AI’s plans for Straitgate incompatible with Inspectors’ planning conditions

The Planning Inspectorate has granted Aggregate Industries permission to extract sand and gravel at Straitgate Farm – despite the fact that the company’s approved plans cannot be implemented without one of the imposed conditions being broken.

It has long been recognised that mineral extraction at Straitgate could introduce bodies of water directly below the flight path of Exeter Airport, thereby increasing the risk of birdstrike. In 2012, Exeter Airport wrote to Devon County Council with its concerns: 

As you are aware, the risk of a bird strike on an aircraft can be catastrophic, and as a result all aviation stakeholders do all possible to mitigate against this happening. 

Under the Air Navigation Law, it is a criminal offence to endanger an aircraft or its occupants by any means. 

The creation of any body of water, particularly on a long term basis, has the potential to create a suitable habitat which encourages an increase in bird activity for nesting, feeding and migration. 

Due to the location of the proposed quarry, it is felt that there is a real risk to aircraft if there is an increase in this area.

In light of these concerns – documented as a constraint in the Devon Minerals Plan – conditions relating to Airport Safeguarding were recommended in the Officer’s Report in 2021. 

However, based on comments made on the last day of the Public Inquiry, the condition relating to Airport Safeguarding and the creation of water bodies was strengthened by the Inspectors. It now reads: 

25. No water body shall be created within the site other than the approved weigh bridge lagoon.  

This condition, which Aggregate Industries must comply with if it is to quarry Straitgate Farm, is clear and unambiguous. It is not limited by the size or duration of any water body – large or small, permanent or temporary. 

What exactly is a water body? Wikipedia says "The term most often refers to oceans, seas, and lakes, but it includes smaller pools of water such as ponds, wetlands, or more rarely, puddles." LawInsider goes further. This helpful graphic also explains. 

How easy would it be to create a water body at Straitgate? Fortunately, we know. Aggregate Industries’ archeological investigations were held up in October 2014 because water in the archaeological trenches would not drain away. 

We also know that Aggregate Industries has form in creating water bodies that attract birds elsewhere at their sites in Devon – just click on the labels airport safeguarding or birdstrike, or these posts here, here, here, here, here and here. Below is a photo of a water body left by the company at Hillhead:

But let’s put all that to one side for a moment. 

One of Aggregate Industries’ approved plans – listed in the Planning Inspectors’ report as Restoration Scheme SF/6 rev E – actually encourages water bodies: 

EPHEMERAL WATER BODIES AND SPECIES-RICH WET GRASSLAND TO BE ENCOURAGED IN LOW-LYING INFILTRATION AREAS (IN THE BASE OF THE DEPRESSIONS)

As low points in the quarried landform, water bodies might be expected to form in these areas. But Aggregate Industries says they are needed for surface water management reasons too: 

The features are part of site restoration to ensure the site is restored to baseline conditions with some betterment. The features allow the restored site to mimic natural conditions, but ensure a greater proportion of rainfall passes to ground to provide flow support to the watercourses, rather than passing off-site as overland flow. 2.18.7 

In addition to that, the creation of infiltration areas on the eastern boundary of the site is an integral part of the company’s flood mitigation scheme. At the Public Inquiry the Inspectors were told by Aggregate Industries’ hydrogeology witness that standing water will remain in these areas for up to 15 days in the summer and 24 days in the winter. Of course, if it rains again in the meantime – as it often does – the duration will be extended. 

So – there is a contradiction. Aggregate Industries’ plans rely on the creation of water bodies, which the Planning Inspectors’ conditions prohibit. 

In other words, Aggregate Industries’ plans cannot be implemented without the conditions being broken. 

One might ask why the Planning Inspectors granted permission for a scheme that was incompatible with their conditions. Whatever the reason, it would appear there was more concern with approving Aggregate Industries’ scheme than there was in seeing whether it could actually work.

Can anything be done now?

