Oh, how lucky Aggregate industries is to have the Environment Agency do its bidding. What, you may ask, has the company done to deserve such special hand-holding? It can’t be down to providing cogent environmental arguments, so what can it be?
Of course, any idea that the Environment Agency might want to protect groundwater went out the window a long time ago when multiple warnings from a renowned Professor in Hydrogeology were flatly ignored. The Agency is obviously far more concerned about securing a diminished sand and gravel resource for Aggregate Industries, than it is about protecting the aquifer that supplies drinking water to so many homes and businesses.
It will therefore come as no surprise that the Environment Agency has decided to turn a blind eye to another aspect of the planning application for Straitgate Farm that doesn’t work.
We have posted – here and here – about the problems in the proposed soil storage areas. In these areas, Aggregate industries would need to dig down and remove topsoil and subsoils to expose the overburden layer, upon which – for like-on-like storage – other overburden soils from the rest of the site could be stored. This would be required to restore the best and most versatile agricultural land in the future. The problem? In these areas, the groundwater is very close to the surface, so close that seepages and springs occur. In other words, in these areas Aggregate Industries would need to dig BELOW the maximum water table.
But it’s not just in the soil storage areas where this is a problem – it’s the loading area too, the central hub of any quarry. If the water table rises above the elevation of the loading area, all manner of problems could result, not just flooding.
The implications of this have not been assessed. Aggregate Industries’ Environmental Statement is silent on the matter. Groundwater levels have not been monitored in the areas where overburden would be stored and where the loading area would operate – despite the clear evidence of elevated levels.
Devon County Council needs to have all the necessary and relevant information to enable it to determine the application and reach a lawful decision:
The Environmental Statement must include at least the information reasonably required to assess the likely significant environmental effects of the development listed in regulation 18(3) and comply with regulation 18(4).
But, you ask, wasn’t the site only meant to be worked dry? Weren’t there arguments at the Minerals Plan Examination about that? Didn’t the Public Inspector get involved? Wasn’t the Environment Agency pushing for all quarrying to stop 1m above the water table?
Yes to all the above. The Environment Agency previously said:
Aggregate Industries have proposed to stop quarrying a metre above the water-table. We expect DCC to make this a condition of any permission that is granted.
Devon County Council put a line through that 1m during the Examination. The Inspector commented:
The Inspector's suggestion was intended to reflect the on-going uncertainty about what could be an acceptable way of working the site. An unsaturated zone of 1m may or may not feature in the final solution. However, it could be seen as inappropriate for Table C.4 to commit to a definite method of working when potentially acceptable alternatives have not been determined. The important points are that (a) only dry working would be acceptable…
Only dry working would be acceptable. This is how the Minerals Plan was modified:
The Inspector's Report said:
74. Provided that dry working takes place, as is proposed, I see no reason why water supplies would be materially affected. An acceptable solution would be determined in discussions involving the Environment Agency, as stated in Table C.4
Provided that dry working takes place. This is what the Minerals Plan says today:
5.4.9 Policy M12 therefore provides for the supply of sand and gravel through a Preferred Area at Straitgate Farm, near Ottery St Mary, subject to extraction being limited to dry working above the maximum water table to avoid potentially adverse impacts on private water supplies and water-sensitive habitats.
Limited to dry working. The Environment Agency’s most recent stated position says:
Our position remains that we consider this proposal can only be acceptable if subsequent permission includes conditions and obligations to protect the water environment…. we advise that the following must be secured on any planning permission: 1. No working shall be undertaken below the ‘Maximum Winter Water Table (MWWT) grid’.
The man on the Clapham omnibus would take that to mean no digging below the maximum water table across the proposed site as set out at the top of the Environment Agency’s letter:
EXTRACTION OF UP TO 1.5 MILLION TONNES OF AS RAISED SAND AND GRAVEL, RESTORATION TO AGRICULTURAL LAND TOGETHER WITH TEMPORARY CHANGE OF USE OF A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING TO A QUARRY OFFICE/WELFARE FACILITY STRAITGATE FARM, EXETER ROAD, OTTERY ST MARY, DEVON, EX11 1LG
The proposal is not limited to the extraction area. No quarry ever is. The size of the proposal, the size of the red line boundary, is helpfully defined by Aggregate Industries:
The application site covers an area extending to some 42.5ha, with mineral extraction proposed to take place within 22.6ha with the remainder of the site occupied by temporary soil storage bunds, mitigation planting and site management and access areas
The proposal requires the storage of soils and the construction of a loading area and haul road. Overburden storage and loading areas alone amount to some 7 hectares.
We wrote to Environment Agency with our concerns about the water levels in the overburden storage areas. The Agency said the matter "will be taken into consideration". However, the very same day, the Environment Agency reiterated its ‘no objection’ position provided "subsequent permission includes several robust conditions to ensure the protection of groundwater resources and quality." There was no mention of the soil storage areas, so we wrote to the Environment Agency again:
It is clear that Aggregate Industries would have to dig beneath the maximum water table in large areas beyond the proposed excavation boundary in order to accommodate like-on-like storage of overburden.
The EA’s approach to protecting groundwater is outlined in its position statement:"Where the potential consequences of a development or activity are serious or irreversible the Environment Agency will adopt the precautionary principle to manage and protect groundwater. The Environment Agency will also apply this principle in the absence of adequate information with which to conduct an assessment."Do you not agree – particularly given the absence of groundwater monitoring in the proposed soil storage locations – that there has not been "adequate information with which to conduct an assessment"?
Whilst the Environment Agency did not deny the problem, it did not agree either. This week it wrote:
Our recommended conditions concerning the Maximum Winter Water Table (MWWT) are intended to apply to the quarry working area only, not the soil/overburden storage area and the Planning Officer is aware of the intention of the recommended conditions.
Quarry working area only? That will be news to most people. No geographic limit is defined in the condition. Groundwater needs protecting whether it is inside or outside the extraction area.
Let's repeat the Minerals Plan again, this time from the Table C.4 referenced above:
The development of this site will only involve dry working, above the maximum winter (wet) level of groundwater.
Development of this site. If there was any intention by the Environment Agency to restrict the condition to just the working area, it has only been arrived at since the elevated groundwater levels in the soil storage areas were highlighted.
Devon County Council and the Environment Agency need to send Aggregate Industries back to do more extensive groundwater monitoring. Without such information, the Council is in no position to determine the application lawfully.
