Company planning 4 million km haulage scheme in Devon

... where each load of sand and gravel would require a 75 km round-trip for processing – says:

EA now accepts stream flows would change – with unlawful implications

The Environment Agency now accepts – in its "statement for the planning committee" of 13 August 2021, released after an FOI request – that changes to the unsaturated zone from Aggregate Industries' scheme to quarry Straitgate Farm would affect stream flows: 

In our view, the main risk of any increase in unsaturated zone flow rates resulting from the reduction in unsaturated zone thickness would be to the headwaters of the streams whose catchments are partly in the proposed quarry area (Pitt Copse Stream, Birdcage Stream, Straitgate Spring, Cadhay Spring, Cadhay Wood Stream, Straitgate Farm Spring, Cadhay Bog Stream)… 

   

Never mind, says the Environment Agency: 

...the arguments on headwaters presented above relate only to the timing of recharge. 

In May 2019, Professor Brassington wrote: 

If the proposed quarry increases runoff and reduces groundwater recharge, then the flows of both the Cadhay Wood Stream and the Cadhay Bog Stream will reduce as well as the various springs that flow into these woodlands. This will have a detrimental impact on the viability of the ecosystems that is expected to be permanent.

In October 2019, Professor Brassington also wrote: 

Wood describe the fact that removal of most of the unsaturated zone will result in flashier groundwater baseflows to the springs…. The streams that flow from the springs also support local habitats especially Cadhay Wood and Cadhay Bog.

This has implications for downstream riparian owners, who have legal rights under common law: 

A riparian owner is anyone who owns a property where there is a watercourse within or adjacent to the boundaries of their property and a watercourse includes a river, stream or ditch.  

In recognising the change in stream flows – whether "only to the timing of recharge" or otherwise – the Environment Agency is endorsing a scheme that imposes unlawful changes upon downstream riparian owners, riparian owners who have the legal right to receive a flow of water in its natural state, without undue interference in quality or quantity. 

The Environment Agency helpfully sets out the rights of riparian owners: 

Water should flow onto or under your land in its natural quantity and quality. This means that water should not be taken out of a watercourse if it could lead to a lack of water for those who need it downstream. 

This is based on case law, Chasemore v Richards [1859] 7 HL 349 29 LJ Ex 81. 

He has the right to have it come to him in its natural state, in flow, quantity, and quality, and to go from him without obstruction; 

It would obviously be unlawful for Devon County Council to permit any scheme knowing that by doing so would result in unlawful impacts to third parties.

‘You can grow concrete’

It's true. I've got a concrete farm just outside Crediton. It's free-range concrete. In the autumn I harvest it and sell it in bags to the construction industry.

— Miching Mallecho (@MichingMallech1) October 26, 2021

AI introduces new ‘MWWT +1m criteria’ to comfort LLFA

It would appear that Aggregate Industries has given up 1 metre of resource in its plans to quarry Straitgate Farm – according to emails sent by the company to persuade Devon County Council's Flood Risk Management Team in its capacity as Lead Local Flood Authority to withdraw its objection. 

Last month we posted DCC’s Flood Risk Team withdraws objection – WITHOUT sight of ‘a plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed’, WITHOUT knowing whether a drainage scheme is even ‘feasible’. 

Following an FOI request, and the release of a number of redacted emails, we can now see the reasons behind the LLFA's volte-face.  

On 19 July 2021, Aggregate Industries told the LLFA: 

The objection you have received shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our scheme, one of the reasons why we are monitoring the MWWT is to inform the depth of extraction so that a minimum of 1m unsaturated zone is maintained over the MWWT.

  

On 28 July, the LLFA confirmed their understanding: 

My query is that if the MWWT keeps getting higher (closer to the ground) will there be enough depth (the report says 1.45 m) to accommodate the required volume for infiltration? Bearing in mind no excavation within 1 m of the MWWT and the fact that in some places the BSPB is as thin as 3 m (although I’m not sure where these places are).

