You couldn’t make this up!

Fancy that! Suddenly, at the 11th hour, Aggregate Industries has found a European Protected Species it can call its own; how remarkable, how helpful, how timely!

AI couldn’t be bothered to look properly for great crested newts around Straitgate Farm: "the majority of ponds within 500m of the site boundary were not surveyed due to lack of access permission" 2.3.1; the pond fed directly by Straitgate in nearby Cadhay Wood, indicated as likely to contain GCNs by a senior SLR ecologist, wasn’t even looked at. DCC had to request that:

The applicant should complete this survey in accordance with NE and DCC advice.

But it was nothing to do with access permission. AI has now changed its tune, saying that the majority of these ponds were in fact "non-existent or were dry hollows which were incapable of supporting breeding amphibians" 4.8. In which case, how can we rely on anything from the original report? Another pond, less than 500m away at Lowlands Farm, was also not identified or surveyed, despite again getting its water from Straitgate and showing up as clear as day on Google Earth.

But AI can find GCNs when it wants to, and now says that GCNs in one of its ponds at Rockbeare should stop the site being used as an alternative to Woodbury Common AONB SAC SPA SSSI.

A further significant constraint to the disposal of silt at Beggars Roost is the presence of Great Crested Newts (GCN) which has been identified during a survey of waterbodies at Rockbeare between April and June 2015. 8.17

AI must be getting worried if it's looking for new reasons to put 1.2 million HGV miles on our local roads, compromising the East Devon AONB and the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths, a site of European importance to nature. Because this claim did not come out in AI's original application - the one that was several years in the planning. In fact, why was AI suddenly looking for GCNs at Rockbeare, in a location it never intended to use, other than to present another obstacle for the site to be used as an alternative?

The ecologists AI used for Rockbeare, not SLR this time but JG Ecological Surveys Ltd, 33 Cranford Avenue, Exmouth, seemed to know exactly why the company wanted to find GCNs:

If from an operational perspective a viable alternative exists for ancillary quarrying operations to continue without disturbing/destroying GCN habitats then obtaining a licence for destruction or modification of GCN habitat would seem vulnerable to legal challenge.

It is the opinion of JG Ecological Surveys Ltd that alternative opportunities to achieve the operational objectives for the company while avoiding disturbance to the local populations of GCN at Rockbeare Quarry should be sought.

Unfortunately for AI, however, the ecologists we have spoken to see no reason why a licence should not be granted to move the newts to other ponds at Rockbeare, or other suitable ponds nearby, in much the same way that AI hopes to secure a licence for Straitgate to move dormice, another European Protected Species, before destroying 2km of ancient hedgerow. What GCNs could do to AI's plans, however, is add delay and expense; if it adds delay, then that will have been of AI's own making for not doing the survey earlier. Natural England has "issued about 1,000 licences to disturb great crested newts so far in 2015, the vast majority of which were to move them for development purposes".

Nevertheless, as we have said before, if AI cares about GCNs at Rockbeare and is worried about relocating them, it can always use a silt press, negating the need to use the area in question, and providing material that could be used to restore Straitgate.

And given that GCNs have now been found in the area, [SLR originally said: "The desk study found no records of great crested newt within 2 km of the proposed development site. This lack of records is reflective of the general Devon area." 3.1], AI should go back and look at the ponds surrounding Straitgate Farm more carefully, including the one in Cadhay Wood and the one at Lowlands Farm, and do a proper survey - as requested by Natural England. Perhaps AI could use JG Ecological Services Ltd this time, if they are better at finding ponds and GCNs than SLR.

But whilst AI takes a shine to GCNs, it's lost interest in bats & dormice at Straitgate

Aggregate Industries now wants to get away with NOT planting the 10,547m2 of trees that would have been "primarily managed for dormice" 8.257 - the trees it said had been planted between January and March 2015, but in actual fact had not. In addition, many of the trees that were planted in January 2014 will have to be moved for airport safeguarding and archaeology reasons.

AI will now therefore have to convince Natural England to grant it a European Protected Species Licence with little substantive mitigation planting in place to offset the loss of 2km of ancient hedgerows. AI thinks the bats and dormice using these hedgerows can take their chance mainly in the hedgerows and wooded areas that currently abound the site.

