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.

AI would use ‘reasonable endeavours‘ to provide replacement water within 24 hrs. Why does Straitgate’s S106 give less protection to water users than Greystone’s?

Picture the scene. People living around an East Devon farm have enjoyed uninterrupted spring water for generations. Then along comes a hungry aggregates business, digging down to goodness knows what depth, causing goodness knows what problems to drinking water supplies.

Think it couldn’t happen? An eminent hydrogeologist has warned such a scheme would cause ‘irreversibly damage’ to water sources. 

Devon County Council and Aggregate Industries have a plan, a Section 106 – a legal safeguard should such problems arise.

By including a Draft Heads of Terms S106 with the planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm, Devon County Council, the Environment Agency and Aggregate Industries clearly accept the possibility of harm to water supplies to more than 100 people, to livestock farms, to a Grade I listed tudor manor house with mediaeval fishponds, to wetland habitats in ancient woodlands. 

It is therefore crucial – given what is at stake, and for the wellbeing of all those people and businesses – that the S106 wording is fit for purpose. Is it? Be the judge.  

How much effort would the company expend in putting things right? The company says it would use "reasonable endeavours": 

In all cases AIUK shall use all reasonable endeavours to ensure where required arrangements (whether temporary or permanent) shall be put in place for alternative supplies within 24 hours of being notified by the MPA or the Environment Agency or an interested Third Party.

Why "reasonable endeavours"? Why not "best endeavours"? 

A "reasonable endeavours" obligation is the least onerous type of endeavours clause. Crucially, the obligor is not normally required to sacrifice its own commercial interests and may be entitled to consider the impact on their own profitability… 

Amazing. Not being prepared to pull out all the stops for people who have lost their drinking water is disappointing, to say the least. What happens elsewhere? The S106 for Aggregate Industries' Greystone Quarry in Cornwall is phrased rather more generously:

In the event that there is interference or contamination with any of the private water supplies... then [Aggregate Industries et al.] shall forthwith at its own expense, as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any event within 24 hours, make temporary or permanent arrangements for the provision of alternative or additional water supply to the users of the private water supplies...

But what if Aggregate Industries, with its massive water-disturbing-hole-in-the-ground, should say "Not our problem, guv"? Then what? 

If AIUK shall dispute that such contamination interference or inability to draw a satisfactory water supply is partly or wholly attributable to the winning and working of minerals within the subject land and the question is referred to arbitration…

Arbitration? 

Any dispute between the parties on any matter arising under this agreement shall be referred to an Arbitrator for arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act 1996...

That would certainly be a nice job for a pack of lawyers and experts, and would take goodness knows how long. Years? Aggregate Industries is unlikely to take things lying down. 

But what about how? Consider a livestock farm and all its fields, how would that be provided for? How would alternative water supplies be provided to a Grade I listed house and its mediaeval fishponds, or to wetland habitats in ancient woodlands? How would alternative supplies be deployed in a rapid manner, given many of these are miles from a mains supply? 

Without knowing how, the Council is unable to properly assess this little scheme. According to a top planning lawyer: 

If there’s a problem which might be caused by the development, the LPA must know how that problem will be mitigated, and then assess such mitigation.

So, in all the time Aggregate Industries has had to prepare for its planning application, we are still not told how. How can we be sure the company knows how? What happens elsewhere? The S106 for Greystone does talk about some of the hows:

4.8 In the event of a decline in yield as indicated, AIUK would take responsibility for the "immediate provision of a temporary water supply" (e.g. water bowser). This would be kept in place until a long-term solution could be provided, as follows: 

4.9... 

4.10... 

4.11... 

And what about usage charges? Who would pay these if connection to the mains were possible? Nothing is included in the S106 about that, despite this email from Devon County Council to Aggregate Industries’ consultants back in 2015: 

Please also note that those on private water supplies may not wish to be connected to the mains and may wish for a more natural supply from a new borehole or well. Additionally, the provision of a 30 year mains water supply may not be considered acceptable to those who currently enjoy free water. If a natural free source is lost then the responsibility for its replacement should be taken on in perpetuity. 

What happens elsewhere? Let's look at that Greystone S106 again:

The fallback position would be the provision of mains water. AIUK would cover the costs for mains water connection and usage at any property where the water supply is affected by the quarry development.

So why is Straitgate different? Are there too many people dependent on water from the site? 

What is Devon County Council's input in all this? Has it had any say? It looks like it has, according to this email to Aggregate Industries, released through an FOI, from March 2019:

My next job is to send over some commentary on the draft s.106 HoT – I have been looking at the Greystone s.106 which also has some interesting points.

So it’s disappointing we’ve ended up where we are, particularly given that Devon County Council wrote to Aggregate Industries in January 2019 suggesting:

As you are aware I am waiting for an updated heads of terms setting out properties to be monitored and you may wish to consider the points raised given your confidence that the proposed development would not impact on third party water supplies? We have had this discussion about the s.106 being generous with those concerned landowners if you are confident in your hydrogeology assessments and I would suggest that this is indeed reflected in the detail of the s.106 agreement. It would certainly help to address one of the most likely causes for concern for the determining committee. I believe that the legal agreement for the management and monitoring of water supplies needs to be complete before determination and not just a general heads of terms. The way it works is going to be a material consideration and we need the detail as I have previously indicated.

And what are we now being consulted on? An ungenerous draft general heads of terms, bereft of any detail, short of any comfort. Much of the wording is still as it was in 2018, in this Regulation 22 response,  when a top planning lawyer described it as "unfit for purpose". 

At paragraph 2.8.1(i), draft wording has been proposed setting out the circumstances under which the applicant would be required to provide alternative water supplies and/or compensate for the disruption. With respect to the lawyer who (presumably) drafted this provision, it is so full of caveats, provisos, legal tests, consultation requirements and optionality as to be unfit for purpose.

What does Aggregate Industries say? In an email to Devon County Council in February 2019: 

The wording in 2.8.1(i) were those provided by Devon County Council and AIUK have agreed to the principle. The wording could no doubt be improved but this is something perhaps for DCC to address. AIUK will require all the caveats, provisos, legal tests etc in order to protect our interests and to ensure we only need to respond, in the unlikely event, to problems we have caused. 

Which tells you everything you need to know. 

How would the whole thing be policed? How frequently would the maximum water table be reviewed?

The annual report would be provided to the MPA and the Environment Agency for each year of the life of the permission by the 28th February the following year. 

