Seasonal working scheme for Straitgate can't work as AI describes

Aggregate Industries says that any "excavation [to the Maximum Winter Water Table at Straitgate Farm] will always have at least 1.0m of unsaturated gravels beneath".

For large areas of the site, however, this is impossible.

It throws yet another question mark over AI's plans for Straitgate. The company's Head of Geological Services will apparently refer back to water consultants Amec Foster Wheeler, after the matter was pointed out to him at a meeting last week.

Just to recap, AI’s seasonal working scheme, unlike other local quarry schemes that leave 1m unquarried above the MWWT where groundwater receptors are at risk, relies on groundwater levels falling by at least 1m during the summer months to allow extraction down to the MWWT; DCC wanted to know if such a scheme had even been tried before. AI's Supporting Statement explained:

The resource declared assumes a working base that coincides with, and never drops below the Maximum Winter Water Table (MWWT) modelled by hydrogeological specialists AMEC Foster Wheeler following extensive monitoring and analysis since January 2013. Moreover, the working method ensures that the floor of the excavation will always have at least 1.0m of unsaturated gravels beneath. 2.4.7 

But such a working method could ensure no such thing.

Firstly, the MWWT was derived from just a handful of 'maximum' water levels, which may or may not actually be maximums. As Dr Helen Rutter said in her report:

This surface is only a model of reality, and may not represent actual groundwater levels across the site...

The steep hydraulic gradient combined with limited monitoring, in my opinion, is likely to result in errors in the actual depth to maximum groundwater across the site.

AI has now installed additional piezometers, in line with what the Environment Agency said in its recent objection:

The accuracy of the maximum winter water level grid may benefit from additional piezometers...

It will, however, be 12 months or more before any useful information can be drawn from these.

But, crucially, groundwater levels at three of the older piezometers do not fall by 1m over the year. In fact, the difference between the maximum and minimum values over the various years of monitoring is just 24cm for PZ01, 42cm for PZ05 and 40cm for PZ2016/001. It is therefore impossible for quarrying down to the MWWT in these areas to "always have at least 1.0m of unsaturated gravels beneath".

Again, this point was picked up by Dr Helen Rutter, who said:

Groundwater levels may fluctuate by less than a metre across the intended deepening area, raising questions as to the practicality of the proposal in terms of maintaining a one metre separation between excavation and the water table.

All of this obviously affects the amount of resource available. 

AI produced a document for last year's Minerals Plan Examination - XD28 Straitgate Farm Resource Statement May 2016 - to convince the Planning Inspector that the company really could lay its hand on 1.2 million tonnes. It again claimed:

The resource declared assumes a working base that coincides with, and never drops below the maximum recorded winter water table... these levels will only be progressed during summer months when the water table is at least 1m below the said modelled surface thus maintaining a minimum 1m buffer zone.

But the Inspector was misled. The document boasted that "Calculations have been undertaken by Chartered Geologists", and yet a 1m buffer zone could obviously not be maintained "below the said modelled surface".

AI would therefore be unable to extract 1.2 million tonnes, even by using this unorthodox scheme. PZ05 and PZ2016/001 are towards the middle of the site - shown on the map below. Losing say 60cm depth of resource across 25ha would equate to some 240,000 tonnes (0.6m x 25ha x 10,000m x 2/m3 less 20% waste) - reducing the size of any benefit that must be balanced against the proposal's considerable harm.

Of course, it may be that AI knew this this all along, and had no intention to "always have at least 1.0m of unsaturated gravels beneath" where it quarried. After all, who else would know?

Who else would know - until drinking water supplies became impaired or properties became flooded?

People can decide for themselves 'if the whole bloody system is functional or bent'

In December, we made a complaint about the Devon Minerals Plan to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and requested a holding direction. The basis of our complaint was that extensive haulage plans from Straitgate to a processing site beyond the immediate area had at no time been the subject of a Sustainability Appraisal.

A SA is required under Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive 2001/42/EC for each Local Plan proposal. The SEA Directive is to ensure that "an environmental assessment is carried out of certain plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment." This directive is transposed into the NPPF, which says that "a sustainability appraisal which meets the requirements of the European Directive on strategic environmental assessment should be an integral part of the plan preparation process, and should consider all the likely significant effects on the environment, economic and social factors."

