‘AI’s claims must be trusted,’ says Somerset CC, ‘otherwise RTPI cast into disrepute’

Over the years, we have catalogued the fiction that Aggregate Industries has produced to support its planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm, saying: 

It all makes this multinational and its consultants look like a bunch of cowboys, willing to say whatever it takes. It begs another question: If AI can’t act honestly before winning any keys to dig, what hope would there be afterwards?

Last week, Aggregate Industries’ second planning application to re-open Bartletts Quarry in Somerset, a limestone quarry in the Mendips, and to cast aside previously agreed planning conditions and S106 agreements intended to protect local communities, was determined in the company’s favour. We’ve posted on this issue before. The first application had been flatly turned down in January. The second, lodged in May, was essentially the same, and again attracted the wrath of locals.

.@SomersetCouncil has u-turned on @AggregateUK's plans to reopen this quarry on the #A361 between #Frome and #SheptonMallet: https://t.co/dZLnTn7aDi #LDReporter #Somerset #HS2

— Daniel Mumby (@DanielMumby) July 30, 2021

What had changed? According to objectors, very little. Having plainly got things so wrong with the first application – suffering a 7-0 defeat – Aggregate Industries supplied revised documentation: 

1.2 This revised submission therefore seeks to provide additional evidence on the benefits of allowing Bartletts Quarry to re-commence quarrying of carboniferous limestone including the nationally significant contribution Somerset makes to the country’s mineral supply and the benefits of enabling Torr to maximise rail exports and the local employment, investment and training opportunities that the minerals industry provides. 

1.3 The key benefits of our application are considered to be: • Jobs and investment in the local economy, re-opening Bartletts would create up to 8 new permanent jobs and at least 6 to 10 jobs within the wider supply chain. This will complement the existing AIUK employment in Somerset of over 200 people through direct and supply chain... 

Additional evidence was a moot point. Objectors questioned whether assertions made by Aggregate Industries amounted to evidence. Picking just three of the many objections at random: 

much of the "evidence" cited was either known at the date of the original (rejected) application or is merely a forecast of the applicant's own making. 

The resubmission relies on statements that could sound persuasive but are not substantiated by detail. Up to 8 jobs could be created but there could be fewer, even none.

I disagree that these applications contain any new information that would require review by the committee. This is a blatant exercise in throwing enough applications in the hope one will be approved or be missed by the local residents who are objecting. AI claim to listen to the local community, but in fact appear to ignore them and previous decisions made.

However, Somerset County Council’s planners sided with the company: 

8.10.1 Objectors seems to be questioning the claims of extra employment that are raised by the applicant and whilst this is understandable the planning statement is written by a qualified professional who is a member of an institute whose claims must be trusted so as not to bring disrepute to said institute. 

Given the amount of fiction uncovered in Aggregate Industries’ planning application for Straitgate, why – without seeing any evidence – was Somerset County Council so trusting? And of which institute does membership – in the eyes of Somerset County Council – bestow immunity from cross examination? 

In line with legislation introduced in 2017, Aggregate Industries’ Environmental Statement included a "Statement of Competency": 

In accordance with Regulation 18(5) of the EIA Regulations, the ES must be accompanied by a statement outlining the relevant expertise and qualifications of the experts who have been involved in its preparation.

A list of names was duly included, starting with an Aggregate Industries’ Planning Manager (MRTPI) who "has 30 years' experience in minerals planning", including at a Minerals Planning Authority. Which one? Somerset, of course. And which institute? The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), "the professional body representing planners in the United Kingdom and Ireland". MRTPI, signifying Chartered Town Planner, "represent the gold standard of planning practice" and are "recognised by employers, clients and members of the public for their skills, expertise and professional practice". The RTPI has a Code of Professional Conduct: 

All Institute members are required to abide by the Code of Professional Conduct. If you feel that a member has breached the Code then you should consider making a complaint to the Institute. The Code of Professional Conduct requires (amongst other things) that all members should: act with competence, honesty and integrity; give their impartial professional judgement to the best of their ability... and not bring the Royal Town Planning Institute into disrepute.

This obviously raises questions in relation to Aggregate Industries’ error-ridden planning application for Straitgate Farm. Because if MRTPI represents "the gold standard of planning practice", why did the above Planning Manager put his name to this farcical half-hearted effort – "our final response to the queries raised as part of the consultation", which contained some cock-and-bull story about the 23 million tonne resource at Penslade, and utterly failed to address the majority of concerns that have been raised, including from statutory consultees on soil management and flooding – no more than 3 months after putting his name to another letter, "our final submission of additional information". Clearly, whatever MRTPI is meant to signify, one resident local to Straitgate was prompted to write: 

But what do we get from Aggregate Industries in response to all these pressing unresolved issues? A cursory four page letter from a non-specialist representative saying, to all intents and purposes, that as far as they are concerned there is nothing to add, and that the matter is now closed. Interpreted more colloquially this is "two-fingers to the lot of you!" Plainly AI want a quarry approved at Straitgate, come what may, and they have finally lost patience with the general public.