Once a year, for a company with a record of non-compliance with previous Section 106 agreements concerning water? One Devon County Council monitoring report in 2018 claimed "No report on File since 2011", despite the S106 conditioning that hydrological reports were to be submitted annually. Once a year, for a site where the maximum water table keeps being exceeded. Once a year, where if the water table had been exceeded the previous spring, and diggers had continued digging below the water table, no one would be any the wiser. 

How much is at stake? Quite a bit actually. 

A planning lawyer has now had the chance to study the proposed S106 and concludes:

the draft heads of terms proposed by the applicant are woeful and worrying in equal measure... One does not need to be a lawyer to recognise the enormous and unacceptable scope for delay and legal argument in the above draft heads. The draft terms are littered with phrases which immediately doom the effectiveness of the maintenance provisions, such as "in the opinion of", "in consultation with", "on the balance of probability", "satisfactory supply", "necessary or appropriate", "to the extent that the same is attributable", "all reasonable endeavours". Not content with such a litany of subjective legal phraseology, there is also a draft term – the nail in the coffin - allowing recourse to arbitration (which itself is one of the slowest methods available for dispute resolution) in the event that AIUK dispute there being a problem with the water supply. In terms of ensuring a safe and continuous water supply post-permission, the draft heads are, to all intents and purposes, categorically and undeniably unfit for purpose. … The scale of the problems which will be caused to Cadhay by the proposed draft obligations is potentially devastating. By way of mitigation of these substantial risks, though, AIUK offers delay, legal wranglings, obfuscation and everything but direct and immediate action.

AI’s surface water plans rely on 3rd party culvert – and revised MWWT contours show more water would be directed towards it

Don’t laugh, but Aggregate Industries' plan for Straitgate Farm – the one it’s been working on for the last decade – is reliant on someone else's small, easily-blocked, 300mm culvert.

A large portion of surface water run-off from any quarry at Straitgate Farm would be discharged to the Cadhay Bog watercourse, via the above third party culvert that runs underneath a neighbouring field.

This issue has been around some time. In 2013, Aggregate Industries' consultants concluded:

There is extensive evidence of natural flooding across the eastern extent of Straitgate Farm. The capacities of roadside ditches and streams have not been adequate to deal with recent levels of rainfall in the area. 

In 2015, for Aggregate Industries' previous application, the Environment Agency recognised in this Devon County Council Regulation 22 document that the existing culvert would need to be improved "to reduce the risk of flooding, which has been seen to have a significantly adverse impact on surrounding settlements." A meeting was held: 

It was agreed by DCC and the EA that the previous comments regarding de‐culverting off‐site watercourses which had been made on biodiversity grounds would not be pursued as there was a possibility that this could increase downstream flooding. 

In any case, Aggregate Industries claimed the issue wasn't anything to do with them, because they wouldn't increase the amount of surface water running off the site: 

3.12 Improvements to the existing drainage should focus on increasing roadside ditch capacity and ensuring that culvert inlets and outlets are suitably maintained to avoid blockages from vegetation or siltation. 3.13 There is a need for work on the existing drainage beneath Birdcage Lane to improve conveyance and prevent episodes of flooding along the road, this should however be the statutory responsibility of the local highways department if it can be demonstrated by AI that watercourse peak flows are not increased by extraction activities at Straitgate Farm.

And no increase in surface water run-off is what Aggregate Industries is still attempting to claim:

2.13.7 Two discharge points are proposed: One serving the ancillary area and upper portion of the access road north of the Cadhay Bog Stream which will discharge directly to the watercourse at ‘Point A’ on Figure 2.6 below; and The remaining section of the access road south of the Cadhay Bog Stream will discharge to the roadside ditch in the far south-east of the site, which drains northwards to join the Cadhay Bog stream, as shown on Figure 2.6 as ‘Point B’. 2.13.8 This arrangement ensures that the runoff from these developed areas (ancillary area/access road) is managed within the Cadhay Bog sub-catchment, and the final rate and volume of flow discharged to the Cadhay Bog stream replicates the natural rate and volume. 

But that's just wishful thinking. In the real world, with extreme weather events becoming more unpredictable, and with a quarry upslope removing the majority of the unsaturated layer, who knows what would happen? What allowance for improving this culvert has been made in this application? None. And it doesn’t matter how many discharge points there are, both Point A and Point B would feed into the one 300mm culvert: 

Given that it was recognised this culvert struggled to take the existing run-off from the site, it was surprising that the introduction of a quarry in its upslope catchment, together with access road, 50mx50m loading/stocking/lorry parking area, wheel wash, weighbridge, tip off bay, and lagoon (variously described as 1,286m2 to less than 600m2, or 20mx20m) had not prompted a little more thought.

But with the recent submission of revised maximum winter water table contours – the proposed base of extraction – matters have taken a new twist. 

We have already posted that the revised base of extraction does not mimic existing ground elevation contours to maintain pre-extraction run-off characteristics. 

Overlaying the revised MWWT contours over the Extraction and Ancillary Development plan shows that the base of extraction would direct more surface water to the Cadhay Bog water course than existing ground levels. More surface water would flow towards the loading area, down the swale adjoining the access road, into the lagoon, and towards the ditch on Birdcage Lane.  And all of that would then need to pass through the one 300mm culvert.

What could possibly go wrong?

The Flood Risk Assessment has made no allowance for increased run-off from the revised extraction contours. The swale capacity makes no allowance for this. The lagoon capacity makes no allowance for this. The ditch capacity along Birdcage Lane makes no allowance for this. The 300mm culvert makes no allowance for this. Clearly, it's another major failing.

And how much water can already flow down the Cadhay Bog watercourse on a bad day?

Prof warns DCC – quarry at Straitgate would ‘irreversibly damage’ water sources

Unsaturated zone flow times of 8 YEARS – not the 1 to 3 days consultants claimed...

Drinking water sources suffering PERMANENT acidity increases – due to the LOSS OF 7 YEARS of rock/water interaction times, a 50% CUT...

Piezometers recording lower groundwater levels than reality – enabling extraction DEEPER THAN THE MAXIMUM WATER TABLE...

These are some of the damning conclusions from a new report by Professor Rick Brassington in response to Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm.

Prof Brassington wrote his new report specifically for Devon County Council – "to ensure that they have a clear view" – given that the Environment Agency "will not be providing further responses", and given the EA's request that "further concerns... should be directed to Devon County Council". The report landed with DCC at the start of this week, but despite Prof Brassington's request, the Council batted the report straight off to the EA, presumably without a second glance, and responded:

If your report raises any new issues which the EA consider to be material then I will ask the applicant to clarify.

However, clearly the report does raise new material issues, which will need much more than clarification to sort out. This would have become immediately apparent if the Council had bothered to read it.

