A pointless Second Consultation
Further to my letter objecting to the re-hashed planning application, I am writing in response to the publication of AI's letter of clarification, their self-styled "final response". On the basis that it contains new information, DCC have decided that a follow up public consultation is now required. I am sure that I am not alone when I say that this is baffling.
In responding to the application in May, stakeholders have, once again, taken a great deal of time and trouble to make sense of this shambles of a document. As a result of their efforts, it is obvious that there are still no resolutions to the many problems and issues which have dogged it from the beginning. Whether it is the novel concept of MWWT, the soil management, the flood defence plans, aquifer destruction, loss of drinking water, destruction of natural habitat, the cattle crossing problem, the eco-hostile haulage scheme, the list goes on and on. Each and every one is a deal breaker in its own right if not resolved. To cap it all, it must be clear by now that there are well less than 1m tonnes of aggregates available at Straitgate if quarrying were to go ahead - the biggest deal breaker of them all.
But what do we get from Aggregate Industries in response to all these pressing unresolved issues? A cursory four page letter from a non-specialist representative saying, to all intents and purposes, that as far as they are concerned there is nothing to add, and that the matter is now closed. Interpreted more colloquially this is "two-fingers to the lot of you!" Plainly AI want a quarry approved at Straitgate, come what may, and they have finally lost patience with the general public.
What is baffling, however, is why DCC are going along with the charade of a second consultation on the basis of AI’s letter. It contains nothing of substance worth responding to, and another consultation is therefore no more than a token gesture. The only possible conclusion? Stakeholders are being led by the nose through one more step in a series of meaningless formalities with the aim of engineering AI's long desired approval of this application. It doesn't look good.
The danger is that the Straitgate application process is fast losing credibility. There seems to be an overarching agenda guiding its progress, of which the public have not been made aware. They sense it. What is the point of any one taking the trouble to pen a considered response if, time and again, their many reasonable and clearly expressed concerns are simply trampled on and ignored. Proper answers are required to issues which could have a significant impact on their lives, but all they get is a “final response” from on high. The brush off.
If a modicum of faith is to be restored, then I would suggest that a good start would be to inform AI that their “final response” is not acceptable, and falls well below the standards required to qualify their application for final determination and approval. Colloquially speaking, “they’re having a laugh”. If DCC, on the other hand, cannot find it in themselves to tell them this, or do not even recognise that they need to, then the system is well and truly broken.