  

On 18 August, Aggregate Industries told the LLFA: 

Regarding depth of void excavation for runoff storage above unworked material to protect MWWT:… Effectively, the eastern downslope edge of the extraction void for phases 1 and 2 will be shifted upslope, on account of the MWWT +1m criteria limiting the ability to extract from the downslope-most edge of these phases.” 

One hour later, the LLFA wrote: 

I am happy with the response. Essentially they are shifting the void upslope to account for the MWWT and 1 m stand off to ensure there is sufficient depth/capacity for the runoff which is reassuring.

With reference to the "void", on 30 June Aggregate Industries explained: 

The void created by mineral extraction acts as the infiltration basin so there is not a single cross section as this will change as extraction progresses... 

   

On 7 September, the LLFA withdrew its objection. 

Of course, "a minimum of 1m unsaturated zone... maintained over the MWWT" is brilliant news; we have been campaigning for material to be left unquarried above the maximum water table for years. 

Given that the Updated Resource Assessment claims: 

The MWWT will ultimately form the base of the workable deposit, and any variation will impact the potential resource.

we have suggested that Devon County Council ask for the resource to be recalculated taking the new "MWWT +1m criteria" into account. 

Or is all this just another big misunderstanding?

Has Aggregate Industries misunderstood its own scheme again?

Has Aggregate Industries – either intentionally or unintentionally – misled the LLFA officer?

Tackling climate emergency should be ‘top priority’ for planning system

That’s according to new guidance issued this week from The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA): 

The RTPI and the TCPA believe that climate change should be the top priority for planning across the UK. This is simply because the impacts of flooding, overheating and other consequences of climate change stand in the way of everything else we want to achieve in terms of the creation of vibrant communities and a sustainable and just society. We are particularly concerned that the damaging outcomes of climate change continue to have the most severe impacts on the most vulnerable and those least able to respond.

The new guidance warns: 

Climate change is the greatest challenge facing our society. Every decision we take must count towards securing our long-term survival. The science of climate change is now well understood, and we know that we must limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels if we are to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. A recent report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) made clear that drastic action to reduce carbon emissions is needed now if we are to have any hope of achieving that target. But we know that severe climate impacts are already locked in even if we do limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C. These impacts require urgent re-design of our communities to make them safe and liveable for future generations. We have to face up to this challenge now if human society is to have any chance of a long-term future. 

Indeed. What must planners do?

Clearly, this has not happened with the planners at Devon County Council. 

If they were seeking development options resulting in the biggest carbon reductions, they would not still be working tirelessly behind the scenes trying to make Aggregate Industries' scheme to quarry Straitgate Farm hang together; they would not still be entertaining Aggregate Industries' 2.5 million mile haulage scheme if climate change were their top priority. 

Neither, are they taking climate change seriously when thinking about future risks, because when it comes to the important matter of flooding a worst case scenario has not been applied. 

 

Letter to DCC questions – as we all do – AI’s credibility and Council’s priorities

If, in the course of nearly seven years, an international company with quarrying interests is unable to produce a cogent planning application for a quarry, then it is reasonable to conclude that there is something seriously wrong with the application or the applicant or both. No reasonable observer, taking into account the lengthy correspondence between the Planning Authority, Aggregate Industries (AI) and those of us questioning the application's credibility, could conclude otherwise. Questions on climate change, sustainability, quarrying methods, hydrological sensitivity, road safety (and more) remain inadequately addressed, or not addressed at all. The serial postponements and delays, alongside inaccurate, misleading and sometimes downright wrong information in AI's submissions mark it unacceptable to any credible planning assessment. 

There is a question too about the role that DCC has played in this process, which has been to indulge AI with seemingly unlimited time allowances while doing very little to support the Devon environment and those resident in it, which are its primary responsibility. It would be facile to point out to members where their interests should be focussed, they will know that well enough, but at the moment it is impossible to discover any sense that the planning authority has a role beyond finding a way, against all reason, to approve an application which should not be approved, and rubber stamp the avarice of a foreign company with no interest whatever in Devon beyond what it can extract from it. There will no doubt be pressure from AI to approve, regardless of the final condition of their ramshackle application, but Council Tax payers expect their environment to be protected, and the planning process to proceed fairly. That must surely be the Council’s overriding priority. 