That was the very question Ottery Town Council asked Devon County Council last week:

Ottery St Mary Town Council held their January meeting on Monday and have requested that I write to you to voice their extreme disappointment at the judgement from the Planning Inspectorate in relation to the Straitgate Farm Planning Appeal Inquiry.  The Council has never supported the plans for the creation of a quarry and are very concerned about the extremely negative impact the development will have on our parish.  The Council would like to ask whether there is any further action that Devon County Council can take to prevent the quarry from being built?

Devon County Council responded: 

Like the Town Council, Devon County Council is disappointed that the robust defence of the reasons for refusal put forward by its expert witnesses (together with those acting on behalf of Straitgate Action Group) has not been reflected in a favourable appeal decision. The only means for the County Council or another aggrieved party with sufficient standing to challenge the Planning Inspectorate’s decision is through judicial review of the lawfulness of the decision – this would not involve any reconsideration of the merits or otherwise of the development proposals, but would be a challenge to the way in which that decision was made on grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.

So what can be done? 

Now that Aggregate Industries has been granted permission to quarry Straitgate Farm, attention turns to the planning conditions and legal obligations – shown below – that have been imposed by the Government Planning Inspectors. It is only by the imposition of these conditions and obligations that the Inspectors consider the company’s application to be acceptable. 

 

Links to the the planning conditions and S106 legal obligations have been put on the side of this blog for future reference, and the What to do page has been re-written accordingly. 

Devon County Council as the Minerals Planning Authority has the unenviable responsibility for enforcing the multitude of conditions and obligations. The Council encourages members of the public to report any suspected breaches. The Council’s Monitoring and Enforcement Plan says:  

3.2.1  Local planning authorities such as DCC have a duty to investigate alleged breaches of planning control, and anyone reporting an alleged breach to the Council is entitled to expect that the matter will be investigated in a timely and professional manner and the outcome communicated to them. 

4.1.1  DCC encourages the reporting of suspected breaches of planning control by members of the public or representative bodies such as town and parish councils and County Councillors. As development can gain immunity from enforcement action over time, it is important that any suspected breaches are reported as soon as possible in order that harmful development can be removed or minimised. 

4.3.10 A significant proportion of complaints received by DCC concern existing mineral or waste sites where it is alleged that the operator is failing to comply with the approved documents or with the conditions attached to the site’s planning permissions. Common examples include working outside approved hours, failure to control levels of noise or dust, and failure to carry out necessary habitat management or restoration work. While such breaches can become apparent through the Council’s site monitoring, reports are welcomed from local residents to ensure that adverse impacts can be investigated as early as possible. 

4.1.2  The most convenient means of reporting an unauthorised development or other potential breach is through the online reporting facility on DCC’s planning website at https://www.devon.gov.uk/planning/enforcement. 

Other methods of communication available are: Email: planning@devon.gov.uk 

Post:  Development Management Planning, Transportation & Environment Devon County Council Lucombe House County Hall Exeter EX2 4QD 

Phone: 01392 383000 (ask for Planning) 

Aggregate Industries must satisfy a number of pre-commencement conditions and obligations before any mineral extraction can start. Given, for example, the company’s astonishing failure to date to reliably measure something as fundamental as the site’s rate of infiltration, condition 13, this is no small task.

Cumbrian coal mine legal challenge alleges ‘apparent bias of Planning Inspector’

In December, Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, granted planning permission for a new coal mine in Cumbria following a Public Inquiry in September 2021. 

Last week, South Lakes Action on Climate Change [SLACC] launched a legal challenge against the government’s decision. The legal team acting for SLACC allege in their Pre-Action letter that: 

8. Unfortunately, the [Inspector’s Report], and thus the [Secretary of State’s decision letter], are shot through with errors and with examples of the Inspector (and hence the Secretary of State) either ignoring or cherry-picking evidence. 