Because, what’s abundantly clear from Prof Brassington’s report is that Aggregate Industries’ so-called hydrogeology experts – Amec Foster Wheeler now Wood – have not been very expert at all. They have either been guilty of intentionally misleading, or have completely misunderstood groundwater behaviour at Straitgate, such as the length of time water takes to permeate down to the aquifer. Either intentionally or otherwise, they have dismissed the role that the unsaturated zone – the resource above the water table that Aggregate Industries wants to quarry – plays in determining the groundwater chemistry.

Prof Brassington warns:

the application for the proposed quarry should be refused because of the irreversible damage that it will cause to the local groundwater system that both supports local habitats and forms the water supplies for Cadhay House with its medieval fishponds and tearooms, more than 100 people plus three livestock farms. 80

By the way, Prof Brassington is not just any expert on hydrogeology; that's obvious from his CV which stretches across pages 32 to 40 of the new report. He clearly has more experience, knowledge and independence than any consultants engaged by Aggregate Industries, a company hell-bent on extracting as much material as possible. He is a recognised authority on hydrogeology, recent winner of the Whitaker Medal, and author of various textbooks on the subject.

Prof Brassington says his new report "should be read in conjunction with the conclusions and recommendations reached in my earlier reports" on Aggregate Industries’ planning application. We posted about these in: Professor of Hydrogeology says ‘ANY quarrying at Straitgate would cause problems’, Professor rebuts EA’s response to his report. Has the EA got it all wrong?, and Another damning response from Professor of Hydrogeology on AI’s Straitgate plans.

This time, Prof Brassington focuses on the permanent change to groundwater chemistry that would result if all but 1m of the unsaturated zone were removed.

Last year, the company’s consultants Wood tried to claim – although clearly they weren’t too sure – that a reduced unsaturated zone thickness would "not necessarily" make any difference:

The moderately low pH, alkalinity and dissolved solids in groundwater in this area is, therefore, not necessarily a function of the time it takes for water to pass through the unsaturated zone, but a function of the variable and limited presence of soluble material within the sub-surface materials. A reduction of the unsaturated zone therefore will not necessarily give rise to a reduction in the pH, alkalinity or dissolved solids concentration of groundwater. With respect to the topsoil, subsoil and overburden that will be replaced once extraction of an area is completed, the replaced material will then be subject to water/rock interaction processes as water percolates through the replaced unsaturated zone material. As is shown by the leach test data, the soluble content of the unsaturated zone is low across much of the site or is mostly influenced by the shallow deposits which will be replaced after mineral extraction. Therefore, again, this implies that removal of the deeper unsaturated material will not necessarily result in a noticeable change in groundwater quality beneath the site or, more categorically, not at downgradient receptor. p10

Prof Brassington, however, is having none of that:

The length of the travel time involved is critical in determining the development of the chemistry of the water that discharges from the springs. 35

Let’s repeat that for the benefit of those championing Aggregate Industries’ scheme – be they consultants, the EA or Devon County Council – who seem so hard of understanding:

The length of the travel time involved is critical in determining the development of the chemistry of the water that discharges from the springs. 35

In fact:

...the whole of the flow path from the ground surface where recharge water starts its journey downwards through the unsaturated zone to the water table where it becomes groundwater which then flows through the saturated zone to emerge at the springs is essential in the development of the water chemistry. The removal of part of the unsaturated zone where flow velocities are far less than in the saturated zone will result in the greatest impact on the water chemistry. 21

It makes you wonder how knowledgeable Aggregate Industries’ experts really are. Or indeed, the EA for being taken in by their tales.

In 2015, Amec was trying to convince people that:

transit of water through the unsaturated zone is considered to be fairly rapid due to the intergrannular and fractured nature of the BSPB and therefore the thickness of the unsaturated zone may not be as important. 2.5

Again in 2017, in response to DCC’s Reg 22 request – that raised questions over unsaturated zone storage and flood risk – Amec argued:

...recharge reaches the water table in the BSPB through unsaturated thicknesses of between approximately 3 and 10 m within between 1 and 3 days. This is consistent with the conceptual model for relatively rapid recharge occurring in the BSPB (i.e. days rather than weeks or months). 2.7.3

This is rubbished by Prof Brassington, who reminds Wood’s so-called experts that groundwater flow through the unsaturated zone occurs as a "piston flow resulting in an equal volume of water entering at the top of the unsaturated zone being released from the bottom to enter the saturated zone beneath the water table" and that:

It is important not to confuse this type of flow with one that suggests that the recharge from any rainfall event reaches the water table rapidly through fracture flow 60

Prof Brassington says the time groundwater takes to travel through the unsaturated zone should not be measured in days, weeks or months – but in YEARS:

According to Wang et al (2012) the unsaturated zone velocity for the Sherwood Sandstone Group falls in the range 0.6 – 2.3 m/year with a mean of 1.06 m/year (these values were summarized by Chilton and Foster (1991)). The values for unsaturated zone flow rates are several orders of magnitude (three to five) lower than flow velocities in the saturated zone. 59

In the case of Straitgate:

... the lack of cement means that the rock is basically a pebbly sand with layers of silt and clay; consequently there are no fractures and so there will be no bypass flows. 59

It is simple to calculate the loss in groundwater travel time caused by the loss of some 7 m of the unsaturated zone as it is 7 × 1.06 years = 7.42 years. 62

YEARS, NOT DAYS. Much as indicated below – and widely elsewhere:

That’s an amazing, fundamental mistake for Amec to have made, and for the EA to have overlooked. It makes you wonder how many other things these parties have got wrong about Straitgate's groundwater.

Removing much of the unsaturated zone – and its capacity to store large amounts of slowly moving water – will naturally have huge impacts on spring flows and flood risk. It is however the change in groundwater chemistry that Prof Brassington has focused on. Indeed, in his original report a year ago he warned:

…the proposals will cause a large reduction in the thickness of the unsaturated zone that will reduce the time for the recharge to percolate through this zone. This reduced period will mean less time for rock/water interaction and will result in a less chemically mature groundwater that is more acidic than it is at the moment. These are reasons why the application should be refused by Devon County Council. 5.13

Given the EA’s dismissive attitude – Prof Brassington has raised those warnings again in his new report:

The water chemistry develops as the water percolates through the unsaturated zone and then, once it has reached the water table, it flows through the aquifer. A series of rock/water interactions takes place along this flow path causing the chemistry of the water to change as it moves along. These interactions are slow and so the time taken for the water to reach the springs will determine the concentration of the dissolved minerals, the balance between the dissolved minerals, the pH and the electrical conductivity of the water. 35