AI’s plan to reopen a Somerset quarry now has another issue to contend with

Aggregate Industries has been struggling to win permission to re-open Bartletts Quarry in Somerset. Councillors made their feelings known about the plan earlier in the year with a definitive 7-0 decision. Clearly showing its disdain for local democracy, the company returned last month with essentially the same application – not surprisingly attracting the wrath of locals once again.

If Aggregate Industries hadn’t got enough troubles already, this month Hanson turned up the heat with a planning application to re-open a 160 million-tonne limestone quarry right next door – as reported in SomersetLive. Hanson’s planning statement reads: 

Hanson is seeking to secure the long-term resumption of permitted limestone extraction from Westdown Quarry. Total permitted reserves at Westdown Quarry are identified as ~160mt... From its neighbouring rail-linked quarry at Whatley, Hanson presently supplies many local and UK wide markets particularly in the south-east of England with limestone aggregate and related products…. With an increasing demand for limestone from a range of national construction projects most notably the ongoing construction of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in Somerset and the recently approved High Speed 2 (HS2) rail link from London to Manchester there is increasing emphasis on rail linked quarries like Whatley to supply these large scale, single client markets. This means that Hanson needs to carefully consider a strategy for ensuring that Whatley can continue to supply aggregates to these important, nationally significant construction projects, whilst still meeting the very important needs of the local south-west markets... To achieve this, Hanson is seeking to secure the long-term resumption of permitted limestone extraction from Westdown Quarry. This would allow Whatley to focus on meeting the needs of the UK wide, rail-borne markets, as material from Westdown would supply the local road-borne markets... Output from the quarry would not exceed 2.0mt per annum. 

Aggregate Industries' plans next-door are rather more modest: 

The proposed development would restrict working to the permitted reserves that exist above the water table within Bartletts Quarry, which are approximately 3 million tonnes.  

The battle in the Mendips over millions of tonnes of limestone puts into perspective Aggregate Industries' decade-long pursuit of an almost inconsequential sub-million-tonne sand and gravel prospect in East Devon – a prospect on a greenfield site 23 miles away from the processing plant. Has Aggregate Industries lost its business marbles over Straitgate Farm, or is there a cunning and masterly plan?

Which part of 7-0 did AI not understand?

Earlier this year, we posted how Aggregate Industries had suffered a resounding 7-0 defeat when two planning applications to re-open a limestone quarry in the Mendips came before Somerset County Council, and how planning officers – including the one who championed Straitgate Farm's inclusion in the Devon Minerals Plan – had recommended that previously agreed planning conditions and S106 agreements, intended to protect local communities, be cast aside. 

Aggregate Industries had proposed "enabling recommencement of extraction within Bartlett’s Quarry in parallel with, rather than upon completion of, extraction at Torr Work." The company’s 7-0 defeat was clearly an indication of how enamoured the local community was with the idea.

Cllr @MikeSRigby: "I think this hinges on the issue of cumulative impact. Less than a year ago, we were sufficiently concerned about this to impose this condition - I wonder what has changed since then, aside that the applicant wants the stone?" #LDReporter #Somerset

— Daniel Mumby (@DanielMumby) January 14, 2021

"The case that @AggregateUK has made about the justification for running both quarries in tandem is weak. The capacity of Torr is a business issue for them, not a planning issue for us." #LDReporter #Somerset

— Daniel Mumby (@DanielMumby) January 14, 2021

But Aggregate Industries must be hard of hearing. It has now submitted another two planning applications SCC/3833/2021 and SCC/3835/2021 for essentially the same proposal. The company’s supporting statement reads: 

Somerset County Council refused the two applications (ref SCC 3742/2020 and 3748/2020) for the modification of the Torr s106 agreement and the removal of condition 2 of Schedule B of planning permission 2016/0025/CNT to enable Bartletts Quarry to re-commence quarrying of carboniferous limestone. The reason given for refusing both applications was as follows:

The applicant has provided insufficient evidence that the benefit of the removal of restrictions to allow Bartlett’s Quarry and Torr Works Quarry to operate in tandem would outweigh the harmful cumulative effects on local communities and environment from their concurrent working, which is contrary to Policy SMP3 of the Somerset Minerals Plan (2015-2030).

