How many AI suits does it take to have a meeting with the EA?

No, it’s not the start of a joke. A meeting at the Environment Agency on Thursday saw seven 'suits' turn up from Aggregate Industries and Amec in an effort to explain why it would be a good idea to quarry right down to the water table at Straitgate Farm, and backfill with material not good enough for quarrying.

After three years of preparation, and after a mountain of documents, it’s either an indication of AI’s incompetence or its powers of obfuscation that it's still having to explain such fundamental parts of its application to DCC and statutory bodies alike. Local people would have to prey that AI is better at quarrying than coming clean with the facts.

The result of the meeting with the EA is that a Technical Report is to be produced by Amec and AI over the next 3 weeks, which will be sense-checked by the EA and DCC before another round of formal consultation, probably lasting into the New Year; it’s obviously AI’s way of saying Happy Christmas.

Readers will remember that the EA had previously advised that:

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

Even AI, when it quarried Thorn Tree Plantation on Blackhill, said:

To protect the hydrology of the area it is proposed to cease excavation at 1 metre above the maximum level of the water table Aggregate Industries, ED/01/25/HQ, 2001, Site visit

AI has no such concerns here; after all, it’s only peoples’ drinking water. But AI desperately needs this 1m of resource to make any of its numbers stack up.

Nevertheless, AI's report will have to explain why overburden that’s not good enough for the company to work, the one full of clays, will drain as well as sand and gravel - for local drinking water supplies and to prevent flooding. The EA admits it would not be a good idea to backfill with clayey materials.

AI will no doubt claim that drainage can be maintained, even improved. Quite how so, after it removes the stones and sand for itself, remains to be seen. AI will also need to explain, how the soils, having their guts ripped out of them, will still be "capable of being managed as Best and Most Versatile land" 5.30.

This is AI's soil survey. Regular points across the site were surveyed. C stands for clay. 

Is this another one of AI’s ‘ephemeral’ ponds?

This is what's left of Thorn Trees Plantation on Woodbury Common; AI finished quarrying here about six years ago. This photo was taken last week, but there's standing water here whenever we walk by. The last few months haven't been any wetter than normal. Perhaps Exeter Airport should consider the evidence, rather than take AI at its word 3.40; the geology at Straitgate is much the same.

For Straitgate, AI claims:

These infiltration areas will develop ephemeral pools of water, where standing water would only be observed during periods of extreme rainfall. 7.101

Something like the above?? Exeter Airport and DCC can't say they weren't warned.

Does AI do any forward planning??

Devon's sand and gravel soap opera has taken a new and bizarre twist. 

Aggregate Industries has just lodged a planning application to process material from Hillhead Quarry, near Uffculme, at Blackhill Quarry on Woodbury Common. It will look to make use of the existing permission at Blackhill that runs until the end of 2016.

Each load would entail a round trip of over 46 polluting HGV miles, before onward distribution. This from the company that boasts "We put sustainable practices at the heart of our business".

This application makes a mockery of any minerals planning in Devon; it makes a mockery of the new Minerals Plan's claim that "Maintaining the production of sand and gravel from the southern and northern parts of the Pebble Beds is also important in minimising transportation distances" 5.4.8.

AI must think the Council is a pushover. Surely it is time for DCC put its foot down to these outlying piecemeal operations that treat an isolated site - in an area designated of European importance to nature in the East Devon AONB - as an industrial processing factory. Only then perhaps will AI do some joined-up-long-term-sustainable-in-the-interests-of-everyone-thinking.

A link to the application will be embedded here when available.

AI's stockpiles... the backdrop for the Commando Memorial on Woodbury Common

We were reminded that Aggregate Industries' stockpiles, reversing beepers and tipper trucks blight not only the wider landscape, but also the backdrop to the Gibraltar Stone memorial to the Royal Marines.

...the Nature Conservation Officer at Clinton Devon Estates, worked with the project to provide the necessary environmental impact survey and to get approval for the siting of the stone from Natural England, the regulatory authority.