During the Minerals Plan process, there was a stand-off between operator and council over processing locations. Aggregate Industries insisted it could only process Straitgate Farm material at Blackhill, not Rockbeare; DCC was pushing for the reverse. No alternative processing locations were ever considered.

Natural England’s concerns over importing nitrate-rich material to Blackhill, and the approval of an alternative planning application for Rockbeare, finally confirmed the unavailability of both locations for processing. Despite having been told both of these facts, the Inspector nevertheless concluded:

71. Rockbeare... is an option that could be explored if Blackhill Quarry could not be used.

AI is looking to process Straitgate material at Uffculme, 23 miles away - the only location available to the company. Most normal people would consider a 2.5 million mile haulage scheme to have a significant effect on the environment, yet this was never assessed in the Minerals Plan process by SA or otherwise.

DCC’s SA runs to 100s of pages. We learn that "the purpose of SA is to promote sustainable development by integrating sustainability considerations in to the preparation and adoption of plans."

For Straitgate, we learn things such as:

Straitgate Farm also has nesting House Sparrows and possibly a Schedule 1 bird species - the Barn Owl.

We learn that:

...residency time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 200 years and therefore the impacts will continue to affect the climate for an extended period.

We learn that:

At this site, processing is likely to occur elsewhere which contributes further emissions compared to a site option that has capacity for on-site processing.

What we do NOT learn, however, is that Straitgate Farm - one of DCC's two Preferred Areas for future sand and gravel quarrying - can only be worked with a 2.5 million mile haulage plan.

We made this point to the DCLG. We also made the point, as we did in 2012 along with the Environment Agency and Natural England, that a SA did not inform the choice of sand and gravel sites for inclusion in the Plan. DCC rejected eighteen alternative sites several months before the SA. The SA confirmed that Straitgate was one of the most constrained sites of all the sites considered.

But actually, we needn't have bothered. The DCLG - who has had dialogue with DCC subsequent to our complaint - has now written, without explanation:

I have considered your letter and have found no grounds for concern in the inspector’s report, nor grounds for the Secretary of State to intervene at this time.

The Devon Minerals Plan will now be formally adopted on 16 February 2017. It remains to be seen how a 2.5 million mile haulage plan would fit with the very first objective of this new Plan:

Objective 1: Spatial Strategy

Within geological constraints, secure a spatial pattern of mineral development that delivers the essential resources to markets within and outside Devon while minimising transportation by road and generation of greenhouse gases, supporting the development of its economy while conserving and enhancing the County’s key environmental assets.

The absurdity is... Straitgate was never needed for the Minerals Plan

The absurdity of allocating Straitgate Farm in the Devon Minerals Plan is clear for all to see - when 1) you consider that there’s less than a million tonnes of resource at Straitgate (if drinking water supplies are to be protected in line with the Environment Agency’s advice) - and 2) you consider item 56 in the Inspector’s report:

To meet the anticipated shortfall, the Plan identifies two new potential areas of production. These are known as Straitgate Farm and West of Penslade Cross. Potentially, some 9.2 million tonnes would be available from these two sites. I appreciate that this figure is in excess of the requisite 7.7 million tonnes; also that a possible contribution would come from prior extraction. However, a degree of flexibility would be appropriate. I do not find that the provision would be excessive.

In other words - in a Plan running to 2033, a Plan that should be looking towards more sustainable secondary and recycled building materials, a Plan for a county where sand and gravel production has been in decline for the last 25 years - DCC has needlessly allocated an additional 1.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel; more than the total available at Straitgate Farm.

If that's not bad enough, then let's consider sustainability and the fact that Aggregate Industries is now talking about a 50 mile round-trip for each load of as-dug material from Straitgate, taking it all the way to Uffculme for processing; to the area next to Penslade Cross, to the area where the majority of the sand and gravel resource in the Minerals Plan is allocated. Sounds like madness, doesn't it?

Now consider the job of the independent Inspector, as detailed in paragraph 182 of the NPPF:

The Local Plan will be examined by an independent inspector whose role is to assess whether the plan … is sound… namely that it is:

Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;

How Straitgate, with all its constraints, all its problems with processing and access, could be deemed the most appropriate strategy is unfathomable; laughable.