Eight proposed grounds for challenge have been advanced, one of which is: 

Ground 7: Procedural impropriety - Apparent bias of the Inspector 

63. As was reported in local media in August 2022, by the BBC in August 2022 and in national news after the instant decision was announced, the Report published and the Secretary of State’s statement to Parliament, emphasising his reliance on the Report of the “independent planning Inspector”, immediately prior to closing the Inquiry in respect of the Hownsgill Appeal, the Inspector made the following remarks: 

“I’m from a mining background. I’m from a pit village. I still live in a pit village. I worked 10 years down the pit. I’m the only inspector ever to work down the pit” 

“The anguish you felt when the steel works closed, I’ve been part of it so I know what you went through because I went through it.” 

64. SLACC is concerned that the Inspector’s comments would cause a fair-minded and informed observer who has considered the facts to consider that there was a real possibility that he was biased in favour of the applicant’s case. His comments arguably go beyond demonstrating that he had appropriate mining experience relevant to the inquiry and raised questions whether and to what extent the Inspector’s experience and views were taken into account when he was appointed.   

 

SLACC are starting a legal challenge against the government's suicidal decision to allow a new coal mine. Good on SLACC. You can support them https://t.co/93iIevl9HW https://t.co/pbap69SKN2

— Coal Action Network (@CoalActionUK) January 9, 2023

‘The Kalashnikov that killed my son was bought with Lafarge's money’

Holcim – previously LafargeHolcim, the parent company of Aggregate Industries, which was formed after a "merger of equals" in 2015 between Swiss-based Holcim and French-based Lafarge – will be the ultimate beneficiary of the quarry at Straitgate Farm.

 

The company changed its name in 2021, no doubt because of a number of controversies. One controversy – Lafarge’s previous support for terrorists in Syria – refuses to go away.

 

"🇫🇷 intelligence was paying DAESH via LaFarge. This money may have been used in the Paris attacks. The Kalashnikov that killed the French was bought with LaFarge's money."

We are no strangers to the French collaborating with terrorist organizations. Now the PKK?
#LaCorseLibre pic.twitter.com/mCUSP87PDj

— hermes (@hermes_z) January 5, 2023

This sits separate from the French prosecution for complicity in crimes against humanity & any claim to remedies from victims.

What the (otherwise great) article by @rebeccadobrien & @GlennThrush doesn't explain is that these fines will not go to the victims but to @USTreasury

— Tara Van Ho: mastodon: @taravanho@bhre.social (@TaraVanHo) October 18, 2022

So where did it all go wrong?

Were the seven reasons Devon County Council gave for refusing Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm, together with the multitude of arguments advanced by Straitgate Action Group, presented at the Public Inquiry in October by two leading barristers and numerous experts, all so very flimsy that they could be written off in a sentence or two?

Seemingly so. 

We have now read the report by the Planning Inspectors, who last week granted Aggregate Industries permission to quarry Straitgate Farm subject to conditions and legal obligations.  

Local people have commented that the report "reads like an AI press release", that "the report appears as if it was written by [AI’s] KC himself", that "In every matter, the Inspectors chose to accept AI’s dodgy evidence and arguments", etc. 

Isn’t that strange, given the Planning Inspectorate says it will "always operate in a fair, open and impartial way"? Did the Planning Inspectors – one with a background at British Coal – look charitably at Aggregate Industries’ appeal through mineral-tinted spectacles?  

Let’s look at one or two of their comments. 

In relation to one of the main areas of contention – groundwater, and the mechanism for water movement through the unsaturated zone put forward by Prof Rick Brassington, supported by the Council’s expert hydrogeologist, Paul Thomson, and much scientific literature – the Inspectors apparently knew best: 

23. ...we are not persuaded that piston flow is the dominant flow mechanism in the BSPB or at the site... 27. ...we prefer the appellant’s model of rapid infiltration... 

And with that, the potential harm to private water supplies to 120 people, farms and businesses, to Cadhay and its mediaeval fishponds, to wetland habitats in ancient woodlands, instantly fell away. The evidence from the only Professor of Hydrogeology in the room was dismissed by Inspectors, neither of whom are expert in the subject. 