I do, therefore (for the fourth or fifth time) urge the Authority to show some genuine concern for Devon and the people who live here and reject this dreadful application. Chris Wakefield

Sustainable aggregates

Over the years we have posted about secondary aggregates and recycled aggregates, both of which represent more sustainable alternatives to primary or virgin aggregates. 

Here's another example, this time from a Lanarkshire company that has recently launched a new range of low-carbon aggregate produced from incinerator bottom ash, together with recycled sand produced from street sweepings and gully waste:

Scottish waste management solutions company @LevenseatWM is the fist company in the country to achieve 'end-of-waste' status for is new low carbon aggregates product range ♻️ #ScotlandIsNow #ClimateActionhttps://t.co/fEZASLu1qM pic.twitter.com/bRVux1EdFQ

— Scottish Development International (@ScotDevInt) October 11, 2021

Levenseat’s low carbon product offering is designed to help construction firms lower their building costs while also reducing their environmental impact by replacing virgin aggregate within concrete – for each tonne of recycled aggregate used, 29kg CO2 is saved from being emitted. In 2020 2.7 million tonnes of IBA was produced from Energy from Waste plants in the UK. 

Earlier this year, we posted about carbon-negative aggregates. This has now helped Jackson Civil Engineering secure an Environment Agency Flood & Coast 2021 Excellence Award. O.C.O’s aggregates sales and development manager said: 

Not only have we been able to show that carbon-negative aggregates have a role to play in sustainable construction and the road to carbon zero, but also, just as importantly, that they offer a credible alternative to using up our finite resources of traditional sand and gravel. 

I really feel the tide is beginning to change; people will have to start looking for alternatives and I think this award will open their eyes to the fact there is a manufactured product that can be used in various applications – such as asphalt and Type 1 concrete – which is both proven to work and is environmentally friendly.

‘High-carbon buildings morally indefensible, even racist’

Concrete, steel and glass buildings are ‘racist’ claims green professor https://t.co/j4C0S8RD7o

— Construction Enquirer (@ConstructionEnq) October 15, 2021

University of Bath Professor of Zero Carbon Design David Coley wants materials usage to become a moral issue with a complete rethink over common design elements including high levels of glazing and excessive use of steel and concrete. He argued that architects, contractors, planners and construction clients must consider building projects from a moral standpoint based on their lifetime carbon impact in a new essay titled Are buildings evil? Rethinking responsibility in the construction industry. 

It says buildings should be seen as “harmful emitters” and that given a disproportionate amount of this harm, in the form of rising sea levels and temperatures will fall on the non-white population of the global south, designing and constructing energy-intensive buildings “fuels global climate injustice and is therefore morally offensive, and potentially a form of unconscious institutional racism.” 

Professor Coley said: 

“We urgently need to rethink our approach to construction and adopt zero-energy practices. The largest proportion of our carbon emissions come from our buildings, not industry or transport, as is often assumed. 

“We know how to build, and have built, some exemplary low-energy buildings, so our failure to adopt them as the norm can be viewed as deliberate. 

“We need the public to demand zero-energy buildings, developers to set zero-energy briefs and architects to draw zero-energy buildings – and all because they find anything else unacceptable, even repulsive.” 

‘Newspaper closures open door to corporate crime’

The new paper from @HarvardHBS professor Jonas Heese confirms that the press serves as a watchdog and keeps businesses in check https://t.co/K0xbCmygpo

— Harvard University (@Harvard) October 13, 2021

In the US, "a study of misbehavior among publicly traded companies illustrates the critical watchdog role that newspapers play, and the problems that arise when publications go out of business", according to research by Harvard Business School Professor Jonas Heese. 

When local newspapers shutter, some businesses evidently treat the lack of press coverage as permission to act badly and end up committing more illegal violations, including pollution, workplace safety infractions, and financial fraud, according to Heese’s research. 

According to Professor Heese:

If you can do whatever you want and no one is looking, you’re more likely or more willing to engage in fraud. If the local media doesn’t make a fuss, you can pay the penalty to regulators without it affecting your reputation.