With hundreds and hundreds of consultation responses comprehensively ignored over the last four years, Aggregate Industries and the other mineral companies may as well have written the Plan themselves.

Inspector endorses Straitgate as a Preferred Area - but what about processing?

In the end, what was the point? All the representations - except from the mineral companies of course - made no difference at all. The Inspector has issued his Report on the Examination into the Devon Minerals Plan, and says:

I conclude that, with the recommended main modifications set out in the Appendix, the Devon Minerals Local Plan satisfies the requirements of Section 20(5) of the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness in the National Planning Policy Framework. 111

So, three cheers for the Minerals Officer. Well done. After years of delay, years of not listening, years of expense, he can finally report:

County Councillors will be recommended to adopt the Devon Minerals Plan in accordance with the Inspector’s recommendations shortly.

But it's a farce. The Inspector has endorsed Straitgate Farm as a Preferred Area, "areas of known resources where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated", without knowing how the site would be accessed or where the material would be processed.

On access, he says: "It is proposed to gain access to the area off the B3174 Exeter Road at or close to the track serving Little Straitgate" 67 - but that idea has already been junked on safety grounds; so much for his report saying "I see no reason in principle why a safe access could not be constructed" 68.

On processing, he says: "Rockbeare Hill Quarry is favoured by the Council. The prospective developer states that there are a number of problems including water availability and the capacity of the silt beds. Nevertheless, it is an option that could be explored if Blackhill Quarry could not be used. 4" 71. However, if the Inspector had checked the apparent planning permission referenced in footnote 4, below, he might have been forced to conclude differently.

⁴Availability at Rockbeare Hill Quarry would also need to be determined in the light of an apparent planning permission for a building for precast concrete manufacturing (see representations 51/MM32/U, 33/U and 57/U).

The apparent planning permission was the one approved by EDDC on 19 September 2016, the one detailed in our representation ref 51/MM32/U etc:

... despite AI saying at the Examination hearings that the company would “look again” at Rockbeare if needed, the site was subject to a planning application from a third party shortly afterwards, “16/1464/MFUL Replacement of existing manufacturing building with new factory building for precast concrete manufacturing”, which was approved by East Devon District Council on 19 September 2016.

So, if the Inspector thinks "To my mind, the position at Blackhill Quarry is protected by the terms of the Devon Minerals Plan" 72, and if Rockbeare is not actually "an option that could be explored", where does he think the material could be processed?

Because if it was all so very easy, all so very where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated, why is Aggregate Industries and its merry band of consultants still scrabbling around after all these years, still trying to cobble together a cogent planning application?

Cllr Claire Wright's blog on the subject can be read here.

‘Support from Aggregate Industries UK Ltd noted’

If you read DCC's report on the modifications consultation along with AI’s submission you can tell just how far the Council has climbed into bed with LafargeHolcim, the world's largest cement conglomerate. There were more representations by far on the Straitgate modifications, MM32, MM33, MM57, MM58, than any other part of the Plan. Concerns were raised by the Environment Agency, by East Devon District Council, by Ottery St Mary Town Council, by councillors and by members of the public. And what did DCC have to say? "no further change is considered to be necessary". What a surprise.

And AI? They're happy with it all. Of course they are.

Remember those words from the Chairman of DCC's Development Management Committee?

I therefore encourage everyone to take part in this consultation and make further comment on the proposed modifications so we can make sure we strike the right balance and secure a plan fit for our future.

What a good job DCC has done in striking the right balance.

So, six years after launching "Devon’s Big Minerals Debate", DCC is still pushing Straitgate as a Preferred Area for sand and gravel quarrying without even knowing how the site will be accessed or where the material will be processed. What a farce.

EA responds to DCC's removal of the 1m safeguard at Straitgate

The consultation on the proposed modifications to the Devon Minerals Plan closed last week. The Inspector will now consider the responses, including this one from the Environment Agency on the subject of Straitgate and DCC's decision to put a line through the 1 metre buffer stipulated by the EA to protect drinking water supplies. The Inspector plans to issue his report by the end of October.

