstrate the "exceptional circumstances" demanded by the NPPF for continuing to process material in an AONB, and did not have the necessary rights to use 3rd party land for site access. The application was withdrawn.
That weighting in favour of positive determination in 2015 was when the stated benefit was touted as 1.66 million saleable tonnes, when material was to be processed 7 miles away on Woodbury Common – apparently because "processing the Straitgate deposit at Blackhill Quarry is the only practical solution..." – and when the company erroneously claimed "an ongoing need for 0.8 million tonnes per year to meet current, established demand."
What have we learnt since 2015?
- that as-dug material would now have to be transported 23 miles to Hillhead near Uffculme for processing – a site that already has more than 2 million tonnes of permitted sand and gravel reserves with a further 23 million tonnes of resource nearby; such an unsustainable scheme would be contrary to Objective 1 of the Devon Minerals Plan; Aggregate Industries’ attempt to show this would be the most sustainable option is fundamentally flawed;
- that the surface drainage plans, so crucial for groundwater recharge, stream flows, flooding prevention and airport safeguarding could not work; groundwater levels are too high to allow level 3m deep infiltration trenches to be dug without breaching the MWWT; post extraction drainage would not mimic the existing site as the Environment Agency has conditioned; more water would be directed in some directions, including towards a 300mm culvert, and less in others; elevated groundwater levels have not informed the 2016 Flood Risk Assessment; the Council's Flood Risk Management Team has raised a raft of other concerns and has now objected twice;
- that removal of the unsaturated layer would, according to Professor Brassington, result in a permanent change to groundwater chemistry making it forever more acidic for 100 people, Grade I listed Cadhay and its mediaeval fishponds, wetland habitats in ancient woodland, and livestock farms;
- that the MWWT turned out to be a hand-drawn guesstimate, not a reliable model of the maximum groundwater levels at all, having been exceeded on numerous occasions;
- that the company plans to quarry down to the MWWT, removing all of the unsaturated zone, not leaving the normal buffer, making no allowance for errors, no allowance for climate change, no allowance for an unorthodox working scheme not used anywhere else in the country;
- that the Section 106, supposed to offer protection to surrounding water users, does nothing of the sort according to legal experts; that the detail of alternative supplies has neither been provided nor assessed;
- that cattle would as a result need to cross the B3174 Exeter Road up to 4x daily for replacement pasture; the impact of these crossings, together with up to 216 HGV movements, has not been assessed either on safety or the functioning of the B3174 and the A30;
- that, according to Natural England, there are still concerns over soil management;
- that the Birdcage Lane site access would increase the risks to school children, and potentially cause criminal damage to 3rd party property;
- that Aggregate Industries’ confusion of out-of-date documents are riddled with faults and contradictions; many working drawings conflict with other working drawings.
To name but a few. Has any of this been resolved? No.
And the stated benefit now? Reduced by 36% or 600,000 tonnes to 1.06 million tonnes – and that is before the further cuts that would be needed to accommodate a working drainage scheme, and the further cuts that typically happen once Aggregate Industries starts digging.
And the ongoing need now? Some 37% less than the company claimed in 2015, with the 10 year sales average standing at 0.5 million tonnes.
So, if the planning balance was previously "weighted in favour of a positive determination" before discovering the litany of problems listed above, and before the 36% cut to the benefit, where’s the balance now Aggregate Industries?
No wonder the company will this month start drilling boreholes at Penslade – the 23 million tonne sand and gravel resource next door to its Hillhead processing plant – "to enable the monitoring of the watertable as required by the Devon Minerals Local Plan."