Prof Brassington shows that for Cadhay the period for rock/water interactions would be HALVED if Aggregate Industries’ proposal went ahead:

The EA calculated the Source Protection zone (Walford, 2013) using a similar method to the one adopted here. The map they have produced is shown below in Figure 11. The distance of the flow path from the recharge area in the proposed quarry to the Cadhay spring has been marked on the map. 64

Calculations of the time that groundwater takes from rainfall percolating into the ground to the groundwater emerging from a spring have been carried out for the Cadhay spring that supplies Cadhay House and estate. The water takes almost 15 years to make this journey and if all but 1 m of the unsaturated zone is removed this reduces some 50% of the total travel time. 76

Not only that. Whatever Section 106 conditions are made – and a leading planning lawyer has already shown that draft legal assurances for alternative water supplies are “unfit for purpose” – Aggregate Industries would be long gone:

It shows that the time taken can be expected to be sufficiently long for the quarrying to have been completed by some years by the time that the water quality changes have occurred. This will provide scope for AI to deny causing the problem. 77

No wonder Aggregate Industries had 'no objection' to including Cadhay and its mediaeval fishponds and its ancient woodlands in a Section 106 last year.

Prof Brassington warns:

The impact on the travel time also means that the deterioration of the groundwater chemistry will be a permanent change and it will not be possible to reverse it. 77

The concern for the 100 people or so who obtain their water supply from these springs is that the water make up will substantially change and a reduction in the pH will mean that the water is too acidic for drinking without treatment and it will dissolve metal pipework and storage tanks. It will affect the chemistry of the water in the streams that will impact on the Cadhay Bog and Cadhay Wood wetland habitats in the ancient woodland as these depend on the stream flows. 56

Furthermore, Prof Brassington warned in his original report that Aggregate Industries' model of the maximum water table – the base of any quarry – is not correct, as we posted in Boreholes at Straitgate ‘will have groundwater levels lower than local water table’.

In his new report, Prof Brassington is again at pains to remind us – or at least remind Aggregate Industries’ consultants and the EA who should know about these things: "the depth of a borehole and its location within an aquifer have a significant influence on the water level within it":

The use of fully penetrating piezometers to monitor the elevation of the water table as is the case at the Straitgate Farm site, means that it can be expected that the water levels in the piezometers will reflect a lower water level than the correct water table due to the three-dimensional aspect of groundwater flow. The MWWT grid will therefore be modelled from levels lower than reality, which will enable AI to excavate below the maximum water table. 73

Quite how this planning application can go any further forward – as it currently stands – with so many errors in the environmental information, and with so many warnings from such an eminent independent expert in hydrogeology, is anybody’s guess. An invasive sand and gravel quarry at Straitgate Farm, is – as Prof Brassington so clearly points out – no way to treat "a fragile groundwater system" and no way to treat a water source depended on by so many, including an important Grade I listed house and gardens.

Cadhay’s planning lawyer makes another representation

Grade I listed Cadhay derives all its water from the Straitgate aquifer – for scores of people in various properties, for a busy tea room, for livestock, for wetland habitats in ancient woodland, for listed mediaeval fishponds. No wonder there’s concern – in the face of Professor Brassington’s report – that Aggregate Industries' plans for Straitgate Farm will harm the local water environment.

Last week, another representation from Cadhay’s planning lawyer appeared on Devon County Council's planning website.

Alternative water supplies: 5 years on, where do things stand?

The Devon Minerals Plan says any proposal to quarry Straitgate Farm:

should include provision for alternative supply in the event of derogation of private water supplies resulting from mineral development.

The questions have always been: How would those alternatives be provided – to people, farms and livestock, wetland habitats in ancient woodlands, even a Grade I listed house and its mediaeval fishponds and tea rooms. How could they be deployed in a rapid manner, given many of the above are miles from a mains supply? How would the whole thing be policed? How could Aggregate Industries be relied upon – when it has stopped public scrutiny of Straitgate's groundwater data and has had a record of non-compliance with previous Section 106 agreements concerning water?

Of course, without knowing how, the Council is unable to properly assess Aggregate Industries’ scheme. As we posted in Alternative water supplies: EA’s remit is ‘objectives and outcomes, not solutions’, according to a specialist planning lawyer:

if there’s a problem which might be caused by the development, the LPA must know how that problem will be mitigated, and then assess such mitigation.

You would think all this would be even more important, given that Aggregate Industries’ scheme is, according to Professor Brassington, "untried anywhere else in the country" and "will not work in practice when the machine operators will be left to dig with little guidance."

So, what progress has been made on securing those details of how mitigation would be provided? What progress has been made since this email was sent by Devon County Council to Aggregate Industries’ consultants SLR back in 2015 in connection with the company’s first application to dig up the farm. The email concerns a number of matters including "Derogation or contamination of water supplies", for instance:

Please also note that those on private water supplies may not wish to be connected to the mains and may wish for a more natural supply from a new borehole or well. Additionally, the provision of a 30 year mains water supply may not be considered acceptable to those who currently enjoy free water. If a natural free source is lost then the responsibility for its replacement should be taken on in perpetuity.

What progress has been made in resolving DCC’s concerns, 5 years on?

Whilst it is now clear from Aggregate Industries’ Hydrogeological Assessment Appendix D Water Supply Survey just how many properties could be affected – how many people, how many farms, how many livestock, whether there’s any mains water nearby, etc etc – a number of these supplies have still to be monitored, Cadhay for example, and there is still no clear idea of how exactly alternatives water supplies would – in the real world – be provided.

You might have thought, given that we are now in 2020, and that email was written in 2015, that some of those issue might have been resolved by now – if they could be.

This was the state of Aggregate Industries' wholly inadequate draft Section 106 back in 2017:

Any dispute between the parties on any matter arising under this agreement shall be referred to an Arbitrator for arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act 1996.

Any dispute between the parties on any technical matter arising under this agreement shall be referred to an Independent Expert in such matters, having not less than 15 years experience – details of appointment of Expert to be agreed.

An Independent Expert is somebody like Professor Brassington. It is not some body like Amec Foster Wheeler (now known as Wood) who has already been caught whitewashing Aggregate Industries’ water reports.

But all this opens another can of worms. Who wouldn’t think that Aggregate Industries, or its insurers, wouldn’t dispute that they were at fault – given the potential costs involved? And then where does that leave people, if the independent expert proves to be not so independent, and the setting for a Grade I listed house is "turned into a quagmire"?

EA ‘consolidates and revises’ conditions – but still fails to justify position

Since 1 September 2017 – when the Environment Agency first laid out the conditions it thought necessary if Aggregate Industries were to be permitted to quarry Straitgate Farm – much has come to light.