AI’s previous planting scheme was already substantially short of the 5,748m of new hedgerow that Defra suggests should be planted to offset the expected loss; AI said such shortfall "must be placed in the context of creating [14,547m2] of new woodland and tree belt habitat" 8.261-8.263:

Which begs the question, what context must that shortfall now be placed in - with so little of that 14,547m2 to be planted? Natural England recently told DCC:

We are also aware that tree and hedgerow planting proposed as mitigation for both landscape purposes and replacement habitat for the dormouse population may not yet be in place in the quantity identified throughout the documentation supporting this application...Your Authority will need to be satisfied that the mitigation plan proposed by the Applicant is deliverable in the quantity and to the quality required and within the appropriate timescales to provide the necessary replacement habitat.

AI’s lack of compensatory planting is completely at odds with what Natural England and an ecological consultant say on the subject, respectively:

Area provided should exceed losses in potentially high impact cases as the acceptability of new habitat to dormouse is not predictable… Planting of replacement habitat should begin as early as is practical in the works programme as it will take several years before areas become utilisable by dormouse both in terms of structure and food supply.

In fact, where significant impacts are predicted there will be an expectation that compensation will provide an enhanced habitat (in terms of quality or area) compared with that to be lost. Compensation should also remedy any loss of connectivity brought about through the development.

It’s much the same with bats. AI had originally said "Survey data demonstrated that bat activity was concentrated along hedgerows" 8.186.

DCC said "Before any works begin the applicant MUST evidence that bat flight lines around the site are maintained... habitat MUST be in place before works start".

But again, AI thinks it can do without any substantive compensatory planting, that the bats can rely on a reduced amount of hedgerows around the boundary instead, once the 2km of hedgerows within the site have been removed 4.20.

AI had originally conceded that:

Further, recent case law has clearly demonstrated that local planning authorities have a legal duty to consider the Habitats Regulations when making planning decisions; therefore the key considerations for the developer prior to gaining planning permission (and ultimately to enable grant of a licence) are to demonstrate that (i) sufficient habitat enhancement can be delivered in peripheral areas of the site; and (ii) that vegetation clearance to be phased such that dormouse can progressively retreat to enhanced marginal habitats. 4.1.5 [our emphasis]

It seems odd therefore that AI doesn’t think that sufficient habitat enhancement applies at Straitgate Farm - except on drawings. You will have heard of corporate 'green-washing'; well, AI's latest plans have been 'tree-washed': with broader existing tree-belts than Google Earth, you'd hardly know that '10,547m2 of trees' have been dropped from its plans.

Has AI now demonstrated ‘exceptional circumstances’?

The central premise behind Aggregate Industries’ application to process sand and gravel at Blackhill on Woodbury Common, AONB SAC SPA, is that it can’t process Straitgate's material anywhere else. However, the NPPF is clear:

Planning permission should be refused for major developments in [AONBs] except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest.

In AI's Regulation 22 response, it now considers that:

Given the absence of predicted significant adverse effects on the AONB and other protected sites; the absence of another suitable site for processing the mineral; and the need for the mineral to maintain the seven year landbank in Devon as set out in the NPPF; and particularly in the context of the benefit of allowing a further 5 years of processing at Blackhill, it is considered that exceptional circumstances exist that should enable the LPA to permit the 5 year extension of the existing operation at Blackhill Quarry. 8.58

There are no alternative sites for mineral processing that would either give rise to less damaging environmental impacts or offer a more sustainable solution. 2.34

Let’s consider this absence of another suitable site. AI thinks it has demonstrated the need to use an AONB, the need for 1.2 million polluting HGV miles, instead of using somewhere nearby:

...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

AI has supplied numbers, but many fall down on scrutiny.

Take lack of silt space. AI claims that "Beggars Roost has maximum operational depth of 4.5 metres and [is] therefore not capable of accommodating the volume of silt that would be generated from working the Straitgate material" 8.16. The lagoon at "Beggars Roost has a surface area of 28,850m2" 8.16, and therefore, with a depth of 4.5m, a volume of 130,000m3. AI would have us believe that the "total silt capacity arising from the proposed five year development at Straitgate will be 217,141m3" 8.11.