The Inspectors chose to find comfort elsewhere, saying: 

46. Similar monitoring together with rainfall measurements has also been carried out by the EA. The available data is thus comprehensive. We note the MPA’s concern that a pumping test has not been carried out in order to assess hydraulic conductivity and specific yield, but we see no reason to doubt the robustness of the assessment work that has been undertaken by the appellant. 

But no "similar monitoring" has been performed by the Environment Agency at Straitgate Farm. And without a pumping test, the hydraulic conductivity – the ease with which water can move through the ground – is unknown. 

The Inspectors dismissed the distance the as-dug material would need to be hauled for processing: 

134. The distance between Straitgate Farm and Hillhead Quarry is about 23 miles... Because there is no closer processing facility, the requirement to minimise travel distance would be met.  

What clever logic. But, as one astute person pointed out, if the nearest processing plant were Glasgow – would the requirement to minimise travel distance still be met? 

The Inspectors – clearly untroubled by our climate emergency – dismissed the harm this haulage scheme would cause: 

136. There is no other substantive evidence before us of any harm resulting from transportation of the mineral.  

However, any reasonable person would be able to deduce that the resulting 2.5 million HGV miles would have a harmful environmental impact, not only from CO2, but also from brake and tyre particulates, road damage etc. 

On the issue of need, the Inspectors pointed to a shortage of sand and gravel in Devon, and argued there was no immediate prospect of Aggregate Industries’ Penslade – another Preferred Area in the Devon Minerals Plan, with 8 million tonnes of the same resource right next-door to the processing plant – coming forward: 

82. ...the MPA stated that the landbank at the end of 2021 was 6.4 years, less than the 7 years required by the Framework. There is thus a shortage of sand and gravel in Devon. Although development of the allocated site west of Penslade Cross would contribute significantly to supply, there is no immediate prospect of this coming forward, and our decision must be based on the current situation with respect to sand and gravel supply. 

The Inspectors chose to ignore the Council’s evidence and the closing statement from the Council’s barrister, who said: 

217. Moreover, it is not disputed by Mr Gould that the Appellant plans to seek pre-application advice regarding West of Penslade before the end of this year with a view to an application in 2023.

On the cattle crossing issue, the Inspectors remarkably found: 

105. ...no cogent evidence to confirm that there would be an increase in livestock movements. 

However, the Inquiry was provided with clear evidence of this from SAG’s agricultural expert – the only such expert at the Inquiry. Even without his evidence, it is obvious that, with more than 80% of the pasture removed for quarrying, there would be a requirement for additional livestock movements across the Exeter Road to access alternative pasture. The Inspectors instead clung to the notion – without any evidence – that the farmers will sign an agreement to scupper their own business. 

158. It was explained at the Inquiry that it has not been possible for the farm tenant to sign the section 106 agreement because of ongoing negotiations. 

And indeed Aggregate Industries’ KC did claim this, despite there being no ongoing negotiations.

So, well done to Aggregate Industries. Three cheers. After years of trying, the cement giant has finally done it, finally got the better of the local action group, finally won permission to quarry the living daylights out of Straitgate Farm, rip out the ancient hedgerows, fell the veteran trees, displace the protected species, disturb aquifers and water courses, remove the top of a hill for ever more. 

It goes without saying that the company’s presence in the area will not be welcome. The company has no social licence; County, District, Town and Parish councils were all against Aggregate Industries’ scheme. The company has done nothing to endear itself to the local community over the last 10 years. There has been too much falsity and fiction for that. 

Neither will Aggregate Industries find working the site easy. The permission comes with a multitude of onerous conditions and legal obligations – many that need to be satisfied before any excavator shovel hits the ground. 

For example, compliance with the Airport Safeguarding condition: 

25. No water body shall be created within the site other than the approved weigh bridge lagoon. 

will be a challenge, given our variable climate and the high groundwater levels, since no water body shall be created – temporary or permanent, large or otherwise. 

