And finally, what can be said about AI's plans and drawings

Well, Aggregate Industries has made a few changes since its last plans - and remember, these are just concept drawings at this stage to satisfy DCC's Minerals Plan - moving the access from the west to the north for example, bringing the extraction boundaries further from homes, leaving some material on the base in an attempt to mitigate water impacts.

But AI is still claiming it has 3.1 million tonnes of recoverable and saleable sand and gravel at Straitgate - down from 3.6 Mt. This is of course totally dependent on AI being permitted to extract sand and gravel below the water table, and with so many people reliant on water from the site, it is unclear whether the Environment Agency would sanction that. AI was only permitted to quarry down to one metre above, above not below, the water table at Thorn Tree Plantation, Blackhill.

AI has given "categorical" assurances that there will not be processing plant at Straitgate - it doesn't have the water resources to do so anyway. This will therefore mean the transportation of as-dug material on public highways - for the lifetime of any quarry, which AI estimates to be 10 years or more. At Venn Ottery, this equated to an average of 110 HGV movements a day or 10-12 per hour - according to AI's own Haulage Statement, October 2010, payload 29 tonnes, gross vehicle weight 44 tonnes. How sustainable, ethical or environmental is that? And AI has still not given up hope of processing the material at Blackhill either. Of course, DCC and Natural England will obviously have something to say on that matter.

And there's another issue. AI's plans now rely on the use of third party land - namely for site access, the storage of overburden amongst the line of veteran oaks, and for advanced planting "for visual mitigation measures". AI does own the mineral rights in these fields. However, it is unclear whether AI has the rights to anything more. Advice is being sought. What can be said for certain is that no rights have been agreed from the different owners of the fields. DCC will need to assure itself of the merits of relying on a site where AI does not have surface ownership of the access route.

There are a number of other points: Grandiose plans can be made for tree planting and aftercare, yet AI's existing woodland around the site has had no management in many years; an attempt at underplanting 10 or more years ago completely failed through lack of light and ivy encroachment. AI plans bunds of earth next to A30, changing the aspect for users, for which advice will need to be sought from the Highways Agency. AI plainly accepts that the quality of the farmland will be lost, with the "long term afteruse being light agricultural grazing" - in other words, adequate for sheep and little else. And where's the silt going - back to Straitgate for restoration? Or to Rockbeare or Blackhill?

And what do the restoration plans offer to the community. Much has been said on this blog about companies giving back - leaving something worthwhile as recompense for the loss of amenity, the dust, the noise, from 10 years of quarrying and 100 HGV movements a day - something to win over local opposition. So, if it was to ever get as far as restoration, what does this community get left with? A footpath around the void. An interpretation board. We're overwhelmed.

For AI it's all or nothing

The Head of Geological Services at Aggregate Industries explained to a number of people at a meeting today why, in his view, Straitgate Farm is so important to his company. For AI it's all or nothing. All if it wins permission, because in the decades following on from Straitgate, and with a foothold in the area, it will look to exploit its surrounding mineral rights. Nothing if permission fails, since any other application in the area would have a high chance of failure too. AI would instead turn its attention to Penslade, necessitating a new plant costing c.£2-3 million and losing geographical sales coverage.

AI's initial proposals for Straitgate were presented in a number of concept maps, computer models and cross sections. AI is only at the early stages of its investigations, but local people voiced their concerns, particularly about water. AI's Head of Geological Services admitted that, in his view, it was unlikely that permission would be extended at Blackhill beyond 2016, and that processing plant would more likely be moved to Rockbeare, where there are adequate water supplies and silt voids. Whilst the concept maps did show site access at the western point of the site, he thought it extremely unlikely this would transpire, recognising the more suitable location on the north side onto the old A30, if land access could be secured. He confirmed that the eastern half of the Straitgate site has been removed from AI's resource book, retrieval being uneconomic with the sand and gravel largely underwater and also covered by a thick seam of sandstone. AI has promised to supply further maps, images, drawings and information, which, permission forthcoming, will be posted here in due course.