DCC's Regulation 22 advised AI that "The adverse impacts of the stockpiles have not been taken into account and do not feature in the LVIA viewpoints. This mis-represents the actual situation", Item 2. AI countered that:

The LVIA focused principally on the plant site rather than the mineral stockpiles, as it was considered that the continued operation of a built industrial structure within the AONB was a greater source of potential adverse effect than the more ephemeral and dynamic heaps of processed mineral. The latter essentially having natural aesthetic properties, with muted colours and textures similar to the exposed heathland substrates locally, albeit heaped in a range of engineered stockpiles (size and scale), with vehicle movements during working hours. 3.28

AI has now supplied a couple of selective viewpoints. The above was not one of them. Funny that.

It's obviously not just AI

It’s an understatement to say there were inconsistencies in Aggregate Industries’ planning applications.

But it's not just AI. Here’s an article about another mineral operator who can't come clean with numbers:

The application, which would replace the Copyhold sand quarry, stated incorrectly that the size of the development would be 24 hectares, just below the 25-hectare cut-off that triggers the need for an EIA automatically.

However, after council officers carried out their own measurements, they determined that the site was in fact 27.8 hectares.

...the applicant will now have to provide the additional information on the environmental impact the proposal will have, particularly because of its location in the AONB.

The operator didn't miscalculate by just a few square metres, but by 9.4 acres. The applicant also said, in trying to justify why it needs the material from an AONB rather than "meeting the need for it in some other way" NPPF 116:

Examination of the alternative supplies for West Berkshire and Reading show that without a local supply, the nearest alternative suppliers of building sand would be around 25 to 30 miles distant from Surrey and Oxfordshire.

No doubt the Council will scrutinise those numbers closely too. Nothing can be taken at face value with these companies - nothing can be trusted.

Not all farms are like Straitgate

It has already been established that Straitgate Farm has high ecological value for wildlife; it must have, if dormice have been found:

The hazel or common dormouse is an important 'bio indicator', preferring to live in rich, well, managed native woodland with a mix of species for seasonal food. Its presence is a marker of woodland rich for many species of wildlife.

SLR assessed the 2km of ancient hedgerows that Aggregate Industries want to grub up:

A detailed ecological survey was conducted of all hedgerows within the site. Collected data was analysed against the criteria within the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 to identify hedgerows classified as ‘Important’ under the Regulations. A total of 42 hedgerows were surveyed and assessed. Of these, 31 hedgerows were confirmed as ‘Important’ under the environmental criteria, and 36 were of ‘species-rich’ status.

Not all farms are like Straitgate.

2 new studies on state of nature on farms & failings of #CAP greening https://t.co/NbY6oKovme #CAPtruecolour pic.twitter.com/LnssZTkueZ

— EEB (@Green_Europe) November 11, 2015

But try telling that to AI. AI is treating Straitgate's European Protected Species as an afterthought, wanting to forget the 10,547m2 of new woodland habitat that was supposed to have been planted - but was not - and that would have been "primarily managed for dormice" 8.257.

AI will have to do better than that. Where do the dormice go when 2km of hedgerows are ripped out? Dormice can't escape excavators by crossing roads. And Straitgate is surrounded by roads. Send your answers on a postcard to AI, or more importantly to DCC. It was an important issue for Taylor Wimpey:

A major expansion to a Somerset town has been held up for ten years – because it will cost half a million pounds to build a bridge for dormice

AI doesn’t want to leave 1m to protect water supplies; would it like to leave 2m?

It’s obviously pretty standard in quarry applications to leave at least 1m above the maximum groundwater level when there is any risk to surrounding water supplies - here and here are just two examples of many.

Aggregate Industries would dearly like to reduce this unquarried metre to nothing, if given half a chance; it obviously couldn’t care less about peoples' drinking water supplies.