Hugo Swire MP writes to Cllr John Hart

DCC, who put a line through the 1m buffer stipulated by the Environment Agency to protect private drinking water supplies for more than 100 people around Straitgate, now has the gall to say it "remains committed to protecting the water environment in the vicinity of the proposed sand and gravel quarry".

Following that modification to the Minerals Plan, a concerned resident wrote to Hugo Swire MP, who in turn wrote to Cllr John Hart; this is John Hart's reply. He reminds us that:

Following extensive dialogue with the mineral operator and the Environment Agency concerning the potential impact of mineral extraction on the water environment at and surrounding Straitgate farm, the pre-submission Minerals Plan of August 2015 included a requirement that “an unsaturated zone of at least 1m [be] maintained across the site”.

But on the basis of an unapproved working scheme put forward by Aggregate Industries less than two weeks before the Examination Hearings, this safeguard was junked.

If 1m were to be left unquarried above the maximum water table as specified by the EA there would NOT be "Up to 1.2 million tonnes" as DCC maintains, but no more than 900,000 tonnes; AI say so themselves:

...excavating to a level 1m above the highest winter water table level would reduce the saleable tonnage by approximately 300,000 tonnes 8.77

DCC’s Minerals Officer no doubt had a large hand in John Hart's reply, but saying that "...no iteration of the Plan has used a figure of 900,000 tonnes" is disingenuous because this modification had been intended, as correspondence less than four weeks before the Examination Hearings records:

Given that Aggregate Industries has stated the quantity by which their original resource figure would be reduced by compliance with the requirements of Table C.4 of the Plan, I consider that it would improve clarity of the Plan if the currently-modified reference to “Up to 1.2 million tonnes” be replaced by “Approximately 0.9 million tonnes”. Paragraph 5.4.9 will also require similar amendment. The Council is not intending to circulate further modifications in advance of the hearings, but will table modifications to this effect at the hearing session that includes Straitgate Farm.

Of course, DCC then spinelessly back-tracked on that commitment after AI rushed out another Resource Statement, made public on 12 May 2016, with its untested unorthodox unapproved summer working scheme; the same unapproved scheme and resource statement that prompted the EA to say:

We are... still waiting for a robust assessment of the risks that would result from this modification to the operation.

It is also notable that the applicant appears to be basing the present resource assessments on the basis of a hydrogeological model (highest water level) that has not been formally agreed.

Which means that after years of faffing about, years of consultations and expense, years of waiting for groundwater measurements and reports, DCC’s Minerals Plan - the Preferred Area designation at Straitgate and the amount of resource available - is based on a hydrogeological model that has not been formally agreed; again, this for a site supplying 100 people and 3 livestock farms with spring water. What a pig’s ear.

Those who participated at the Examination Hearings will also remember:

In order for all parties to be able to prepare for the hearings, any additional statements should be with the Programme Officer by 5.00pm on Friday 22 April 2016… Late submissions and material tabled at the hearings are unlikely to be accepted since this can cause disruption and result in unfairness and the adjournment of the hearing."

One rule for some, another rule for aggregate companies.

For what it’s worth, the consultation on this and the other modifications is open until 23 September.

Modifications Consultation

Consultation on the proposed modifications to the draft Minerals Plan starts today.

Information can be found here. As DCC makes clear, the consultation relates only to the proposed modifications, not to the wider content of the Plan. Here are the proposed modifications in relation to Straitgate - regarding Preferred Area designation, estimated resource, site access and depth of working above the maximum water table.

Why has DCC put a line through the 1m to protect drinking water supplies?

It was always inconsistent to say there were 1.2 million tonnes of resource at Straitgate if a 1m stand-off was to be maintained above the highest level of the water table. It was a point we raised at the Examination hearings 24-27 May, and in subsequent correspondence to the Inspector of 29 May. The Inspector wrote to us on 31 May, and said:

I agree that there is a potential anomaly in the wording of the Plan. I shall be asking the County Council if they intend to address this point when the main modifications are formally published for consultation.

On the same day, the Inspector passed this message to the Council:

To my mind the best solution might be to omit the words “with an unsaturated zone of at least 1m maintained across the site” from the “Water” section of Table C.4. Please ask the County Council to consider making this small amendment when they publish the main modifications for consultation.