Not of course from Aggregate Industries’ own documents supporting the planning application – a planning application dogged by delays – but from the effort of others, including an eminent Professor of Hydrogeology who has repeatedly stressed his concerns about the company’s plans:

The proposal to quarry the Straitgate Farm area to the MWWT will impact on the Straitgate and Cadhay Springs and cause a significant deterioration in the water quality.

To reflect some of what’s come to light, the EA has now sent renewed guidance to Devon County Council, which "consolidates and revises our requirements for conditions and obligations."

If you compare the EA’s original letter from 2017 with the one from last week, you will see what changes have been made. These are all in line with matters already discussed on this blog. There are no surprises. However, some might sense that the EA’s tone has hardened:

In 2017, the EA’s position was "...we consider that the proposal will be acceptable but only if the subsequent permission includes appropriate worded conditions. In particular we recommend that permission includes conditions to achieve the following..."

In 2020, the EA’s position is now: "...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..."

Our emphasis. Read into that what you will, perhaps nothing at all, but there are some very significant hurdles that Aggregate Industries will now have to overcome, not least concerning condition 6:

6. Although impacts to private water supplies and stream flows are considered unlikely, the applicant shall submit draft text for a Section 106 agreement to Devon County Council. This shall include Cadhay House Spring, Cadhay House mediaeval fishponds, Cadhay Bog and Cadhay Wood Stream. This should be based upon the principles described in section 2.8 of the July 2017 Regulation 22 responses report. Additionally, in the case where a period of investigation is required into adverse impact to a private water supply, the agreement shall provide for a temporary water supply during the period of investigation. The Section 106 agreement shall include a monitoring management and mitigation strategy. This strategy shall include an outline of possible mitigation measures which could be put into place in different circumstances. In its water quality provisions, the S106 agreement shall include pH.

As a reminder, "Section 2.8 of the July 2017 Regulation 22 responses report", was the part where DCC asked Aggregate Industries:

The planning policy section of the application includes the text from the Devon Minerals plan, ‘any proposal should include provision for alternative supply in the event of derogation of private water supplies resulting from mineral development’. However, there is no detail on this in the body of the report. Full detail should be provided including proposals for either a bond or legal agreement dealing with this matter.

Ongoing monitoring of flows/levels/water quality and water usage should be carried out by AI from now until the end of quarrying. This would establish a baseline against which to compare any changes in supply.

Also, information should be provided on the provision of alternative water supplies to mitigate any unforeseen adverse effects of the quarrying operation on the hydrology of the downstream County Wildlife Sites at Cadhay Wood and Cadhay Bog.

No "full detail" was, or has since been, forthcoming on how alternatives supplies could be provided, or how adverse impacts could be remedied. As for establishing a baseline, "from now [2017] until the end of quarrying", there are still properties that have had no monitoring, not least Cadhay. Derogation cannot be determined without a long-term baseline.

So, those concerned will no doubt be waiting with bated breath to see how condition 6 can be satisfactorily addressed.

It will be interesting to learn how long private water users might have to endure "a temporary water supply during the period of investigation" – months? years? – whilst it’s determined whether derogation is "in the opinion of the County Council, in consultation with the Environment Agency, on the balance of probability, attributable partly or wholly as a result of the winning and working of minerals at Straitgate Farm".

It will be interesting to learn how an immediate and sufficient adequate water supply would be provided to properties and businesses miles away from the mains.

It will be interesting to learn how water quality and stream flows to mediaeval fishponds and ancient woodland would be maintained in the event of problems or mishap. It will be interesting to learn how pollution events would cleared up.

It will be interesting to learn whether any of that is possible.

All of this comes after a planning lawyer wrote to the EA last month, complaining:

The duties on the EA are to consider the application and provide advice and reasons for that advice which are commensurate with the issues raised. The statutory duty of DCC is to engage with your consultation response and consider the issues identified. Neither of these has happened in this case. Professor Brassington's detailed letter and conclusions have not been addressed or, if they have, there is no evidence of how they have been addressed, nor how such consideration has led to the conclusion set out in the position statement.  

My client does not want to engage lawyers to argue its case but is adamant that it expects full consideration of the fundamental and legitimate issues raised by Professor Brassington before any decision is made by DCC on the application. Otherwise, in line with the detailed caselaw on this point, the decision by DCC will be legally flawed.

On this front, there continues to be a deafening silence from the EA – and therefore, according to the planning lawyer above, the EA’s statement is 'insufficient to enable DCC to determine the Straitgate application lawfully'. There is no attempt to explain why the Agency’s views diverge from Prof Brassington, holder of the Whitaker Medal "in recognition of an outstanding contribution to hydrogeology." There is no attempt to explain why quarrying down to the maximum water table – or an unreliable estimation of it – would be satisfactory for Straitgate Farm – with its gamut of sensitive water receptors – when 2m freeboards, or more, are routinely deployed elsewhere. There is no attempt to argue why the groundwater chemistry won’t be fundamentally altered, or why increased run-off wouldn’t cause reduced spring flow.

If the EA has genuine disagreements with Prof Brassington then it should come out and explain why, so that its views can be scrutinised like everybody else’s. It shouldn’t hide its light under a bushel; it should join the conversation!

Alternative water supplies: EA’s remit is ‘objectives and outcomes, not solutions’

Not many days have passed since the Environment Agency said it had finished responding to Joe Public about Aggregate Industries’ plans to quarry Straitgate Farm:

...we will not be providing further responses over-and-above the information contained within this position statement.

But what do we find? This week, out of the blue, seemingly unprompted, the EA has responded again. Perhaps people at the EA had time to reflect about Straitgate over the Christmas break, time to think about alternative water supplies and how they might be provided – to people, to farms, to mediaeval fishponds, to wetland habitats in ancient woodlands – should the whole thing go belly up, time to think that they don’t want that responsibility on their shoulders thank you very much.

We have in the past questioned how alternative supplies might be provided. There’s no point having a legal agreement to provide alternative drinking water supplies – if you have no idea how those supplies might be provided, how fast they could be provided, or even whether indeed they could. Recently, we have posted AI’s water consultants are still confused about Cadhay’s mediaeval fishponds –
 but now have ‘no objection’ to including them in a Section 106. We have also posted about AI’s legal assurances for alternative water supplies “unfit for purpose” and about AI breaking S106 water monitoring agreements.

In its reply to Professor Brassington’s letter in December, the EA provided a position statement. There was no attempt to explain why the EA disagreed with the eminent hydrogeologist, who says:

It is my view that this application should be turned down and that no quarrying be permitted as to allow it will threaten these water resources for many years to come.

