AI fails to comply with planning conditions – AGAIN

Aggregate Industries seemingly has little regard for planning conditions. Only last month, we posted AI in “non-compliance” with YET ANOTHER Section 106 agreement, arguing:  

This is plainly not a company that can be trusted to respond in a timely manner if drinking water sources were to be corrupted from quarrying activities at Straitgate.

In its role as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority, Devon County Council "carry out monitoring visits for all mineral and landfill sites to ensure compliance with the terms of their planning permissions". The resulting reports can be found here. The Council recently paid such a visit to Aggregate Industries’ Westleigh Quarry complex near Tiverton.

Apart from detailing a "high level" of dust complaints and "a number of blasting complaints", the resulting report details a failure to comply with planning conditions. 

This is not an isolated incident. In 2018, we posted how the company had failed to comply with other planning conditions at Westleigh.  

The latest non-compliance relates to planning application DCC/4007/2017, a "Section 73 application to vary the approved working scheme to extract an additional 600,000 tonnes". We wrote various posts about this application – including about the dust and the bully-boy tactics – how:

Objections to application DCC/4007/2017 to vary the working scheme at Westleigh Quarry tell a story of dust inside and outside homes, of noise, of blasting vibration, of HGV problems on unsuitable roads, of damage to roads going un-repaired, of rules continuously being broken, of a complaints system that doesn't work, even of a "Section 106 condition from the 1997 Application [that] remains unfulfilled".

The planning application to vary the approved working scheme – excavating the south east corner of Rocknell quarry – was approved on 15 January 2019 subject to various conditions, one of which was to submit a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan for the site within six months:  

REASON: To safeguard the rural character of the locality reduce the visual impact of the site and in order to promote nature conservation interests at the site in accordance with Policies M17 and M18 of the Devon Minerals Plan 2011-2033.

Did Aggregate Industries take this condition seriously? Not judging by this passage in Devon County Council’s recent monitoring report: 

This scheme was initially due on 15/07/2019. One was not supplied. This was raised at the last monitoring visit and it was logged on the report as ‘work required’ with an extension until 06/02/2020. A draft LEMP was supplied on the 14 May 2020 however it needed to be revised to be acceptable and formally submitted. This is still yet to be provided.

A revised draft document was eventually submitted last month – more than 18 months late. 

Devon County Council also details a further non-compliance issue, which dates back to the unfulfilled Section 106 condition from 1997: 

Section 106 Agreement dated 15 January 2019. The hydrogeology aspects relate to certain depth of working where a water resource monitoring “water scheme” is to be submitted. This process is said to be ongoing and consultation underway with the Environment Agency. It will need to be decided whether the scheme is fundamentally unacceptable to the Environmental Agency.

In other words, water monitoring conditions that were meant to be sorted out in 1997 – the ones now detailed in the S106 dated 15 January 2019 – seemingly still remain up in the air almost 25 years later. 

And this the company local people are meant to have faith in to safeguard their drinking water??

AI’s Westleigh application to be decided next week

Aggregate Industries' Westleigh Quarry near Burlescombe is currently the subject of planning application DCC/4007/2017 to vary the approved working scheme to extract an additional 600,000 tonnes. The application will come before DCC’s DMC committee next week.

We have made various posts concerning Westleigh this year, including how AI has been failing to control dust emissions.

Readers will see how DCC has addressed such issues in the officer's report that recommends approval of this application.

Objections to the application related to:

4.3 Of the objections, the principal areas of concern were: impact of HGV movements through Burlescombe, especially at during school drop off times; safety of the school children; the condition of the road due to HGV movements; speed, queuing and convoys of HGVs; emissions from HGVs impacting health; structural damage to listed bridges; volume of traffic increasing; structural damage to buildings due to blasting; amenity impact of vibration from blasting; increase in dust; protection of the amenity of houses adjacent to the application site; the quarry currently operating outside permitted hours; loss of existing landscape planting; value of the biodiversity in the area proposed for extraction; issues with the existing water diversion scheme; adequate existing reserves in other areas of the quarry; suitability of the proposed action plans and monitoring regimes for vibration, dust and noise; time required for replacement planting to mature; out of date information supplied; existing issues unresolved with regard to noise and blasting, spillages on the highway, movements of HGVs during day and night, and pre-emptive vegetation clearance work.

On the issue of dust:

6.43 It is acknowledged that there have been a number of dust complaints over the last seven months, which resulted in an investigation that required further dust assessments and consultation with Public Health England regarding the monitoring results. Meetings were held with the quarry operator and revised dust suppression measures were implemented which improved matters. The latest results from dust monitoring from May 2018 have yet to be released, although anecdotal information has been supplied which suggested that the situation had greatly improved.