The Council dutifully modified the 'offending' passage:

The development of this site will only involve dry working, above the maximum winter (wet) level of groundwater with an unsaturated zone of at least 1m maintained across the site. The depth of working above this level will be determined through monitoring and analysis of historic data, in agreement with the Environment Agency. MM58 Table C.4

The Inspector has since said:

The Inspector's suggestion was intended to reflect the on-going uncertainty about what could be an acceptable way of working the site. An unsaturated zone of 1m may or may not feature in the final solution. However, it could be seen as inappropriate for Table C.4 to commit to a definite method of working when potentially acceptable alternatives have not been determined. The important points are that (a) only dry working would be acceptable; and (b) the depth of working (the final, acceptable solution) would be decided in agreement with the Environment Agency. These points are addressed in the proposed modification.

Which may be the case. But the changes are obviously at odds with the comments received from the Environment Agency of 3 June, who, in response to DCC’s email to them of 16 May, were quite certain that they did not want any change to the wording:

We welcome your decision not to make any alteration to the current wording to accommodate Aggregate Industries’ revised statement explaining their proposal to work below the winter water table during summer months and reinstate levels to 1m above winter water table with overburden prior to winter… Your authority will be aware that we consider this site to be sensitive in relation to risks to controlled waters… We are therefore still waiting for a robust assessment of the risks that would result from this modification to the operation… It is for this reason that we concur with your recommendation to retain the current wording within the Minerals Plan in relation to the working depth...

Anyone with any comments to make on this issue, or any of the other changes in the Plan, has until 23 September 2016 to respond.

Has AI finally given up on Rockbeare?

Those who have been following the East Devon minerals debacle for some time might remember that as recently as 2014 Aggregate Industries was saying that the derelict concrete products plant at Rockbeare was being set aside as an alternative location to process any material from Straitgate.

Since that time, and although sand and gravel was once processed at Rockbeare, AI has claimed that the site is no longer suitable for processing on a number of fronts - lack of space for stockpiles and silt storage, lack of process water, even great crested newts.

However, at the Examination in Public in May, when pushed on the issue by the Inspector, AI said it "wouldn’t wish to rule out the site" and would "look again" at Rockbeare if permission for Blackhill on Woodbury Common was not extended beyond 2016.

And yet, only a month later, a planning application - which had obviously been in preparation for some time - landed on the desk of East Devon District Council from Waycon Precast Ltd, who wish to relocate from Plymouth and lease the site from AI: "16/1464/MFUL Replacement of existing manufacturing building with new factory building for precast concrete manufacturing".

How this would help AI "look again" at the site is unclear. How this would help AI "to find an alternative solution for when [Blackhill's] permission expires" is also unclear.

Or has AI finally given up on Rockbeare?

DCC puts a line through the 1m - another round of consultation begins next month

DCC has tabled a modification to the draft Minerals Plan in an effort to make the allocated resource at Straitgate consistent with the depth of any future quarrying:

reference in Table C.4 to the depth of unsaturated zone above the water table to be maintained at Straitgate Farm has been altered to enable consideration of the appropriate depth through further investigation and discussion with the Environment Agency... 3.3

As referred to in the previous post, the Environment Agency recently commented that:

the applicant appears to be basing the present resource assessments on the basis of a hydrogeological model (highest water level) that has not been formally agreed.

We are... still waiting for a robust assessment of the risks that would result from this modification to the operation.

DCC has not, however, revised the resource down from 1.2 million to 900,000 tonnes to accommodate this, as the Council stated it would in April:

Given that Aggregate Industries has stated the quantity by which their original resource figure would be reduced by compliance with the requirements of Table C.4 of the Plan, I consider that it would improve clarity of the Plan if the currently-modified reference to “Up to 1.2 million tonnes” be replaced by “Approximately 0.9 million tonnes”. 

DCC has instead, surprise, surprise, sided with the mineral operator again, and put a line through the 1m standoff from the maximum water table level intended to protect water supplies:

The development of this site will only involve dry working, above the maximum winter (wet) level of groundwater with an unsaturated zone of at least 1m maintained across the site. The depth of working above this level will be determined through monitoring and analysis of historic data, in agreement with the Environment Agency. MM58 Table C.4

This change has been made despite the 1m being stipulated by the EA:

Aggregate Industries have proposed to stop quarrying a metre above the water-table. We expect DCC to make this a condition of any permission that is granted.