This week, in an email to solicitors representing the owner of Cadhay, the EA wrote:

[Further to our last email] which was sent following our careful consideration of the information supplied by you and Professor Brassington, I am writing to provide some information which was omitted from our email. The below wording should have accompanied our position statement…

You asked in your email of 15 November 2019 about ‘workable proposals’ for provision of alternative supplies. We reviewed the applicant’s draft Section 106 agreement and provided a response to Devon County Council. We see our role in the Section 106 review as giving comments on objectives and outcomes, rather than recommending specific solutions now that may not be appropriate or practical in the future. Devon County Council are responsible for ensuring that the Section 106 is enforceable and contains the appropriate level of detail.

Whether the EA really did give information supplied by Prof Brassington "careful consideration", readers will have to decide. Plainly, if the EA "omitted" important information, the feeling might be they didn't.

In fairness, for all that careful consideration, the EA wasn’t actually asked to come up with their solutions – because that’s the job of Aggregate Industries. What was asked for was merely "sight of workable proposals", any workable proposals; because none have been forthcoming so far.

But clearly, the EA wants to stress – and read into that what you will – that responsibility for these mythical workable proposals for alternative water supplies, for all the above-named receptors, should fall upon DCC's shoulders. It even looks like the EA itself doesn’t know how replacement water supplies would be provided – if it prefers to talk about "objectives and outcomes" not "solutions".

Unfortunately, objectives and outcomes won’t cut it with local people whose drinking water supply has been lost or contaminated; they will be looking for solutions – and quickly. We saw how successful the EA was with objectives in Dawlish.

Devon County Council will have to assure itself that alternative water supplies would work – would immediately work – or local people and businesses could be left without drinking water, and the Council involved in expensive litigation. It’s no good pointing to "objectives and outcomes" from the EA, it’s no good saying "the EA’s happy, so we’re happy". DCC will need to know that mitigation would work in the real world – the one where people and farms are miles from a mains water supply, the one where mediaeval fishponds are central to the setting of a Grade I Tudor manor house.

Photo: Matt Austin

Even if it could be decided quickly who is at fault – and no doubt Aggregate Industries would engage legions of lawyers and experts to prove, as they invariably do in the construction industry, it's not our fault, gov! – there is, as posted here, the small matter of:

* where are the alternative water supplies;

* how reliable are those supplies;

* what is the quality of the water from those supplies;

* how quickly can sufficient supplies be made available; and

* what rights does the applicant have to secure those supplies?

The same planning lawyer who pointed that out also stressed:

As the Council will be aware, as a matter of law the ES is required to properly set out the mitigation measures proposed to address any significant adverse impacts likely to be caused by the development, following which the local planning authority can then assess those mitigation measures. In other words, if there’s a problem which might be caused by the development, the LPA must know how that problem will be mitigated, and then assess such mitigation.

In relation to the security of water supplies, the applicant has not provided any details of the proposed mitigation measures in the event that the supplies are disrupted: the proposed planning obligations are bereft of any such details. Without having details of the proposed mitigation, the Council cannot properly assess the environmental impact of the scheme.

To underline the EA's new attitude to Straitgate – its attitude to hearing from Professors of Hydrogeology, its attitude to bearing any responsibility for real-world solutions – this week's email finishes:

If you have further concerns regarding the Straitgate planning application, these should be directed to Devon County Council...

Which says it all.

Another damning response from Professor of Hydrogeology on AI’s Straitgate plans

Part 1:

For the third time, Professor of Hydrogeology Rick Brassington has weighed in against Aggregate Industries’ plans to quarry Straitgate Farm, setting out in no uncertain terms the damaging effects this would have on Grade I Cadhay and local groundwater supplies.

Prof Brassington was responding to a letter from Aggregate Industries’ consultants Wood, that was itself written in response to his earlier report and letter.

The Environment Agency – or rather, the person at the Agency overseeing this proposal – had previously accepted, at face value, the various statements made by Wood, and had advised Devon County Council that the EA was nevertheless maintaining its earlier position – without first giving Prof Brassington the opportunity to respond. What does that say about the EA? More of that in Part 2.

Prof Brassington’s dismissal of Wood’s response is forthright:

There are many aspects of the letter from Wood to Aggregate Industries that I find disturbing because they are inaccurate.

Unfortunately, Wood has a fundamental misunderstanding of how [the Cadhay fishponds] operate.. It is both shocking and disappointing that consultants who have been working on this project for so long have made such a fundamental mistake.

The proposal to quarry the Straitgate Farm area to the MWWT will impact on the Straitgate and Cadhay Springs and cause a significant deterioration in the water quality.

[The removal of most of the unsaturated zone] will inevitably mean a redistribution of the groundwater discharges and lower flows during dry periods that could easily cause water shortages to those using the springs for water supplies.

I find it incredible that Wood has dismissed my suggestion that the local aquifer is of limited extent and is both fragile and unique with the large number of people and businesses depending on the springs it supports for their water supply. The streams that flow from the springs also support local habitats especially Cadhay Wood and Cadhay Bogs. It is my view that this application should be turned down and that no quarrying be permitted as to allow it will threaten these water resources for many years to come.

Clearly, Prof Brassington is in no doubt about the damage this proposal would do, to this aquifer "both fragile and unique". Some of his closing remarks are particularly scathing:

Aggregate Industries has a cavalier attitude to meeting deadlines in agreements that they have signed up to and consequently cannot be trusted.

Wood’s arguments dismissing the water level reading recorded in borehole SG1990/021 have been shown to be untrue… the water level reading in SG1990/021 measured on 12th June 1990 is a true measure of the local water table and should not be dismissed as Wood has done.

Their statements in the hydrogeological report [on the Salston Stream] are in conflict with their present opinion that now show a convenient opposition to the points raised in my report.

The significant removal of most of the unsaturated zone will cause a change in the groundwater chemistry… Wood seems incapable of grasping this simple fact.

On the issue of the Section 106:

I welcome the fact that Aggregate Industries now have “no objection” to including the Cadhay Spring, mediaeval fishponds, and wetland habitats of Cadhay Bog and Cadhay Wood’s ancient woodlands in the Section 106 agreement. However, I am keen to learn from Devon County Council exactly how any damage to these water features could be undone in the event of adverse impacts from quarrying.

On revising the model of the maximum water table, the MWWT, the base of any quarry:

This should be done before planning permission is determined so that the new MWWT surface can be seen by Aggregate Industries, the Environment Agency, Devon County Council and local residents in order that the implications and the need for mitigation measures can be assessed.