But AI can't be trusted with numbers. Because that silt volume figure is NOT derived from the actual amount that would be recovered, but from AI's exaggerated 1,659,781 saleable tonnes figure; a figure that fails to account for the 410,000 tonnes lost by leaving 1m of resource, as required by the EA and admitted by AI, and fails to include a realistic estimate of any resource won from the overburden.

In reality, if the mineral volume is 763,402m3, subtracting 256,000m3 for the 1m of resource above the maximum groundwater level leaves 507,402m3; of this, 20% - 101,000m3 - would be silt. If there are 200,000 saleable tonnes from overburden, then this would produce 50,000 tonnes of silt - again assuming AI's 20% wastage - which, at 1.7t/m3, would equate to 29,000m3. There would therefore be a requirement for 130,000m3 of silt capacity - which is apparently what Beggars Roost has.

Let's also not forget what AI said in 2003:

The processing of at least 20% of the Straitgate Farm mineral reserve at Rockbeare is necessary in order to generate sufficient silt to complete the approved restoration scheme at Rockbeare and Beggars Roost.

Furthermore, if AI is short of silt capacity at Rockbeare it can always do what has been done before; look at Rockbeare’s planning history:

03/06/1974 Excavation of land to form silt pond

09/04/1980 Construction of banks to enlarge capacity of silt pond

Now take lack of clean water storage. AI says:

Blackhill currently has approximately 132,000m3 of water storage [which has] only just been enough. 8.22 Rockbeare only has one notable water storage facility [which has] a capacity to hold approximately 88,000m3. 8.23

But wait a minute. AI also tells us:

There are various other water bodies around Rockbeare Quarry from previous workings. In the past, these have been used as clean water lagoons, returning water back to the processing plant. These would need to be retained should processing recommence at Rockbeare and could not be infilled with silt. 8.18

The one notable water storage facility has a surface area of around 12,300m2. The other water bodies have a combined surface area of about 7,400m2, and, assuming depths are similar, would provide 60% more water. This would give a total of 141,000m3, which would be more than enough.

Take insufficient stocking and processing area. AI now says - and shows why nothing can be trusted:

Blackhill Quarry currently occupies approximately 60,000m2 of surface area for material stockpiling 8.28 The available footprint for stockpiles at Rockbeare Works is restricted to 34,000m2 8.30

But only a few months ago, AI's planning application was telling us all that:

At present AI uses 3.85 ha [38,500m2] of land at Blackhill Quarry for stockpiles 5.35

And even in one of the Regulation 22 responses:

At the time of a survey carried out by the applicant in October 2014 the stockpiles covered an area of approximately 2.5ha [25,000m2] 3.29

Plainly AI has no idea what area they cover, and, in any case, it should not be too difficult to find space in a site that totals over 160,000m2 in area. But, who’s to say that AI must work in the same way as it does at Blackhill? Or that the stockpiles should be so large?

The subject of great crested newts we’ll keep for another time. Save to say, if AI can secure a licence for dormice - another European Protected Species - at Straitgate, and destroy 2km of hedgerows and dormouse habitat, it can secure a licence to move newts.

So, AI has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances. It has a perfectly suitable site just down the road from Straitgate - a site that's derelict and not in an AONB; a site with a history of mineral processing, on which mobile plant could be employed - like many other operations are forced to. If AI's really short of silt capacity and/or water, and is really bothered by great crested newts, it can always use a silt press - as the company itself suggested 5.37 - and return the material to restore Straitgate. If Straitgate really cannot be processed locally, then another quarry site should be sought. Because what will AI do in 3,4,5 years time, when it wants to extend operations? Plead exceptional circumstances again?? And again??

And on the subject of stockpiles

Aggregate Industries can't be trusted on these either - we've written about stockpiles before.

 Now AI says:

...the existing stockpiles do not currently break the wooded skyline in any of the views visited. It is therefore concluded that so long as the stockpiles do not significantly increase in height then this key landscape characteristic should be adequately protected for the duration of the proposed extension of time. EMMP 3.2 Management of Stockpiles

Maybe AI should have visited more views.

Are AI’s plans unravelling?