Anyone with water supplies around Straitgate Farm must be getting increasingly nervous at the way DCC continually backtracks. It is standard to leave at least 1 metre where private water supplies are at risk - for very good reason; even more so when over 100 people rely on the area for their drinking water.

DCC propose holding a consultation on the main and additional modifications for the draft Minerals Plan for a period of eight weeks from Monday 1 August 2016:

Following close of the consultation, all representations received will be forwarded to the inspector for his consideration prior to publication of his report. 5.2

Letter from the EA

This letter from the Environment Agency was dated 3 June but only made public today.

It was written in response to Aggregate Industries finally coming clean on how it hopes to win 1.2 million tonnes from Straitgate by assuming "a working base that coincides with... the maximum recorded winter water table".

Readers must be sick and tired of this long-running saga of the resource and the 1m. Prior to AI's resource statement, rushed-out less than two weeks before the Examination, DCC had been ready to concede that there were only 900,000 tonnes at Straitgate to reflect the "retention of a one metre unsaturated zone above the winter water table, as required in Table C.4 of the Plan" previously agreed with the EA, to protect drinking water supplies. It was a different story, however, at the Examination:

DCC argued blindly that the resource should still be identified as "Up to 1.2 million tonnes", even though AI’s resource statement confirmed that this amount could ONLY be achieved by quarrying right down to the maximum winter water table.

The EA has now confirmed, exactly as we had stated at the Examination hearings, that:

It is also notable that the applicant appears to be basing the present resource assessments on the basis of a hydrogeological model (highest water level) that has not been formally agreed.

Furthermore, despite AI having had years to work on groundwater modelling at Straitgate, the EA says:

We are... still waiting for a robust assessment of the risks that would result from this modification to the operation.

Whether DCC continues to push a resource figure inconsistent with the conditions in its own Minerals Plan, siding with AI and its resource of "up to 1.2 million tonnes" - when the EA has agreed to no such thing - remains to be seen.

There will, in any case, be a further consultation on any modifications tabled.

Remember the years of delays

...in the preparation of the Minerals Plan, whilst DCC waited subserviently for Aggregate Industries to prove it could quarry Straitgate Farm without wrecking drinking water supplies for more than 100 people? This is how DCC summed it up for the Examination, in document CS06:

1.6 The County Council subsequently undertook extensive discussions with the mineral operator, the Environment Agency and Natural England to address the potential impacts of the working of the western part of Straitgate Farm on groundwater and surface water and consequent effects on water-sensitive habitats and water supplies. The key outputs of this dialogue are provided in PD61, leading to the Environment Agency’s statement that they "are now satisfied with the information submitted with regard to the allocation of this site and have no objections to the inclusion of the Straitgate site from the minerals plan". A key outcome of these discussions was clarification that sand and gravel extraction within the site would be through dry working only with retention of an unsaturated layer of one metre above the maximum water table, resulting in further reduction of the potential reserve to 1.2 million tonnes.

However, AI confirmed in its planning application that "...excavating to a level 1m above the highest winter water table level would reduce the saleable tonnage by approximately 300,000 tonnes" 8.77; in other words, leaving only 900,000 tonnes.

Nevertheless, at the Examination hearings, DCC argued blindly that the resource should still be identified as "Up to 1.2 million tonnes", even though AI’s resource statement confirmed that this amount could ONLY be achieved by quarrying right down to the maximum winter water table.

In so doing, the Council has plainly ignored the key outcome identified above, the one that allowed the EA to say that they have no objections to the inclusion of the Straitgate site from the minerals plan.

For those concerned about their drinking water, the Inspector has since recognised the issue:

I agree that there is a potential anomaly in the wording of the Plan. I shall be asking the County Council if they intend to address this point when the main modifications are formally published for consultation.

What happened at the Examination?

The Examination of the Devon Minerals plan was adjourned today, after four days of hearings. An eight week consultation on modifications will begin in August; the Inspector will consider responses and produce his report by the end of October.