To remind readers: It was in May of this year that we posted Professor of Hydrogeology says ‘ANY quarrying at Straitgate would cause problems’; in July, Professor rebuts EA’s response to his report. Has the EA got it all wrong?; and in August, EA wants AI to address Professor’s water concerns. In September, Aggregate Industries' consultants Wood did indeed respond, and on that basis – without first giving Prof Brassington the chance to address Wood’s letter – the EA said:

Having reviewed the further information submitted we maintain our position in respect of this proposal. We have no objections to the proposal only if the conditions we have previously recommended are included on any subsequent planning permission. We are pleased to note that Aggregate Industries have no objection to Cadhay House Spring being included within the Section 106 agreement.

In light of Wood’s dodgy dossier, Prof Brassington says:

I strongly urge the Environment Agency to review the comments that I have made here and revise their views on this application.

Devon County Council also have a duty to protect groundwater, as set out in Policy M21 of the Devon Minerals Plan 2011- 2033. It seems to me that such duties are made more important when many of the springs that represent discharges from the area it is proposed to quarry are used as private drinking water supplies and the proposal threatens their water quality.

Prof Brassington's latest response can be found here.

AI’s water consultants are still confused about Cadhay’s mediaeval fishponds – but now have ‘no objection’ to including them in a Section 106

You would have thought after all these years that Aggregate Industries’ hydrogeology consultants – now going under the name of Wood, previously Amec Foster Wheeler, previously AMEC – would understand the water environment around Straitgate Farm, and in particular how the mediaeval fishponds, that are so important for the setting of Grade I listed Cadhay, derive their water. You would have thought the Environment Agency, having visited Cadhay, would also know.

Since we posted Professor of Hydrogeology says ‘ANY quarrying at Straitgate would cause problems’ in May, and Professor rebuts EA’s response to his report. Has the EA got it all wrong? in July, and EA wants AI to address Professor’s water concerns in August, Aggregate Industries' consultants have indeed attempted to address Prof Brassington’s concerns – in this document – and the Environment Agency is seemingly content that all is now well. The fact that the Environment Agency has discounted the advice from a Professor with 50 years' experience of hydrogeology in favour of consultants working on behalf of an aggregates giant set on digging as deep as it can, speaks volumes. The Environment Agency now says:

Having reviewed the further information submitted [from Wood in response to Prof Brassington’s report and correspondence] we maintain our position in respect of this proposal. We have no objections to the proposal only if the conditions we have previously recommended are included on any subsequent planning permission. We are pleased to note that Aggregate Industries have no objection to Cadhay House Spring being included within the Section 106 agreement.

It’s unlikely to be the end of the story, but plainly the Environment Agency didn’t read the entire memo, because Aggregate Industries has promised more.

We have previously posted about the mediaeval fishponds at Cadhay, most recently that the Devon Gardens Trust objects and Historic England gives assurance that “importance of Cadhay” will be recognised. The Devon Gardens Trust wrote:

The water supply to the fishponds comes from a spring located just below the extraction site at Straitgate Farm, a mile to the west of Cadhay. The fishponds have relied on the spring as a source of water for over 500 years. If the proposed extraction disrupts the spring and the water supply, the fishponds which are an essential and important feature of the gardens at Cadhay, will be turned into a quagmire, to the considerable detriment of the historic designed landscape.

Aggregate Industries’ water consultants make great play that the fishponds are 2km from Straitgate, but clearly still don’t understand how they work. They claim:

The ponds are situated in a body of River Terrace Deposits and likely owe their existence mainly to the presence of shallow groundwater, with water levels being mostly maintained by groundwater supply from relatively local recharge to the Otter Sandstone and potentially high storage in the River Terrace Deposits.

They clearly don’t understand that the clay-lined ponds are totally reliant on springs emanating from just below the proposed extraction area at Straitgate Farm. They clearly don’t understand that water to the ponds is fed by this leat:

The Devon Minerals Plan has made clear that:

Any proposal should include provision for alternative supply in the event of derogation of private water supplies resulting from mineral development. 

However, notwithstanding the fact that AI's legal assurances for alternative water supplies are “unfit for purpose”, and notwithstanding the fact that an alternative source may not be available in the event that any quarrying causes problems, and notwithstanding the fact that any proposed remedy could be too late anyway, Aggregate Industries – who previously had been unwilling to include Cadhay (neither its spring, nor its ponds, nor its wetland habitats in ancient woodland) in a Section 106 covering alternative water supplies – has now apparently had a change of heart:

Aggregate Industries have consistently maintained that the potential effects on Cadhay House Spring, the mediaeval fishponds (which are 2km from the proposed extraction area) and the wetland habitats will be negligible. However, Aggregate Industries have no objection to these being included in the Section 106 agreement.

Our emphasis.

Aggregate Industries – just as with some of our politicians – will now seemingly promise anything, deliverable or not, in order to get this planning application over the line.

Professor of Hydrogeology says ‘ANY quarrying at Straitgate would cause problems’

An extensive and damning new report has been produced which seriously undermines Aggregate Industries’ plans to quarry Straitgate Farm. An expert in hydrogeology, tasked with looking at the plan's impact on Cadhay's drinking water supplies and listed mediaeval fishponds, concludes:

My assessment of the proposed quarry is that it will cause problems to the groundwater system.

The expert is Professor Rick Brassington Eur Geol Eur Ing BSc MSc CGeol FGS CEng MICE FCIWEM, an independent consultant who has more than 50 years of professional experience in hydrogeology, and who has authored more than 30 scientific papers and two hydrogeology textbooks. More recently, Prof Brassington gave evidence at a public inquiry in relation to an application for a sand and gravel quarry on the edge of Hertford. The appeal by the applicant was dismissed – a decision endorsed by the Secretary of State last month, as we posted – based in large part on the risk to public water supplies.

In the case of Straitgate, Prof Brassington recognises that:

The groundwater resources that lie beneath the area around the proposed Straitgate Farm site are fundamental to the lives of more than 100 people in their homes and to the local businesses that they run. 6.6

The Environment Agency has a statutory duty to protect such "precious groundwater resources":

‘Groundwater zones’ #Groundwater is water held in pore spaces in rocks beneath our feet below the ‘water table’. Groundwater originates from rainfall & infiltrates down through ‘soil zone’ into the #rocks reaching the ‘saturated zone’. Eventually it discharges into #river valleys pic.twitter.com/DvvwoJ8oHZ

— Geoscience EnvAgency (@GeoscienceEA) May 9, 2019

Before looking at Prof Brassington’s report in more detail, let’s remind ourselves what DCC’s Mineral Plan – "the policy framework for decisions by Devon County Council on planning applications for mineral development over the period to 2033" – says on groundwater in Policy M21:

The sustainable development of minerals should seek to conserve and enhance other natural resources, and proposals will be permitted where they would: (a) not harm the quality, availability and/or flow of surface water and groundwater and the integrity and function of the water system, both surrounding and, where relevant, within the site;

Let’s also remind ourselves how AI and consultants Amec Foster Wheeler tried to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes – including the EA – in their most recent response on hydrogeology:

The reduction in thickness of the unsaturated zone during works and post site restoration will not have any effect on groundwater quality. 2.17.7

It’s clear that Prof Brassington couldn’t disagree more. He says "any proposals to quarry at Straitgate Farm will impact on the fragile groundwater system and cause the flows of springs to decrease and the quality of the water also to deteriorate" 5.7.