As part of its Regulation 22 request, DCC asked Aggregate Industries:

Please can the Applicant clarify the legal query over land ownership sent to them on 9th July 2015. Reason: To ensure that the proposal can be implemented in the manner proposed in the application

The land in question is the northern field, the proposed access to the site. It is owned by a third party. AI has now replied, and has said:

This matter is being addressed directly between the applicant and the surface land owner. The applicant contends that it has necessary rights over the surface to implement the proposals as presented 8.78

Which is interesting, because, since the initial request on 13 May, AI has been unable to supply any evidence that it has the necessary rights over the surface, despite repeated requests.

In fact, on 25 June, DCC was advised by solicitors that:

The area of land in question, as owned by our clients has been designated as land suitable for use as a transportation hub and we confirm that Aggregate Industries have not supplied evidence of their right to use that land for those purposes. Our clients therefore wish to object on the basis that their land will be used for purposes beyond the extent of any usage rights that Aggregate Industries have.

DCC has allocated Straitgate Farm as a Specific Site in its draft Minerals Plan. But a Specific Site is:

where viable resources are known to exist, landowners are supportive of minerals development and the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms.

Unfortunately for both AI and DCC, this landowner is NOT supportive.

AI now admits it's down to 900,000 tonnes of resource

Several months ago we calculated that Aggregate Industries had overstated the saleable resource by at least 500,000 tonnes, after its claims that the 1.66 million tonnes figure already factored in the 1m maintained above the maximum water table to satisfy the Environment Agency.

DCC therefore asked AI "to provide a simple, but evidenced assessment of the resource available". This is AI's response:

Applying this loss factor results in a saleable quantity of 1,659,780 tonnes of sand and gravel, 1,200,000 tonnes of which is from the Pebble Bed deposit. 8.76

AI's gross volume of 1,408,000m3 agrees with our calculations of 5.47m x 256,000m2 = 1,400,000m3, but the company is still claiming "a saleable quantity of 1,659,780 tonnes".

But now however, and contrary to what was previously said, it goes on to admit:

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

Since elsewhere in the Regulation 22 response it now accepts that:

...in the main floor of the quarry will be the in-situ layer of unworked “pebble beds” mineral, of c1m, which is left for hydrological purposes. 5.4

the "saleable quantity of 1,659,780 tonnes" cannot therefore be "saleable" at all, and the resource available, excluding anything from the overburden, is now 900,000 tonnes - by AI's reckoning.

But AI has even made a hash of this calculation. Elsewhere AI accepts that:

... 256,000m3, being the volume required to restore a 1m soil thickness over the base of the mineral working. 5.9

but it's simple arithmetic to work out that the 300,000 tonnes AI has deducted for the 1m should in fact be:

256,000m3 x 80% (allowing 20% wastage) x 2 tonnes/m3 = 410,000 saleable tonnes

In which case the resource is 1,200,000 - 410,000 = 790,000 tonnes, before overburden.

For that overburden, AI has unrealistically assumed the same wastage of 20% as it has for the Pebble Beds. We were previously advised by AI’s Head of Geological Services that the overburden:

...can only be quantified on a month by month basis in a working scenario as it can depend as much on the weather as the skill of the excavator driver whether blending is possible. It is therefore not a tonnage I can quote in a formal Competent Person Report, however I would anticipate nominal tonnages and if pushed to guess would say approx, 200,000 saleable tonnes...

In total, therefore, AI has no more than 990,000 tonnes, including any speculative overburden.

This is the quantity - less than 3 years worth - that must now be weighed against the harm and the destruction of an East Devon farm.

This is the quantity that should have been in the draft Devon's Minerals Plan that is now out for consultation. DCC was warned, but chose to believe AI instead. But then DCC has made the same mistake before. Back in 2013 we wrote "DCC is overstating the 'recoverable' resource at Straitgate by more than 50%":

So if we are going to talk about destroying a farm and violating the East Devon landscape, creating something like the photograph above, let's consult on the correct figures so that local people know exactly what's involved and are able to make an informed response. We should then consider how little economically recoverable sand and gravel there actually is at Straitgate Farm, and debate whether that's a price worth paying for the loss of so much.