DCC and Aggregate Industries faced a number of difficult questions from the Inspector in relation to Straitgate. The Inspector learnt that despite Straitgate being one of DCC's Preferred Areas for future sand and gravel quarrying, despite the site being championed by the Council since 2012, despite consultations, discussions, reports and planning applications - we still don’t know how the site will be accessed or how the material will be processed. Fundamental unanswered questions. A Preferred Area is meant to be:

areas of known resources where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated

The draft Devon Minerals Plan puts forward two such areas. Even on the first day of the Hearing, in relation to over-provision of resource, the Inspector said:

I suppose the question is, do you need two Preferred Areas?

On the second day, questions started on Straitgate. On access, AI confirmed that it had no rights over the northern part of the site, leaving the only possible access on the southern side. The Inspector read out to AI what the company had previously said in its planning application to quarry Straitgate:

The southern option, onto the B3174, was dismissed early in the process on highway safety grounds. It would have been too close to existing accesses, including the access to Straitgate Farmhouse, and the vertical alignment of the highway at this point would compromise visibility. 5.44

Despite having had six months to sort this out, AI said it was still 're-assessing' this option; the option where the recent safety audit indicated that HGVs could only turn left - not right, where they would need to go; the option where only this week a DCC Highways Officer said "nothing has been resolved nor even tentatively agreed".

The Inspector moved on to processing. Having first ruled out Whiteball in Somerset, the Inspector read out to AI what the company had previously said in its planning application to quarry Straitgate:

It has been demonstrated that processing at Rockbeare is not physically possible due to a lack of silt space and clean water storage, insufficient stocking and processing area and the presence of great crested newts in existing ponds. 8.37

The Inspector wanted to know if AI had ruled out Rockbeare. AI wouldn't go that far, but did confirm that 'a detailed assessment had ruled it out as a viable option'. So, if not Rockbeare, what about Blackhill?

The Inspector read out to AI the objection from Natural England in response to the recent Blackhill/ Houndaller application; an application to process a fraction of the amount of nitrate-rich soils that would come from Straitgate:

At the current time, Natural England does not concur with the applicants view that the importation of the proposed material will not have an adverse effect on the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SSSI/SAC for the following reasons... The unit of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths adjacent to Blackhill Quarry contains sensitive wetland habitats including areas of M14 - Schoenus nigricans-Narthecium ossifragum mire which is dependent on low nutrient status. This habitat is more sensitive than any other wetland habitats and is very sensitive to any nutrient change...

AI said it was working on a response. DCC said it was not putting Blackhill forward as a processing site in the Minerals Plan, relying on the phrase:

Proposals for the off-site processing of extracted materials should be located outside of the AONB unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.

Which is all well and good, but where does DCC think the material will be processed?

The Inspector also raised questions on the risk of birdstrike, soil storage, B3180, hydrogeology, ancient woodland, archaeology, hedgerows and dormice, heritage, visual impact on AONB, flooding and tourism.

A further question addressed the amount of resource, and this issue was also considered at the hearing today. Earlier on in the proceedings, it was made clear that AI had dropped the 460,000 tonnes of overburden from its plans; an issue we had raised last year.

On the remaining resource, only last month DCC had advised:

Given that Aggregate Industries has stated the quantity by which their original resource figure would be reduced by compliance with the requirements of Table C.4 of the Plan, I consider that it would improve clarity of the Plan if the currently-modified reference to "Up to 1.2 million tonnes" be replaced by "Approximately 0.9 million tonnes".

This was in line with the EA's position:

In addition, although it was our understanding that the minerals development at Straitgate would entail above max water table working, we note that the operator is now proposing an operation that does not conform to the requirements of this policy or the mitigation proposed in Appendix C.

DCC has now backtracked on its statement, relying on the number in AI’s hastily produced resource statement, which "assumes a working base that coincides with… the maximum recorded winter water table" - not 1m above it - and the Council persists with the notion that Straitgate could provide "Up to 1.2 million tonnes"; a ridiculous show of faith when you consider how many times AI has revised that number. The dry working scheme sanctioned by the EA - see post below - could only produce 900,000 tonnes, according to AI’s own Regulation 22 response, and this point was made to the Inspector.