Likewise, the restriction: 

17. There shall be no HGV movements... during the periods 07:45 hours to 08:45 hours and 15:15 hours to 16:45 hours during school terms.  

will also be a constraint. 

Local people – particularly those concerned with preserving their drinking water supplies – will make sure that the company strictly adheres to all these conditions and obligations, knowing how the company has sometimes struggled – here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here – to stick to conditions at its other sites.  

The quarry at Straitgate Farm will surely come under more public scrutiny than any other Aggregate Industries’ operation.

Despite everything – Aggregate Industries wins Straitgate Farm appeal

We are disappointed to report that, despite all the compelling arguments, all the issues, all the risks, all the harms, Aggregate Industries’ appeal against Devon County Council’s decision last year to refuse planning permission for a sand and gravel quarry at Straitgate Farm with haulage of the as-dug material to Hillhead Quarry has been allowed, and planning permission granted.

The Planning Inspectors’ report can be found below. 

We have tried our hardest over the last 20 years to stop this harmful development on the doorstep of Ottery St Mary. Let’s now hope that Aggregate Industries can make a better job of the development than it has of its various planning applications. 

We would like to thank all those who have campaigned with us, and all those who have so generously supported us over the years – we are so sorry that the end result was not the one we had all hoped for.

 

Uffculme housing scheme refused, in part due to mineral safeguarding concerns

A planning application 22/01893/MFUL for 40 dwellings at Chapel Hill, on the northern edge of Uffculme, has been refused by Mid Devon District Council, in part because the development was "contrary to Policy M2 of the Devon Minerals Plan Safeguarding". 

Unpopular 40 homes plan for Devon village refusedhttps://t.co/e5AmmZ7uzL

— Devon Live News (@DevonLiveNews) January 2, 2023

Devon County Council introduced Mineral Safeguarding Areas in 2017 in its adopted Minerals Plan, with the "aim to secure valuable mineral resources from sterilisation by new development, to ensure that they remain available for use by future generations". Policy M2 of that plan says: 

Mineral resources and infrastructure within the Mineral Safeguarding Areas defined on the Policies Map will be protected from sterilisation or constraint by non-mineral development within or close to those Areas by permitting such development if: 

(a) it can be demonstrated through a Mineral Resource Assessment and in consultation with the relevant mineral operators that the mineral resource or infrastructure concerned is not of current or potential economic or heritage value; or 

(b) the mineral resource can be extracted satisfactorily prior to the non-mineral development taking place under the provisions of Policy M3; or 

(c) the non-mineral development is of a temporary nature and can be completed and the site restored to a condition that does not inhibit extraction or operation within the timescale that the mineral resource or infrastructure is likely to be needed; or 

(d) there is an overriding strategic need for the non-mineral development; or 

(e) it constitutes exempt development, as set out in the exemption criteria. 

Having 40 new homes no closer than 200m away from the entrance of Hillhead Quarry – the location proposed to process material from Straitgate Farm, where quarry workings would be less than 100m from local residents – clearly presented too much risk to the peaceful activities of Aggregate Industries, who objected by saying: 

Hillhead is an important sand and gravel quarry, which produces a significant proportion of the County’s sand and gravel aggregate and if the proposed development were to proceed it would present a constraint not just to the future potential extraction of the mineral resource identified in the Devon Minerals Plan, but also to the current extraction at Hillhead Quarry. 

Objections were also raised by Devon County Council and the Devon Stone Federation.

The roots of an oak tree...