6.44 It is considered that the existing control measures are ensuring that any residual impact is adequately mitigated. However, the existing monitoring scheme has been reviewed, amended and incorporated into a more comprehensive environmental scheme. This latter scheme also includes measures to identify, control and mitigate the effects of noise and blasting. The current planning consent did not require monitoring schemes for either of these impacts and therefore the approval of this current application would provide betterment in this regard. Further to this, given that future operations at Rocknell will not extend any closer to the present nearest privately-owned residential properties it is concluded the impacts of dust, groundborne vibration and air overpressure can be suitably controlled to within the limits specified by the attached scheme.

6.45 Aside from the complaints, it must be acknowledged that the approving this application is likely to increase controls in terms of dust and vibration. Given the above although dust is an ongoing concern, it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on based potential dust impacts associated with this application.

AI’s bully-boy tactics

Threatening tenants with eviction in order to get its own way is obviously part of Aggregate Industries' toolbox of bully-boy tactics.

You might think we’re talking about Straitgate Farm, and AI threatening a young family and their children with eviction from their home and their livelihood.

But no. This is to do with AI’s Westleigh Quarry, near Burlescombe.

AI’s dust problems at Westleigh have been getting worse this year. It’s embarrassing for AI, because it comes at a time when the company is trying to win permission to extract another 600,000 tonnes. We’ve posted about this before, how:

Objections to application DCC/4007/2017 to vary the working scheme at Westleigh Quarry tell a story of dust inside and outside homes, of noise, of blasting vibration, of HGV problems on unsuitable roads, of damage to roads going un-repaired, of rules continuously being broken, of a complaints system that doesn't work, even of a "Section 106 condition from the 1997 Application [that] remains unfulfilled".

So, does AI put in additional measures to control the dust and air quality to acceptable standards?

No. Based on this letter, which followed "telephone conversations last week with both Aggregate Industries and Mr Kevin Gough from Advance Environmental", AI puts the blame on DCC planning conditions and threatens a nearby tenant with eviction instead:

I am advised that it may be necessary for notice to be given to terminate my tenancy as the company would not be able to meet the conditions set.

What a lovely company to have working in the community.

AI has been failing to control dust emissions

Aggregate Industries is confident it can control the dust arising from any quarry operation at Straitgate:

The potential for fugitive dust emissions from the proposed excavation of sand and gravel at Straitgate Farm is minimal...

It’s a pretty meaningless statement; satisfying a tick-box exercise, using an off-the-shelf report, the bulk of which has been wheeled out countless times before.

But for all the rhetoric, AI has been failing to control dust emissions from its quarries this summer, not just at its Bardon Hill "super quarry" in Leicestershire, but also at Westleigh Quarry in Devon.

Westleigh is currently the subject of a planning application to vary the approved working scheme to extract an additional 600,000 tonnes; we posted about this in May, how:

Objections to application DCC/4007/2017 to vary the working scheme at Westleigh Quarry tell a story of dust inside and outside homes, of noise, of blasting vibration, of HGV problems on unsuitable roads, of damage to roads going un-repaired, of rules continuously being broken, of a complaints system that doesn't work, even of a "Section 106 condition from the 1997 Application [that] remains unfulfilled".

Since then, AI’s dust problems at Westleigh have got worse. That’s embarrassing for AI, at a time when the company is trying to win permission for another 600,000 tonnes. AI’s dust consultants were wheeled in again, but they couldn’t use an off-the-shelf response this time, reckoning that:

As you are aware, after conclusion of the monitoring, complaints were received regarding high levels of dust deposition at residential properties in Westleigh Village. This corresponded with the extensive period of hot and dry weather combined with northerly winds creating uncharacteristic conditions for this time of year. It has been acknowledged that fugitive emissions from the quarry were responsible and this resulted in action being taken by the quarry to implement additional dust mitigation measures.

Bravo. But no apology, of course, for the health impact on local residents.

Since then, Public Health England has responded to new information provided for the application:

We note that due to the increasing number of dust complaints relating to the quarry since May 2018, the applicant has undertaken further dust monitoring, which remains ongoing. In addition, improved dust control measures have been incorporated into the site management plans to mitigate fugitive emissions of dust off-site.

We recommend that the Local Authority should ensure that the enhanced dust control measures are adequate prior to issuing any planning permission.

Another AI quarry in Devon non-compliant with planning conditions

Remember the S106 groundwater agreement that Aggregate Industries didn’t comply with at Blackhill Quarry – for years?

Now another AI quarry in Devon has the red seal of Non-Compliance. At Westleigh Quarry "a new access ramp [was] constructed contrary to approved plans", and contrary to conditions that stipulate:

No development shall be carried out other than in strict accordance with the approved plans... unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority.