AI responds to DCC requests for extra information - and another consultation begins

Aggregate Industries has now responded to DCC’s list of 82 points requiring further information - 61 for Straitgate and 21 for Blackhill; these Regulation 22 responses can be found towards the bottom of the respective planning application pages [DCC/3774/2015] for Straitgate and [DCC/3775/2015] for Blackhill.

There’s another mass of documents, another 21 days to respond, and another collection of errors, omissions and inaccuracies. Does anyone at SLR or AI actually check what’s being written, or is there serious intent to mislead?

If anybody had checked, they might have realised that AI's claim that 25,912,000 tonnes of CO2e would be emitted over the lifetime of its Straitgate to Blackhill haulage operation - an amazing "21.72 t CO2e per miles" [sic] 8.34 - was more than 100x AI’s total UK process emissions of 254,495 tCO2e in 2013.

It’s more than a simple typo, and plainly whoever wrote it didn't understand what they were talking about, because AI goes on to make the claim that "The CO2 saving of processing at Blackhill over Hillhead is, therefore, 47,241,000 tonnes of CO2e." 8.35 and that therefore:

Processing at Hillhead may be feasible, but would generate a massively greater quantity of CO2 emissions from the additional mileage required to be travelled... the benefit of CO2 savings from processing at Blackhill rather than Hillhead outweigh any potential harm from HGVs continuing to use roads which pass through the European Protected Sites in the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths. 8.48

If anybody had checked the facts, they might have realised that the statement "The proposed section of permissive path along Birdcage Lane in the north east of the site has been amended following discussion with the landowner" 2.104 was a complete fabrication; the landowner hasn't ever been approached on the matter.

If anybody had checked, they might have realised that in the statement "In visual terms, the slight contrast in colour between exposed mineral and undisturbed green pasture land can result in adverse effects..." 4.3 EMMP the word slight was frankly ridiculous.

Nothing in AI’s planning applications can necessarily be relied upon or taken at face value.

If anyone has any comments on these new documents, they can be sent either by email to planning@devon.gov.uk or to Devon County Council, Development Management, Room AB2, Lucombe House, County Hall, Exeter EX2 4QD. Respondents should give their name and address, and quote the planning application reference. 

MCAs - When legal advice was issued on this matter back in 2002…

...an eminent barrister advised:

And yet DCC wants to splash Mineral Consultation Areas widely across the county, 'safeguarding' all sorts of uneconomic, unrecoverable, unviable deposits, potentially blighting the homes of thousands of people. Most of those affected wouldn't find out - (DCC says "notifying every property within such areas would be disproportionate and not a justified use of our resources") - until they tried to sell their house, when the purchaser’s local search would reveal whether the property is within (not adjacent or nearby to) a MCA. A property encumbered with such a designation and with open land nearby is likely to ring alarm bells for most purchasers, or at least give reason to secure a sizeable discount.

As we said before: Across the county, the Minerals Plan could wipe millions of pounds from the value of Devon’s homes.

Hugo Swire MP holds meeting with Aggregate Industries

Useful meeting with @AggregateUK. Opportunity to stress concerns that constituents have about #Straitgate development pic.twitter.com/QOzall1psY

— Hugo Swire (@HugoSwire) September 23, 2015

'If planning is eventually granted then I do feel that DCC should explore alternative entry and exit points to mitigate the disruption that this development will cause.'

Is this really the best way to safeguard minerals?

DCC’s new draft Minerals Plan intends to safeguard huge swathes of minerals across the county - outlined on its interactive map as Mineral Consultation Areas. Since the risk of future quarry working, however remote, would be enough to put off most home buyers, thousands of homes could be needlessly blighted. Needlessly blighted, because most areas safeguarded would have little prospect of ever being worked.

DCC says it aims to conserve Devon’s minerals by:

the safeguarding of economic mineral resources from sterilisation by other development 3.31

To ensure a robust approach that ensures the protection of those resources currently or potentially of economic value, reflects Devon’s local characteristics and strikes a realistic balance that avoids protecting large areas of mineral resource with no prospect of future working, Devon County Council... has undertaken a detailed review of potential resources. 3.3.5 [our emphasis]

DCC states:

The inclusion of land within a Mineral Safeguarding Area carries no presumption that mineral development would be acceptable or that planning permission would be forthcoming for extraction of the underlying mineral resource... 3.3.8

But, since DCC says it has avoided protecting "large areas of mineral resource with no prospect of future working", the corollary is that the Council has only protected those areas that could be worked. Let’s list some of those areas that could be worked:

Woodbury Common & Castle, East Devon Golf Club, Bicton College & Gardens & Arena, Woodbury Park Hotel Golf & Country Club, Bystock Pools Nature Reserve, Aylesbeare Common Nature Reserve, South West Coast Path, Budleigh Salterton to Exmouth cycle path, Squabmoor Reservoir, East Devon Way. Look at the map for yourself and see how many other nonsensical areas have been 'safeguarded'.