Aggregate Industries’ proposed scheme to quarry Straitgate Farm would result in the loss of a large number of mature trees, according to the company’s own consultants, including two 200-year old oaks, Trees F and G: 

Devon County Council Highways have confirmed that they would not accept a “no dig” construction, due to HGV vehicles that will be using the road to access the proposed development... [which] means that the works will potentially interfere with the root protection areas of Trees F, G and H and some of G15A as illustrated by Drawing R22/L/3-3-005 and it is likely they will be damaged by the development and need to be felled. 4.1

   

Indeed, "an unacceptable loss of mature trees" was one of the Reasons for Refusal advanced by Devon County Council when the application was rejected in December 2021. The arboricultural evidence advanced by the Council at the subsequent Public Inquiry concluded: 

6.2 The Appellant’s proposal does not adequately consider the significant impact upon the Notable trees F and G impacted as a result of works to the access. These trees are mature and of potential veteran status and should be re-categorised as A (high value) with the sub- category 3 (wildlife and/or cultural attributes). The buffers proposed by the Appellant through the RPAs are inadequate, particularly in the light of amendment of means of construction of the access road from ‘no dig’ to metalled, while the Appellant’s proposed mitigation of a ‘watching brief’ is insufficient to secure their protection and would not contribute or link to the wider ecological network or green infrastructure requirements. 

And no wonder – when you consider how far the roots of an oak tree extend:

Exposed roots reflect this reality 🌳 pic.twitter.com/mjsGPpXq69

— The English Oak Project (@TheKentAcorn) December 30, 2022

UK’s old trees critical to climate change fight

Trees store 'twice as much carbon' as once thought https://t.co/7PS31Y6GEb

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) December 20, 2022

The value you have in large mature trees is almost incalculable, and so you should avoid losing that at any cost - regardless of how many trees you think about planting

Consumers committed to playing their part – but what about Aggregate Industries?

Aggregate Industries tries hard to give the impression it cares about sustainability and our climate emergency. The reality – as we all know from the company’s CO2-intensive plans for Straitgate Farm, hauling as-dug aggregate 23 miles between quarry face and processing plant, more than any other UK quarry operation and some 2.5 million HGV miles in all – is somewhat different.

Last year, the company's research discovered that "consumers are committed to playing their part in reducing their carbon footprint". But what about Aggregate Industries' carbon footprint? Or didn't the company's research stretch to include itself?

 

Small actions make a big difference and by pulling together, we can all make a huge impact. Our research reveals that alongside businesses, consumers are committed to playing their part in reducing their carbon footprint. Find out more: https://t.co/ku6UPzXz1A pic.twitter.com/l1Yj7dP3ZE

— Aggregate Industries (@AggregateUK) September 8, 2022

Our research reveals consumers are committed to reducing their carbon footprint. eight in ten are concerned about climate change while 67% consider a company’s #sustainability policies when making a purchase. Find out what this means for our sector: https://t.co/UIVn8ppUmz

— Aggregate Industries (@AggregateUK) August 30, 2022

Cement industry among those given almost €100bn in free carbon permits by EU

Big polluters given almost €100bn in free carbon permits by EU https://t.co/w9kytRZ3Zh

— Guardian Environment (@guardianeco) November 29, 2022

Big polluting industries have been given almost €100bn (£86bn) in free carbon permits by the EU in the last nine years, according to an analysis by the WWF. The free allowances are “in direct contradiction with the polluter pays principle”, the group said. Free pollution permits worth €98.5bn were given to energy-intensive sectors including steel, cement, chemicals and aviation from 2013-21. This is more than the €88.5bn that the EU’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) charged polluters, mostly coal and gas power stations, for their CO2 emissions. 

Furthermore, the WWF said, the free permits did not come with climate conditions attached, such as increasing energy efficiency and some polluters were also able to make billions in windfall profits by selling the permits they did not use. 

 

Over the last 9 years heavy industry was exempted from paying the carbon price under the #EUETS for over half of their emissions. No wonder their emissions have barely gone down. pic.twitter.com/CG7Hzh8nWZ

— WWF EU (@WWFEU) December 16, 2022

Bill seeks to restrict quarry developments close to residential areas

Backbench MP Matt Western introduced a private member’s bill a year ago to tighten planning rules on new quarry developments, which proposed a "presumption in planning decision-making against approving quarry development in close proximity to settlements". 