This revised submission therefore seeks to provide additional evidence on the benefits of allowing Bartletts Quarry to re-commence quarrying of carboniferous limestone including the nationally significant contribution Somerset makes to the country’s mineral supply and the benefits of enabling Torr to maximise rail exports and the local employment, investment and training opportunities that the minerals industry provides. 

What "additional evidence"? 

...to further reduce the potential for cumulative effects of Torr and Bartletts operating concurrently it is now proposed to include the output from Bartletts Quarry wholly within the consented 8 million tonne a year limit for Torr. 

Genius. But is that seriously meant to persuade those 7-0 decision makers, given that the current 5.5 million tonne output from Torr Quarry would therefore still allow 2.5 million tonnes to be output each year from Bartlett's Quarry – with all the same controversial cumulative effects that would go with it?

Which part of 7-0 did Aggregate Industries not understand? Ignoring local democracy is hardly a way to endear yourself to the community. Aggregate Industries once said: 

Relationships with local communities can sometimes be strained. The nature of quarrying means that most of the environmental and social impacts are felt locally. We try to manage these effectively by both management and communication to the local community. 

That was 20 years ago, but no wonder relations with communities become strained, if the company goes around wanting to rip up previously agreed planning conditions and S106 agreements.

EDIT 30.7.21 Somerset quarry will reopen after county council reverses earlier decision

AI’s proposal to rewrite S106 agreement suffers 7-0 defeat in Somerset

Two applications from Aggregate Industries SCC/3742/2020 and SCC/3748/2020 to re-open a limestone quarry in the Mendips came before Somerset County Council Regulation Committee yesterday.

The two applications seek the same outcome in enabling recommencement of extraction within Bartlett’s Quarry in parallel with, rather than upon completion of, extraction at Torr Works. Application SCC/3742/2020 proposes the removal of Condition 2 of permission 2016/0025/CNT that was imposed in February 2020, while application SCC/3748/2020 proposes the following changes to the existing S106 Agreement for Torr Works…

Officers recommended permission be granted. Let’s say that again. Planning officers – including the one who championed Straitgate Farm's inclusion in the Devon Minerals Plan – recommended that previously agreed planning conditions and S106 agreements, intended to protect local communities, be cast aside for the benefit of Aggregate Industries.

The justification put forward for recommencing limestone extraction at Bartlett’s Quarry, before extraction is finished at nearby Torr Works, another of Aggregate Industries' limestone quarries, was based on the company securing a new contract "along with its partner PORR, to construct concrete beds for the HS2 project, the material for which shall be supplied from Torr Quarry":

As one of two Somerset rail-linked quarries (the other being Whatley), Torr Quarry supplied 3.65 million tonnes of crushed rock by rail in 2018, predominantly to London and the South East, with a further 1.85 million tonnes transported by road to more local markets. To meet anticipated increased demand arising from infrastructure development in these other regions, notably from HS2, the applicant proposes to increase the volume of crushed rock transported from Torr Quarry by rail to 4.6 million tonnes, with road-based output to reduce to 0.9 million tonnes, and to recommence extraction at Bartlett’s Quarry to provide an additional 0.9 million tonnes to deliver the balance of the local need.

The Section 106 agreement was in place to prevent resumption of extraction at Bartlett’s Quarry until working at Torr Works ceased in an effort to limit the cumulative impact on surrounding villages and on groundwater. In fact, permission had only just been granted for one of these applications that Aggregate Industries now wanted to change. The Officers’ Report gives more detail: 

3.3 In February 2020, permission was granted (2016/0025/CNT) for the variation of Condition 1 of Schedule B of the ROMP conditions (077905/015) to alter the expiry date for Bartlett’s Quarry to 21 February 2042. However, a new condition (numbered 2) was imposed to reflect the Torr Works S106 Agreement (see 3.6 below) requiring that: “No further extraction of Carboniferous limestone or dewatering shall be undertaken within Bartlett’s Quarry prior to the permanent cessation of commercial extraction of Carboniferous limestone and associated dewatering at Torr Works Quarry.

3.6 When the separate Torr Works complex received planning permission (2010/0984) for deepening and a time extension to 2040 in July 2012, the accompanying Section 106 Agreement included the following covenant on the mineral operator: 11.1 not to resume extraction of carboniferous limestone or dewatering within Coleman’s Quarry until such time as the commercial extraction of carboniferous limestone from the Operative Torr Land and associated dewatering as authorised by any subsisting and current planning permission shall have ceased.

3.7 As extraction at Torr Works is expected to continue until around 2040, the effect of this covenant is to prevent any further extraction within Bartlett’s Quarry (which contains the major part of the remaining reserves) or other part of the Coleman’s Quarry complex before a short period prior to their expiry date in 2042.

Section 106 agreements are legal agreements between local authorities and developers "to make acceptable development which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms."