In correspondence, DCC says:

Both MSAs and MCAs exclude existing settlements (as defined by settlement boundaries in district councils’ existing and emerging Local Plans), as mineral resources underlying those settlements are effectively already sterilised, and also to avoid a disproportionate level of consultation between district and county councils. [our emphasis]

but that will be no comfort to those with homes in:

Fairmile, Yettington, parts of Budleigh Salterton, Coombelake, Taleford, parts of West Hill & Higher Metcombe, Larkbeare, parts of Feniton, Colestocks, Kerswell, parts of Kentisbeare, Smithincott, Yondercott, Appledore, Hawkerland and Stoneyford.

Many of the deposits in these locations would be completely unworkable - see the Colestocks MCA, for example. Tick 'sand and gravel' to see the ridiculous size of deposit being 'protected' - not in fact economic at all.

And this is just for the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds.

This broad-brush way of safeguarding minerals appears to be a particularly lazy way of doing things, likely to bring distress to many. The majority of homes affected won't even have been informed about what is planned or that there is a current consultation.

B3180 - AI's mining haul road

In mining, the haul roads - from rock face to processing plant - "represent the highest capital expenditure requirement". But not so for Aggregate Industries in East Devon. When AI mines sand and gravel from the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds, it conveniently uses our public B roads - across wildlife conservation areas - causing damage and safety concerns.

[Article] The mine haul road network is a critical component of mining production process http://t.co/PoOnEL48ti pic.twitter.com/BYLAV1m9Pu

— Soil Solutions (@SoilSolutions) September 16, 2015

"The haul road is either the mine’s greatest asset or greatest liability" http://t.co/kX7EVPdRci @CatMining pic.twitter.com/PznIRJ1a19

— Soil Solutions (@SoilSolutions) September 17, 2015

Is Devon's new Minerals Plan sound?

"Effects on people’s health may not be reversible" - That’s what local people can look forward to, according to DCC's Sustainability Appraisal Report (SA), if quarrying were to be permitted at Straitgate - and that’s when the SA assumes "Approximately 100 HGV movements per day", not the 140 average, 200 maximum, that Aggregate Industries wants. It’s another price local people would pay whilst AI profits from destroying an East Devon farm.

SAs are meant to inform the preparation of a Minerals Plan. A SA was meant to inform the selection of preferred sand and gravel sites in East Devon back in 2012; it didn’t:

At the time, the Environment Agency commented:

We advise that this SA should have accompanied the formal consultation in March 2012… In this circumstance it is not clear how the SA has influenced the preferred site options which have been put forward by your Authority. It is apparent from the SA that some of the excluded sites may [be] preferable in environmental terms.

It’s something to bear in mind when DCC says "In commenting on the Pre-submission Consultation Devon Minerals Plan, you are entitled to make representations on whether the Plan is (a) legally compliant and (b) sound".

Why? Because in the draft Minerals Plan, DCC now misleadingly claims:

Each of these stages [of Preparation of the Devon Minerals Plan] was accompanied by publication of the evidence supporting the emerging Plan, while preparation has also been informed by Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment. 1.4.2

Even on its website, DCC claims:

Following appraisal of options for sand and gravel sites in East and Mid Devon, a Sustainability Appraisal Report was published following consultation with statutory consultees, and has informed subsequent decisions on the choice of sites for inclusion in the Minerals Plan.