Overall there's a lot at stake for AI, but the same could be said for the people of Ottery St Mary and West Hill - decades of quarrying here and in the surrounding area.

NIMBYism

Councillors should take care before dismissing local consultation respondents as nothing more than NIMBYs. The BBC article "Would YOU live next to a NIMBY?" considers that:

"To be called a NIMBY can be a devastating insult, undermining one's well argued case and labelling it as simply a statement of self-interest (...) But environmental lawyer Professor Peter Kunzlik says the instinct to be a NIMBY can be valuable (...) "One of the slogans that came after the Rio Summit was Think Globally, Act Locally. Governments claim to want everybody to do that, and so far as the environment is concerned, where do you experience it? It's where you live. So if you're going to take issues seriously, you do so locally, otherwise it becomes a bit hypothetical.""

A survey by The Saint Consulting Group (SCG) found that "nearly nine out of 10 people in Britain are NIMBYs". In fact "almost a quarter of all UK households have objected to a planning application of one kind or another in their local area over the last 12 months". In other words, for the very people who elect councillors into office, the act of defending their home and neighbourhood against threats from local government or Swiss multinational giants is natural. It is certainly no more selfish than the profit motives of the world's largest cement producer. 

And it's hardly surprising when you hear of plans passed such as the one in Plymouth last year - it's obviously not just DCC that doesn't listen to local concerns. Would the councillors who voted for the waste incinerator and its 95m chimney stack, just 60m from the closest home in a socially deprived part of the City, have voted differently if they had lived in one of the 450 homes within 250m of the site?

Whether one agrees or not with its conclusions, the think-tank Policy Exchange recognised in a recent paper that "...local people see many costs and few benefits from new developments". "As 'neighbourhood' is people’s number one priority for homes, many NIMBYs are not selfish or unreasonable but defending their property rights" and "the legitimate fears of NIMBYs must be acknowledged, rather than NIMBYs being insulted".

According to SCG "quarries remain one of the most disliked forms of development behind casinos, power plants and landfill sites". When the BGS warn "Quarrying can significantly deflate the perceived and actual value of local property prices by reducing the desirability and demand for housing near the quarry as a result of noise, traffic, safety, dust, and visual intrusion concerns observed or envisaged by potential purchasers" are councillors surprised that not everybody might be in favour? Would they be happy living next to all that? Losing value on their home? And then losing their water supply too?

SCG advice to mineral operators is to "engage with the local community and educate members of the public (and likely opponents) about how important the aggregates sector is, and the positive impact that a quarry can have on the community." But if it won't bring any new jobs, the 384 consultation respondents would be interested to hear from Aggregate Industries what positive impacts a quarry at Straitgate Farm would have for the population of Ottery and West Hill. And they don't just want talk about restoration, because those plans have a habit of changing or simply not happening at all.

Signs produced by
Ottery Quarry
Action Group

SCG adds "Operators need to establish close ties with their local communities early on, as it is much easier to present the industry’s message to local residents whose position has not already been influenced, than it is to change their preformed opinions." Yet at the recent consultation Aggregate Industries was nowhere to be seen, and was not even prepared to share the working or restoration plans drawn up for the site. "Preformed opinions"? Sorry - too late.

As it was DCC pitching northern and southern sites against each other in the consultation, respondents did not deserve to be brushed aside with the misconceived accusation of NIMBYism. It's only too apparent from the documentation that locals know more about their locality than either Aggregate Industries or DCC. Councillors should appreciate people taking the time to furnish the facts, rather than criticise.

Local people are pragmatic enough to accept the need for sand and gravel, but Devon has over nine million tonnes already reserved and is using less than half a million tonnes each year. "But don't we need to build for economic recovery"? Like Spain, Ireland et al?

Why was DCC in such a hurry?