Local residents submitted some 93 objections. Two of the main issues raised in these objections, according to the Officers’ Report, were:

the S106 Agreement was entered into by Aggregate Industries in good faith, and its amendment removes any trust in them; 

Condition 2 was only imposed in February 2020 following objections to a previous application, with no change of planning policy or other circumstances since then, and the proposal does not meet current policy;

The applications came before committee yesterday. This Twitter thread helpfully tells the story. Chair Cllr John Parham said:

The case that Aggregate Industries has made about the justification for running both quarries in tandem is weak. The capacity of Torr is a business issue for them, not a planning issue for us.

He proposed the application be rejected on the grounds that the company had "not provided sufficient justification for running both of these quarries in tandem". Fortunately, the committee voted to refuse the application by 7 votes to 0.

Revised landbank

The last figures published by DCC showed that Devon had sand and gravel reserves of 8.535 million tonnes, which included a small reserve on the Somerset side of the Devon/Somerset border. DCC’s Minerals Officer has now advised that:

I’ve just heard from Somerset County Council that they now regard the planning permission for this reserve to have lapsed. The reserve in Somerset should therefore no longer be included, and the correct sand and gravel reserve figure (at the end of 2013) is 8.135 million tonnes. We’ll be using this amended figure for the purposes of the emerging Minerals Plan.

In other words, Devon still has 10 years more than the 7 required.

Somerset

Somerset’s Minerals Plan is at a much more advanced stage than Devon’s - after DCC’s prolonged wait for Aggregate Industries to prove the viability of Straitgate Farm. Somerset’s Plan was examined in September, and a list of modifications is now out for consultation from 5 November to 17 December.

Somerset has limited resources of sand and gravel, but is a significant producer of crushed rock. This meets some of its demand for sand and gravel, but otherwise Somerset is supplied by quarries in Dorset, Devon and elsewhere. Of the 378k tonnes of sand and gravel that Somerset 'imported' in 2009, 65% came from Dorset (mainly AI’s Chard Junction Quarry on the Dorset/Somerset border) and, if the numbers are to be believed, less than 10% came from Devon (mainly from Hanson’s Town Farm Quarry at Burlescombe, on the Devon/Somerset border, which produces around 170k tonnes pa) [SCC LAA 2013]. In 2009, Devon 'imported' 93k tonnes of sand and gravel from elsewhere; 'much is likely to have originated' from AI's Chard Junction Quarry [DCC LAA 6.4], which produces around 160k tonnes pa.

SCC LAA 2013

What worries Somerset, and plainly the Planning Inspector, is what happens when these quarries finish:

Somerset County Council is mindful that reserves at the Town Farm site in Devon are expected to run until the early 2020s and that the planning permission at Chard Junction expires in 2023 [SCC Statement Sep'14 5.3]

There is a potential resource of around 400k tonnes near Hanson's plant at Whiteball, near Wellington:

Extraction at Whiteball may be proposed on the Somerset side of the border during the next 10 years, moving from extraction on the Devon side of the border. Whilst this is unlikely to change Somerset’s approach towards sand and gravel policy, it will alter the import/export figures, leading to Somerset exporting to local markets in Devon. [SCC LAA 3.10]

But following public examination, SCC has been prompted to add a new paragraph, 6.78:

Somerset County Council encourages proposals to come forward for sand and gravel extraction that are in accordance with relevant policies in the Development Plan and contribute to sub-regional supply. Informed by updates to the Somerset Local Aggregate Assessment, the need for new sources of sand and gravel is anticipated to become more pressing in the early 2020s, notwithstanding there may be benefits of proposals coming forward more quickly. [SCC Statement Sep’14]

If Somerset is now looking for sand and gravel supplies from within its own borders, does this reduce how much Devon needs to allocate in its new Plan? Probably not. SCC said:

It would be premature for the Plan to allocate sites for sand & gravel at this stage, noting the lack of interest from industry in sites for sand and gravel extraction in Somerset (except for interest in the continuation of Whiteball operations) and the lack of information on available resources other than those around the Whiteball operations. [SCC Statement Sep'14 6.9]

And DCC has already recognised the issue. In its latest LAA:

...during the later part of the period to 2031 covered by the LAA, some of the sand and gravel supply previously delivered from Devon will be met from Somerset through continued working at Whiteball. [3.25] However, this supply from Somerset will be offset by the likely cessation of supply of sand and gravel from Dorset, as Chard Junction Quarry, located close to the boundary with Devon and supplying materials into the east of the county, is anticipated to cease working in 2022/23. [3.26]

From a strategic point of view, this likely cessation of supply of sand and gravel from Dorset into the east of the county is probably another reason why Straitgate is so important to AI.