For his research, Professor Heese relied on Violation Tracker, "the first wide-ranging database on corporate misconduct" which traces violations and penalties from 44 federal regulatory agencies. 

Here's the Violation Tracker entry for LafargeHolcim – the parent company of Aggregate Industries. Penalties since 2000 in the US alone total $281,993,283 at the time of writing. 

Other violations around the world can be found here.

Fortunately in East Devon, the local press continues to survive. A search of the Sidmouth Herald archive shows the newspaper has followed the Straitgate debacle since 2011.

Around the globe, @LafargeHolcim is accused of polluting waterways and other forms of pollution. In the US alone, Lafarge has paid $279 million in penalties since 2000 (cc @GoodJobsFirst) https://t.co/odVMUN3Mjv

— CleanWaves (@CleanWaves3) May 3, 2021

For years, @LafargeHolcim violated the law and leaked toxic chemicals into tributaries of the Hudson River.

As a result of their illegal actions, we recovered $850,000 and we're forcing Holcim to take measures to prevent any future environmental harm.https://t.co/pE6xAdvwcn

— NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) April 30, 2021

South West aggregate trends

The latest Aggregate minerals survey for England and Wales, comparing sales of primary aggregates between 2014 and 2019, was published in August.

The South West was the second largest source of land-won primary aggregates (28.2 Mt, 21%). Sales of primary aggregate increased 13% in the region between 2014 and 2019 (25.4 to 28.8 Mt). 

However, whilst sales of crushed rock aggregate increased by 18% (21.4 Mt to 25.3 Mt), sales of land-won sand and gravel in the South West decreased by 12% (3.3 Mt to 2.9 Mt), the largest fall in England. Over the same period, sales of sand and gravel in England decreased by 4% (52.4 to 50.5 Mt).

   

Sales of sand and gravel in the South West have fallen 60% since 1973.

 

DCC defers judgement on AI’s Straitgate planning application YET AGAIN

Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate will not now be determined in October. The company has failed to meet yet another agreed extension, the 13th such extension since 2017. 

On 23 September 2021, the case officer wrote: 

I have agreed an extension of time until the end of November although I hope to take it to Committee in October.

Less than 3 weeks have passed since then, but the goalposts appear to have been moved for Aggregate Industries yet again. Clearly, after all these years, the company is still struggling to join the dots, still struggling to provide the necessary information, and the Council seems prepared to give the cement giant all the time in the world to do so, at considerable cost to local people and businesses blighted and unable to move on from the overhanging threat of development. 

Back in October 2020, Devon County Council warned Aggregate Industries:  

There is increasing and justified concern within the community about the length of time being taken to determine this application and the delays in providing requested information.  

This application has now been with the County Council for nearly three years [six years since the initial application] and the uncertainty for the local community is a situation that the County Council as Mineral Planning Authority can no longer accept by continuing to request further delays in the determination due to a lack of the information we have been asking Aggregate Industries to provide.  

I must advise you that any extension of the determination date will now be limited to a reasonable period of time for you to do this work. The County Council will not be requesting a further extension of time beyond the end of this year and if the information is not provided in sufficient time for a determination at the meeting on 27th January, then it is my advice that the County Council is likely to proceed to determine the application as it stands and in the absence of the clarification we have requested on a number of important points. 

That was 2020. Three extensions have been agreed since then, and no doubt Aggregate Industries will now be looking for another. 

It is unclear, however – 12 months on from that letter, with 12 extra months granted to Aggregate Industries and 12 extra months of blight for the community – why Devon County Council, who is under a duty to act fairly, did not feel in a position "to determine the application as it stands". One can only guess. 

The next DMC meeting is scheduled for 1 December.

Who’s to say this couldn’t happen at Straitgate?

...the mineral has been variable in quantity and quality and the amount remaining may be considerably less than estimated.

Market demand has also fluctuated due to the Covid-19 pandemic and issues with the quality of the mineral in certain places has resulted in the site not being worked in accordance with the phasing plans and has taken longer to extract. 

Too small grain size and thick pockets of clay along with no sand in areas has added to the situation. 

Production has also been delayed due to flooding and phases could not be followed which has also impacted upon the phased restoration

The above concerns a site in Cheshire. 