To safeguard private water supplies, the Inspector recommended more consistent wording in the main body of the Plan to reflect the wording in Appendix C.4:

The development of this site will only involve dry working, above the maximum winter (wet) level of groundwater with an unsaturated zone of at least 1m maintained across the site.

In summary, the Inspector was left not knowing how processing of any material from Straitgate would take place nor how access to the site might be safely achieved; a ludicrous situation for a Preferred Area; a ludicrous situation when you consider how long DCC and AI have had to prepare for this.

Minerals Plan Examination this week; Straitgate to be discussed 2pm Wednesday

A reminder that the Devon Minerals Plan Examination hearings starts on Tuesday; the Agenda can be found here. As DCC's press release makes clear, all are welcome to attend and observe proceedings:

A government inspector, Mr Andrew Freeman, will conduct the hearings to establish the soundness of the Minerals Plan. Participation in the hearings is limited to people that responded to last year’s consultation and have already requested to take part, although any person can attend to observe the hearings.

Various newspapers are following events; this is how we summed up the Straitgate situation for the Western Morning News article that appeared last week:

Destroying a productive and historic East Devon farm for the sake of 900,000 tonnes of sand and gravel makes no sense at all. There’s less than 3 years’ worth of material, which is trivial for a Minerals Plan that runs until 2033. There’s nowhere to process the material other than Aggregate Industries' existing plant, 8 miles away on Woodbury Common in the East Devon AONB; permission for this plant expires at the end of 2016, and Natural England has already objected to the importation of nitrate-rich agricultural soils to this protected area. What’s more, groundwater from Straitgate supplies wetland habitats in ancient woodland and over 100 people with their drinking water. We've made representations in the hope that, where Devon County Council has been unable to see sense, the Inspector will.

DCC

More changes to the Minerals Plan

With the Examination hearings just two weeks away, modifications are coming out of DCC thick and fast, too many surely for anyone other than the Minerals Officer to keep track of; the Examination Library came out in February and is at Version 7 before the hearing has even started.

Devon’s new Minerals Plan has been in preparation on and off since 2007, the same year that workshops recognised how safeguarding all mineral resources that might have any future value "maximises the area potentially affected by planning blight".

Nevertheless, DCC, in its wisdom, decided to maximise the planning blight in the draft Minerals Plan by 'safeguarding' the full extent of the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds, with exclusions outlined in Minerals Topic Paper 2 5.4.4, "in recognition of the importance of the resource". We have written about 'Mineral Safeguarding' before: How Devon’s new Minerals Plan could blight thousands of homes across the county and Is this really the best way to 'safeguard' minerals?; in our response to the pre-submission consultation we argued that:

The Plan intends to designate Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas widely across the County, 'safeguarding' all sorts of uneconomic, unrecoverable, unviable deposits, blighting the homes of thousands of people

Mineral Safeguarding is one of the latest modifications, MM43 in the Schedule of Potential Main Modifications Third Draft. Following questions from the Inspector, DCC now concedes:

It is apparent from review of the resulting MSAs that there are anomalies and inconsistencies arising from differing approaches to settlement boundary definition, while some of the resource blocks are of an area or outline that would be unfeasible for economic extraction. 3.2

Of course, all this should have been obvious when the MSAs were first drawn up. But whilst a number of small areas have now been removed, Bicton for one and parts of Budleigh Salterton for another, many many anomalies remain. If the MSAs have been refined to remove those areas unfeasible for economic extraction, DCC must clearly think that the areas and settlements remaining are feasible; areas such as Woodbury Common & Castle, East Devon Golf Club, Woodbury Park Hotel Golf & Country Club, Bystock Pools Nature Reserve, Aylesbeare Common Nature Reserve; settlements such as Fairmile, Yettington, Coombelake, Taleford, parts of West Hill & Higher Metcombe, Larkbeare, parts of Feniton, Colestocks, Kerswell, parts of Kentisbeare, Smithincott, Yondercott, Appledore, Hawkerland.

It’s ludicrous just how many nonsensical areas have been 'safeguarded'; take a look at the Revised Draft Policies Map, the Alterations to Mineral Safeguarding Areas, and the online map - yet to be updated.