A similar claim is made in Minerals Topic Paper 4.1:

To inform future decisions on the identification of sand and gravel sites in East and Mid Devon, the County Council's sustainability appraisal team published a draft Sustainability Appraisal Report on the East and Mid Devon site options in June 2012. 7.1

The SA didn’t inform "the choice of sites for inclusion in the Minerals Plan" in East Devon because in its haste, perhaps worried that the SA would not give the right 'answer', DCC rejected the nine alternative sites to Straitgate for sand and gravel extraction months before the SA was even published.

It’s an important matter. Melton Borough Council's plan was withdrawn after the Inspector said:

...it is not evident that the sustainability considerations have informed the site selection process. This makes the plan very vulnerable to legal challenge.

DCC’s site appraisal process for sand and gravel was a forgone conclusion - an entirely artificial exercise designed to make Straitgate look the best option among the southern sites.

Artificial? DCC claims that potential alternative sites excluded "outcrops which are too small to be quarried or have already been built on, and those very distant from the strategic road network" 5.4 MTP 4.1.

This is nonsense. A number of the alternatives were plainly unworkable. The SA recognised that "S9 is too small to be viable... It is therefore not a reasonable option and has thus not been subject to SA". S4 was also clearly too small; S2 and S3 too far from the SRN. From the remaining sites that might have been workable, the SA confirmed Straitgate (S7) to be one of the most constrained. Something to bear in mind when DCC says:

Soundness of the Devon Minerals Plan should be assessed against the following... : Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives...

DCC now makes the point that:

It is important to note that the sustainability appraisal was carried out on the original site boundaries shown in Figures 2 and 3, not those refined in light of the appraisal findings (detailed in Section 5) and published in the ‘Future Quarrying in East and Mid Devon’ local consultation. 7.2

but the SA on Straitgate's revised boundaries still contains a hefty amount of significant negative effects:

Seemingly it doesn’t matter what anybody tells DCC. The Council is set on having Straitgate in its plan - even despite there being no acceptable way (acceptable to both AI and DCC, that is) of actually processing the minerals.

DCC says "The Minerals Plan is not making provision for the processing of material from Straitgate at Blackhill" and "Given the apparent availability of an alternative location for processing at Rockbeare... it may be difficult for the site promoter to demonstrate the ‘exceptional circumstances’ required for development in the AONB" MTP4.1; AI says Rockbeare’s not possible "due to lack of space especially for stockpiles and silt storage; and non-availability of process water" 38. DCC accepts that "While this represents a risk to the deliverability of Straitgate Farm, this is a matter that can be tested through a future planning application and should not preclude allocation of the site in the Minerals Plan" MTP4.1.

It seems utterly perverse for the Minerals Plan to allocate Straitgate Farm as a "Specific Site" - supposedly a designation where "the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms" - when so much risk hangs over its deliverability. Again, something to bear in mind when DCC says:

Soundness of the Devon Minerals Plan should be assessed against the following... : Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period...

AI will no doubt, in any submission it makes in response to the Minerals Plan, make the case for again extending the life of Blackhill - the plant that's 8.2 miles away from Straitgate in an AONB without an adjoining active quarry, that was supposed to close years ago after the EC designated the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths an important area for conservation. It will no doubt make out that up to 200 HGV movements a day - a total of 1.2 million CO2 polluting miles over 5 years - "are insignificant to cause a noticeable impact to road users" 4.3.

However, the new Minerals Plan's Vision is that:

Spatial pattern of new mineral development will minimise its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, while the design and management of quarries, including their use of renewable energy sources, will enhance Devon’s ability to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

and "Wherever possible, the processing of the mineral should take place on-site to minimise transportation distances" 8.8.2.

In fact, both the Climate Change Act p.122 SA and the SEA Directive require that "The Minerals Plan should help achieve the UK Government’s targets for reductions in CO2 and other targeted greenhouse gasses through reducing emissions from minerals operations and transport" Table 3-1 SA, because we should all remember, as indeed the SA points out:

The minerals industry is the third highest energy-consuming industrial sub-sector in the UK.

The extraction, processing and transport of minerals are probably responsible for about 7% of total global energy consumption. This effect is assessed as significant negative due to the global scope of the effects, the reality that global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise despite an urgency to reduce emissions, and the strong likelihood of cumulative effects alongside emissions from other non-minerals development. Emissions will return to predevelopment levels following restoration but the 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.

The movement of people across the world we are seeing today will be nothing compared with the numbers that future generations will need to deal with if we don’t act on climate change.