© Crown Copyright/MOD 2007

DCC recognised some time ago that airport safeguarding issues could restrict quarrying at Straitgate, and when the CAA has said that "It must be recognized that it is not possible for an aerodrome or aircraft operator to mitigate the hazard caused by water bodies and watercourses, or to prevent birds using areas of open water in the vicinity of the aerodrome" why was DCC so determined and in such a rush to select a site directly under Exeter Airport's flight path?

It's unclear who in DCC wrote Safeguarding Mineral Resources and Infrastructure in February 2011, but here it recognised that "To the north of the AONB, parts of the [Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds] have been sterilised by existing development at West Hill and Uffculme. However, the remainder of the resource is relatively unconstrained, although local designations, groundwater considerations and airport safeguarding arrangements may provide localised constraints."

These "localised constraints" plainly didn't concern DCC when it selected Straitgate as a Preferred Site. DCC had made its mind up some time before its Development Management Control (DMC) meeting of 7 March 2012, saying "All but one of the sites in the southern area were found to have at least one ‘showstopper’ impact in the site appraisals". In all likelihood DCC had decided much earlier, since Aggregate Industries had been assured enough to expense consultants' reports and plans, made available to the Council on 27 February. But how could DCC be so sure that Straitgate was the right site when the Site Appraisal was incomplete - "Conflict with Aerodrome Safeguarding Areas" being left with "In process of checking implication with airport"?

After all this was not an insignificant detail when Straitgate and other southern sites are directly under the flight path. The CAA has made clear that "almost without exception, water developments increase the bird hazard in ways that cannot be adequately controlled. Often, they are a consequence of minerals extraction, in which case there will probably be more similar proposals that will progressively surround the aerodrome with water. Even where this is not the case, there are nearly always pre-existing water bodies with populations of waterfowl nearby. In practice, isolated ponds that will not generate waterfowl movements do not exist. Any additional water will inevitably increase a pre-existing hazard from waterfowl."

DCC sent a copy of Aggregate Industries' plans to Exeter Airport shortly after 27 February, but didn't wait for their response before voting at the DMC meeting to consult on Straitgate and rejecting the alternatives. The Airport's reply arrived 2 days later, and said that "To ensure aviation safety it is suggested that no ponds or body of water be allowed as part of this development." At this point DCC could have still postponed its consultation, considered the advice, and had a re-think. But then DCC hadn't waited for the conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal either, which reported on the "sustainability issues relevant to each of the 21 potential quarry sites". This report was redundant in this respect by the time it was published in June, since 18 of the potential sites had already been rejected by DCC, landowners having been informed on 12 March with a very final "the appraisal work has concluded that the site within your ownership is unsuitable at the present time for mineral working due to one or more environmental constraints, and the County Council will not be considering it for inclusion in the Devon Minerals Plan."

How was DCC so certain that Straitgate, with all its water issues, could be worked dry or restored without water features? Continual pumping into watercourses would be required for the former. Importation of millions of tonnes of inert waste for the latter. DCC convinced attendees at its West Hill exhibition that landfill at Straitgate was not an option. In any case, there may not be the availability of sufficient inert waste with much now recycled, or it may not be economic with recent landfill tax changes, or even environmentally acceptable.

No - it seemed that only one thing mattered - Straitgate was owned by Aggregate Industries, and DCC assumed it was deliverable. People might have hoped that when it came to aircraft safety, the Council would have considered matters more carefully and with less haste.

Straitgate Quarry mock-up

click to enlarge

We have made various unsuccessful requests to Devon County Council and Aggregate Industries to make public the concept drawings of how AI propose to quarry and restore Straitgate Farm. The drawings have been produced by AI's consultants SLR, and, although at early stages, they have been made available to a number of statutory consultees. In the absense of these drawings, and in response to an idea from a local resident, we have produced an aerial mock-up to show the devastating impact a quarry at Straitgate Farm would have. If AI feel this mock-up fails to portray an accurate picture then we would of course be happy to publish their drawings.

click to enlarge