He says the EA has not recognised that this groundwater resource is "very sensitive and fragile", and says "the EA should… strongly object to the proposal":

The EA states that its policy is to provide protection to sensitive areas where groundwater resources are of fundamental importance. It is strongly suggested here that the number of groundwater sources in the area around Straitgate Farm and Cadhay House where alternative water supplies are not easily available at an affordable cost means that the aquifer that feeds the local springs falls into this category. 5.2 ... it is strongly suggested here that the EA has not recognized that the hydrogeology and groundwater resources of this area are very sensitive and fragile. 5.5 It is strongly suggested here that the proposal will have a large impact on the local groundwater environment that is not recognized in the AMEC reports and therefore the EA should require the application to be refused. 5.9

He says AI’s and AFW’s efforts have been "to ensure that the maximum volume of stone can be removed from the site rather than to provide adequate protection for the groundwater resources" 5.8, and calls on DCC to refuse permission:

For the reasons stated above, Devon County Council is asked to refuse planning permission for the operation of the site. The method of working that is proposed is untried anywhere else in the country and is designed to maximize the sand and gravel dug with no regard to the changes it will inevitably bring to both the quantity and the quality of the groundwater and the springs it discharges through. Both these changes will cause difficulties to the users of these private water supplies. 6.13

Prof Brassington says AI’s unorthodox scheme is "untried and untested" and would not work in practice:

this operational procedure is too difficult for typical machine operators 4.20… [and] will not work in practice when the machine operators will be left to dig with little guidance 4.24.

On the subject of AFW’s guesstimate of the maximum winter water table – the MWWT, the base of any quarry – Prof Brassington says:

...the MWWT is not a representation of the maximum water table readings for the proposed quarry site. 4.16 ...the MWWT elevations proposed are not accurate and are out by almost 3 m in places 4.24.

In contrast to AI’s and AFW’s assumption that "the recent winter months of 2012/13 and 2013/14 [are] indicative of peak levels 4.2.11", Prof Brassington points to base flows from the Salston Stream – one of the four watercourse emanating from the site, whose flows are recorded by the EA – and says:

It can be concluded that the higher base flows in 1976/77 and 2000/01 would have resulted in higher groundwater levels across the site in a similar way that higher levels have been observed in the late winter of 2017/18. 4.23

What if that MWWT surface were remodelled to accommodate those elevated maximum water table readings? Prof Brassington says that even then:

A revised MWWT would not be acceptable as the groundwater system in the area is vulnerable and any quarrying would cause problems. 5.6

On the subject of groundwater quality, Prof Brassington says:

The proposed quarrying operation will reduce the groundwater recharge and reduce the spring flows. This is likely to lead to water shortages and the hardship that this brings. 6.2

Why? Because:

the aquifer is relatively thin and any reduction in the recharge it receives caused by an increase in runoff from the overburden used to make the protective layer… will make it even thinner thereby reducing the volume of groundwater held in storage. This will reduce the flows of the springs and could easily make them incapable of providing the volume of water required for drinking purposes. 3.25

Furthermore:

The reduction in the unsaturated zone will reduce the time taken by percolating waters to reach the water table. As a result, there will be less time for the chemical and biological processes that develop the groundwater chemistry and the spring water will be more acidic and have a lower dissolved mineral content. 6.3

Not only that, but:

... 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. 3.30 ... reduced flow of the Cadhay Wood stream will impact on the Cadhay mediaeval fishponds. 6.10

On the infiltration areas proposed, to protect Ottery from flooding, Prof Brassington says:

The proposed infiltration areas are sited where maximum groundwater levels have been recorded, as little as 0.43 m below ground surface, seemingly rendering them unworkable. 4.49

It’s all damning stuff, and Prof Brassington is unequivocal in calling for the application to be refused. If DCC nevertheless ignores such advice, putting the profits of a multinational before the security of drinking water supplies for local people, Prof Brassington says that extra safeguards would be needed:

If Devon County Council are minded to grant permission for these proposals, despite the evidence given in this report, they are asked to ensure that an unquarried buffer of at least 3 m is left above the maximum water table to minimise the negative impacts. It has already been demonstrated that the MWWT surface cannot be modelled accurately, neither can the MWWT be reliably adhered to during the operational phase. 6.14

AI, on the other hand – in its profit-hungry-wisdom – has proposed a 0m unquarried buffer above the maximum water table to safeguard water supplies – not "at least 3m". Furthermore:

If Devon County Council do grant permission for these proposals, they are asked to ensure that Cadhay House is included in the Section 106 properties and that this document specifically states that AI will promptly fund without any delay a replacement water supply to all those impacted by their workings. 6.15

Why is all this is so important? Water is of course essential for life, essential for people, businesses and wildlife. The fact that AI and consultants AFW – for the sake of an inconsequential and ever-decreasing amount of sand and gravel, not essential for the local or national community – are willing to play fast and loose with the security of private water supplies to three livestock farms and 100 or more people around Straitgate – plans that Prof Brassington says would "lead to water shortages and hardship" – is shameful.

What’s also shameful is that not only were AI’s legal assurances for alternative water supplies "unfit for purpose", but that AI was not prepared to include Cadhay in any Section 106 agreement covering alternative water supplies and/or compensation in the event of a failure caused by any quarrying at Straitgate Farm. According to DCC:

The view of AI remains that the information provided means that the risk is negligible and therefore does not need to be taken into account in the EA or the s.106.

Of course, if that risk were indeed negligible, it would have been painless for AI to indemnify Cadhay from any losses arising from quarrying activities. The fact that they won’t infers the company is fully aware of the risks and the potential financial exposure. It should be obvious to anyone that disruption of water supplies to Cadhay – a Grade I listed Manor House – would be catastrophic to the upkeep and maintenance of this historic treasure.

Prof Brassington’s report can be found here. It has been sent to DCC and the EA.