Without a climate deal at #COP21, French President @fhollande notes "we'll have millions of refugees in 20-30 yrs." http://t.co/uukDaxcuJl

— Mikell O'Mealy (@mikellomealy) September 10, 2015

To put the importance of Straitgate’s biodiversity into context

"Teign Valley is high spot for rare wildlife species", ran a headline last week.

Wildlife surveys carried out for the Woodland Trust and National Trust have revealed that Fingle Woods contains some of the richest diversity found in woodland in the South West of England.

Along with birds, butterflies and invertebrates, the woods contain a rich diversity of wildlife, including:

Dormice found in five locations. Nine species of bats were recorded in Fingle Woods, over half the species in the entire UK bat fauna, making Fingle Woods significantly important.

Such an article serves to put Straitgate’s wildlife into context, where ecologists found 25 dormouse nests and eight dormice out of 100 survey tubes, and at least eleven bat species.

Aggregate Industries should feel proud that its tenant farmer has so successfully combined dairy farming with rare and protected species all on one site!

Gravel at Hillhead

If anybody gets to the small print of Devon's new draft Minerals Plan, they will find the statement:

Information provided by the operator since 2011 indicates that the proportion of crushable gravel… within the BSPB decreases from south to north. While the proportion of crushable gravel in the Ottery St Mary area is not significantly lower than at the existing Blackhill and Venn Ottery quarries, the resource around Uffculme is much less gravel-rich. This further supports the need to consider future sand and gravel supply from both the northern and southern options. [our emphases] Minerals Topic Paper 4.1

As we’ve seen with Aggregate Industries’ planning application for Straitgate Farm, "information provided by the operator" is not always a good guide - if the figures on resource, overburden, silt and need are anything to go by.

However, if there is any shortage of gravel around Uffculme then it didn’t stop Hillhead Quarry operating for decades:

Sand and gravel working has been taking place at Hillhead since before the Second World War

If there is any shortage of gravel from south to north then it doesn’t stop Hanson working Town Farm Quarry near Burlescombe, north of Uffculme.

If there is any shortage of gravel around Uffculme then it won't stop AI from applying to quarry Penslade if its application for Straitgate founders.

If there is any shortage of gravel then why did AI’s Estates Manager, in a relation to a query about Penslade's resource, say that there was a "similar quality at Straitgate as at Uffculme"?

If there is any shortage of gravel then it hasn't stopped DCC from relying on Penslade to cover the sand and gravel shortfall indicated in its Minerals Plan.

Nevertheless, it suits DCC to buy in to AI’s argument. It suits its misguided reasoning that:

Retention of working within the northern and southern areas was considered to be the most sustainable option as it would minimise the distances that sand and gravel will need to be transported to major markets such as Exeter and Taunton. Pursuit of this option was also considered to provide greater flexibility to respond to future changes in demand 4.15

But the illogic of that statement is quickly exposed in the Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal Report:

Note: It is not the intention of the Devon Minerals Plan for simultaneous sand and gravel extraction to occur at West of Penslade Cross and Straitgate Farm…

In which case, it’s not clear how maintaining northern and southern areas would minimise any transport distances, particularly when Straitgate, the southern area, entails - as it stands - a processing proposal of 1.2 million miles, and the northern area - capable of supporting on-site processing - zero miles.

Miscellaneous

1. AI would be restricted to quarrying down to 1m above the maximum water table...

But in New Zealand, there were fears that thousands of Christchurch residents could have contaminated drinking water when a quarry was served an abatement notice "after it breached a consent condition requiring it to stay at least one metre above the highest known level of the water table".

The quarry company claims, of course, that its operations have remained above groundwater levels at all times, but locals disagree saying 'quarrying into the aquifers would have gone unnoticed had residents not laid a complaint with the regional council'.

...this water is precious to the whole city of Christchurch and we're in disbelief

2. Another case of quarried land not going back to farmland...

Hundreds of people have signed a petition in a bid to stop an Oxfordshire quarry site being redeveloped into a business park.

It was due to be returned to farmland but Faringdon Town Council's neighbourhood plan has earmarked the area for industrial use.

3. Aggregate Industries’ boss jumps ship