But who’s to say it couldn’t happen at Straitgate Farm? After all, Aggregate Industries failed to produce what was promised at Marshbroadmoor, Venn Ottery, Houndaller and Chard Junction: 

the sand and gravel reserves were found to be significantly shallower than anticipated 

Quarrying for sand and gravel is an uncertain business. At least, the benefit is uncertain; the harm to the landscape would not be.

WHPC voice flooding concerns

‘You can't trust this company, and you don't want them in your area’

We were alerted this week to a battle that took place between 1998 and 2005 on the other side of the Atlantic, a battle between St Lawrence Cement (SLC) – who wanted to build a cement plant and limestone quarry on the banks of the Hudson – and concerned residents, who ultimately won. SLC was part of Holcim, the parent company of Aggregate Industries. 

The website stoptheplant.com recalls: 

St. Lawrence Cement spent $58 million dollars over more than six years in a failed effort to build a massive, coal-fired plant that would have overwhelmed the small but historic City of Hudson (NY) — population 7,500. 

The story is told in more detail in Hudson 101: The Cement Plant Battle: 

From that 406-foot stack would have belched a pollution-laden plume extending as long as six miles, roughly the distance from Greenport to Philmont in a direct line. 

This gun to our collective heads would have been loaded with 500 million pounds of coal annually, to pulverize limestone blasted from a 1,200-acre quarry nearly as large as the entire City of Hudson. “Alternative” fuels such as garbage, tires and hazardous waste could have been added to the cauldron— a side of incinerator to go with your cement plant. 

By SLC’s own admission, the plant sought permits to emit up to 20 million pounds of pollutants per year, including greenhouse gases such as nitrogen and sulfur dioxides, heavy metals and volatile organic compounds: arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and more.

... citizens discovered that SLC and its Swiss-owned parent company Holderbank—now called Holcim—had an appalling track record of fines for pollution and price-fixing violations. Whatever promises the company was making, it had broken similar promises to other communities worldwide. (The company had also used slave labor in Europe during World War II, and actively profited in South Africa during Apartheid.) 

Protestors had experience of the company’s activities from elsewhere. One said: 

“You can’t trust these cement company bosses farther than you can throw ’em. Their promises don’t mean nothing unless it’s written down.” 

Another said: 

“You can't trust this company, and you don't want them in your area.” 

According to the Wikipedia entry for Hudson, NY: 

Opponents argued the proposed project violated state environmental regulations and would adversely affect the river, shoreline, and related habitats. 

The controversy gained national attention from news outlets such as CNN and The New York Times, as well as media outlets in Canada and Switzerland. The project was withdrawn after New York Secretary of State Randy Daniels determined that the company's plans were inconsistent with New York State's 24 coastal policies. 

Tungsten West plans London IPO to raise funds to restart Hemerdon mine

Tungsten West PLC – operator of the Hemerdon tungsten and tin mine near Plymouth – plans to list on the London AIM market on 21 October to raise funds to recommence production:

Tungsten West's business plan also includes selling the significant volumes of aggregates that are produced as a by-product from the primary mining operations at Hemerdon, which was historically treated as a waste product from operations.

‘WTF is a vehicle like that doing on the pavement?!’

Aggregate Industries’ proposed site access at Straitgate for its 44-tonne HGVs is exactly where children stand waiting for school buses. 

What could possibly go wrong?

WTF is a vehicle like that doing on the pavement?! 🤬

— Cath Rodkoff 💙 (@rodkoff) October 3, 2021

Especially when there’s a huge dent in the danger zone on the left

— vorkuta (@Rainbowfables) October 1, 2021

EDIT 7.10.21 The above was obviously not an isolated incident. Aggregate Industries’ truck drivers clearly think it’s ok to drive on pavements.

 

@AggregateUK is this one of your London Concrete lorries? There was no need for them to drive up and over the kerb. This causes #danger to pedestrians and #damage to the street. I presume they were coming from the Merstham Park school building site. pic.twitter.com/Ox6cpXgLgl

— Sam Dilliway (@samdilliway) October 7, 2021