Readers can find DCC's site monitoring reports for quarries in Devon here.

Westleigh is currently the subject of planning application DCC/4007/2017 to vary the approved working scheme to extract an additional 600,000 tonnes. We've recently posted about the problems that Westleigh has brought to Burlescombe, here and here.

AI is obviously not in any rush to comply with these planning conditions, given that:

The condition was identified as requiring compliance (within 12 months) and listed as AMBER ‘work required’ on 1 August 2017.

And DCC is obviously in no rush to enforce these planning conditions, given that the Council now:

Requires Compliance by the following date 08/08/2019

Two years – for merely "amended working plans... to accurately reflect the circumstances across the site" where AI should be working in strict accordance with the plans – gives the reader another example of how much importance, how much urgency, both mineral operator and council attach to conditions.

It was the same with the neglect of AI's S106 obligations at Blackhill, where annual hydrological monitoring reports were submitted late or not at all:

So, what hope is there for Straitgate, and the aquifer AI wants to quarry into, when there's such disregard for planning conditions? What hope is there that people wouldn't lose their drinking water supplies, or that supplies wouldn't become contaminated?

And what hope is there for people who lose those supplies, if there's such disregard for timeliness and urgency? How long would it take – "in the opinion of the County Council, in consultation with the Environment Agency, on the balance of probability..." – for DCC to swing into action? How long would it take – "in the opinion of the County Council, in consultation with the Environment Agency..." – for AI to restore alternative supplies, temporary or permanent? How long would people be without water? Days? Weeks? Months? If AI were to be found guilty – "on the balance of probability" – the company promises action "forthwith". But does that mean 2 weeks, 2 months or, as above, 2 years? Does than mean before or after the consultants and lawyers have had their say? What's that promise worth without a number? What's that promise worth with such failings and lack of urgency elsewhere in the county?

Think it couldn't happen? Here are some examples of how much notice the minerals industry takes of planning conditions and water tables; in one case "residents [had] no basic water supply for in excess of 13 months".

The joy that AI brings to other communities

You don’t have to go far to see the impact of Aggregate Industries’ quarries on local communities.

AI claims:

Our people and the communities in which we operate are important to us. We are committed to being a responsible partner, effectively contributing to improving the quality of life of the members of our workforce, their families and the communities around our operations.

But judging by a long list of objections to a planning application from AI last year, some residents living around Westleigh Quarry near Burlescombe would beg to differ.

They do not paint a picture of AI’s operations "improving the quality of life". Far from it.

Objections to application DCC/4007/2017 to vary the working scheme at Westleigh Quarry tell a story of dust inside and outside homes, of noise, of blasting vibration, of HGV problems on unsuitable roads, of damage to roads going un-repaired, of rules continuously being broken, of a complaints system that doesn't work, even of a "Section 106 condition from the 1997 Application [that] remains unfulfilled".

[This last point obviously won't instil any confidence for those 100 or so people around Straitgate hoping that a S106 agreement would take care of any problems that AI and its excavators might cause to their drinking water supplies.]

AI says that the "communities in which we operate are important to us"; one respondent to the Westleigh application claimed AI treats local residents "with utter contempt".

It was a similar story in Uffculme in 2013 for AI’s retrospective bagging plant planning application:

Arrogance of Company; no local consultation; contempt for local community...

It’s not just in Devon either. Here are two posts we made in 2014 and in 2013 about AI’s community relations in Staffordshire:

The reality is that Aggregate is sticking up two fingers to the wishes of the people of Uttoxeter.

In 2014 we posted how Community engagement is not about being nice; it’s the fourth pillar of CSR, about how:

... it is about companies being part of, not apart from, society.

Of course, Westleigh is on a different scale to any operation that would be permitted at Straitgate Farm: It is a hard rock quarry; extraction involves blasting; processing plant is on site; output is 800-900k tonnes pa – roughly one Straitgate a year. It already has planning consent until 2046; but that’s not enough for AI – the 2017 application is looking to extract an additional 600k tonnes over a 9-month period.

But issues with AI’s Westleigh Quarry go further back.

Whilst AI’s application of 2017 made a point of saying that "mineral extraction has occurred at Westleigh Quarry since at least the early 1800s", it made no mention of the Westleigh Quarry Community Survey that was performed – following a long history of complaints – in 2014.

This was an independent survey, jointly funded by the Parish Council, DCC and AI, that produced a long list of measures that, in the community’s view, would improve matters.

DCC is now holding a consultation – Responding to community concerns – Westleigh Quarry – seeking views on two of the measures put forward. Anyone with an interest has until 7 June to respond.