This month – in the middle of summer – a new spring was discovered beyond the proposed extraction area, close to the fault indicated on the geological plan. What is the problem with that? The spring is exactly where Aggregate Industries wants to stockpile 82,000 cubic metres of overburden, as indicated on the phase 1 plan. Here is an overlay of those two plans:
It shouldn't be a surprise. The new spring is close to the borehole location SG21/90. The maximum water table contours – the MWWT, the contours that would dictate the base of any quarry at Straitgate Farm – have recently been revised to include the groundwater level recorded at SG21/90, where groundwater was recorded just 1.26m below the ground surface in June 1990.
In addition, back in 2018, we informed the Environment Agency of a long-standing spring that feeds the Cadhay Wood Stream – marked X below – that had not previously been identified by consultants.
The EA responded:
The presence of the spring emergence point up-gradient of Cadhay Wood Stream does not indicate that groundwater discharging into the stream originates from a wider area than previously understood.
The new spring – directly to the west of the X – feeds into the same watercourse. Where does this water go? Cadhay’s listed mediaeval fishponds.
What are the overburden consequences? Before any overburden can be stored in that area, top soil and subsoils (including an as yet unspecified thickness of subsoil S2) must first be stripped – because soils must be stored like on like; overburden can only be stored on overburden.
AREA OB1 DESIGNATED FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF OVERBURDEN. FOOTPRINT AREA = 23,400 SQ.M TO BE STRIPPED OF TOPSOIL (0.3M) AND SUBSOIL (0.25M) IN ADVANCE, WITH MATERIALS SEPARATELY STOCKPILED INTO APPROPRIATE NEAREST DESIGNATED STORAGE AREA. POTENTIAL OVERBURDEN STORAGE CAPACITY OF 82,000 CU.M ...
And the problem with that? In an effort to protect groundwater, the EA has conditioned that no working shall be undertaken below the maximum water table. Plainly, if water is issuing from the ground in July, then groundwater is too close to the surface for digging to be permitted in this area.
So, where could overburden be stored? Where could the removal of top soils plus subsoils not breach the maximum water table?
No one knows. No groundwater monitoring has been carried out in the proposed overburden storage areas.
Aggregate Industries’ soil storage plans have already run into problems with Natural England. This is another mess.