We have previously posted about his campaign here.

We meant to post about this at the time, but were distracted with our own battle on the very same day at Devon County Council’s Development Management Committee against Aggregate Industries’ proposal for a sand and gravel quarry at Straitgate Farm. We post the details now for completeness. 

After our 2 year campaign, I brought my Quarries Bill before Parliament today.

It would outlaw quarries within 1km of homes due to toxic silica dust emissions and noxious gases.

It would stop the Barford quarry plan going ahead - and protect health of residents across the UK. pic.twitter.com/4UXpD2HpZO

— Matt Western MP 💙 (@MattWestern_) December 1, 2021

Private member’s bills rarely become law but they do raise the profile of the issues involved and hopefully indicate the direction of travel. Matt Western argued that the current legal framework fails to acknowledge the latest science on air quality and the threat to human health, particularly in relation to the air quality standards for silica, which he deemed inadequate. 

In summary, the Bill has three objectives: to create a presumption against granting permission for quarry developments in close proximity to settlements; to impose a requirement to assess the risks of proposed quarrying sites to health and the environment, as part of the planning process; and to make provisions related to the use of waste disposal of quarries. The first objective would, in essence, act as a safety valve for an over-liberal estimation of population sizes and settlement planning. At the same time, it would protect the current residents of neighbouring towns and villages. The provision is inspired by the actions of other countries: in Canada, there is a requirement that quarries have to be 600 metres from settlements, and other countries have introduced minimum distances. We now need to act. Given the science, I believe that the minimum distance should be set at 1,000 metres at least for silicates and noxious gases, as recommended by the research. 

#MP introduces bill to make it harder to build quarries close to where people live: https://t.co/SUAV1I5kQ5 #Labour pic.twitter.com/xO1zuPsEzt

— Planning Magazine (@PlanningMag) December 3, 2021

Western told the house: “Across the land, a great many communities face the prospect of permission being granted for quarries that will not just blight their areas but bring significant risks to human health, while at the same time being, in certain cases, surplus to requirement.” The MP cited the recent death of nine-year-old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah in London, triggered by poor air quality due to vehicle emissions. “Following the case, the coroner wrote a prevention of future deaths report that urged the government to introduce legally binding limits as regards air quality based on World Health Organisation guidelines,” he said. “That case alarmed the public and should certainly have caused alarm among the government. While PM10 and PM2.5 are now part of our lexicon in addressing air-quality issues, there are wider issues that urgently need legislation; hence this bill, which is, in essence, about minimising the impact of emissions on residents’ health, and particularly children’s health.” Turning to research into airborne silica dust from quarries, Western highlighted findings by the Environmental Working Group, a US-based body specialising in research and advocacy. “It has stated that none of the air quality standards for silica are adequate to protect people living or working near sand mining sites,” he said. “The group has concerns for any resident living within 1,500 metres of any excavation site, because of the dissipation of dust particles.” Evidence gathered by the Environmental Working Group on the impact of open sand mines in Wisconsin and Minnesota found silica levels at least ten times higher than the recommended limit of 3 micrograms per cubic metre, said Western. “I can see no reason why that would be much different from levels found in areas that border sand and gravel quarries in the UK.” 

A private members bill to restrict quarry developments close to residential areas will have its second reading in parliament today.

Read our blog to get up to speed >>> https://t.co/mk7pE5mhvQ

— The Environment Practice (@Enviro_Practice) January 28, 2022

Mr Western’s bill raises a number of pertinent issues and seeks to address the deficiencies in the current planning legislation. However, the question is whether the bill will actually become law. The bill was introduced by Mr Western under the 10 minute rule, a process described by Hansard as ‘an opportunity to voice an opinion on a subject or aspect of existing legislation, rather than a serious attempt to get a bill passed.’ Relatively few private member’s bills raised in this way go on to become law. Nevertheless, they are a useful way of raising the profile of an issue and generating debate.