But AI should count itself lucky that stiffer groundwater restrictions have not been specified by the Environment Agency. In the quarry extension in Kent, referenced in the post below, Condition 37:

No mineral extraction shall take place... within 2 metres of the maximum recorded depth of groundwater... Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution of the public water supply.

Two metres have also been specified here and here, and also Switzerland, home to AI's parent:

The Swiss federal government has banned the extraction of sand and gravel from areas where drinking water is sourced.

permits shall not be granted in groundwater protection zones, including designated drinking water sources;

In a limited number of exceptions, gravel may be removed from above the groundwater level "provided a protective layer of material is left above the maximum groundwater level possible".

During quarrying the protective layer of material is required to be [at] least two metres above the highest maximum 10-year groundwater level.

For surrounding residents relying on Straitgate for their drinking water, the matter is important; AI made claims about 'dry working' at Venn Ottery.

A lesson for AI in 'exceptional circumstances'

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.

Charlie Hopkins is also clear:

The approach adopted by the Applicant towards AONB planning policy betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of paras 115 and 116 of the NPPF. It is clear from the Framework that major development in an AONB should be regarded as damaging per se. Para. 115 states that “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.”

Any major industrial development in an AONB must therefore be regarded as wholly inappropriate and undesirable in such a designated area, thus the requirement of meeting not just the threshold of exceptionality, but also (wholly unaddressed by the Applicant) that of demonstrating that such development is in the public (as opposed to private) interest.

The proposal at Blackhill Quarry represents an extension of damaging, adverse industrial development in the AONB. Current permitted processing operations at the site are subject to strict controls in respect of being both time limited and subject to agreed restoration requirements. The proposal to prolong operations and consequently delay restoration in the AONB is wholly contrary to Framework principles and policies, and, if permitted, would represent development at its most unsustainable.

Since AI, in Charlie’s words, has a fundamental misunderstanding of such matters, this example, where a silica sand quarry extension was recently approved in the Kent Downs AONB, might assist. The planning officer said:

Silica sand is considered to be... of national importance due to its limited distribution. 78

... I am satisfied that that there is a need for the development and that there are currently no viable alternatives if the provision of washed, graded and dried silica sand is to be met in Kent and the South East. I am also satisfied that if new reserves are not permitted at Wrotham it is likely that there would be adverse impacts on the supply of silica sand nationally... In view of this, I am further satisfied that the application meets the “exceptional circumstances” and “public interest” tests required by paragraph 116 of the NPPF. 96

… in the absence of “exceptional circumstances” and “public interest” being demonstrated in the context of need and alternatives I would be unable to support the application. However, for the reasons set out elsewhere in this report, I consider that these requirements have been satisfactorily met. 128

AI cannot claim that if processing did not take place at Blackhill there would be national consequences - especially when it already owns an alternative site 6 miles closer and not in an AONB. Neither is there anything particularly special or scarce or of national importance about the sand and gravel at Straitgate - especially when AI already has millions of tonnes with planning permission just up the M5.

Drainage...

It’s a critical part of the whole Straitgate Farm application - to maintain drinking water supplies and stream flows, to control flooding and to prevent on-site ponding for birdstrike considerations. It's a part of the application you would hope that Aggregate Industries would be completely open and up-front about.

AI says on-site surface water management "relies on the natural high permeability of the geology to allow infiltration of water into the ground" 3.29. Exeter Airport responded to AI on the issue, and said:

With regards to the surface water management at Straitgate Quarry: Given the makeup of the quarry, and as you have pointed out in your email, any water settling on the surface should drain quickly… no water will manage to build up in suitable quantities to become an attractant to large flocks of Gull. 3.40

And the exposed geology may be permeable - for 3,4,5 years of extraction. But buried in a report, commissioned by AI, Soil Resources and Agricultural Use & Quality of Land at Straitgate Farm, is this:

At 29 ha, [the Grade 3a land] is the most extensive land grade on the site… The main limitation is limited workability in spring and autumn due to seasonal wetness from water ponding over slowly permeable subsoils. 3.6

It is these slowly permeable subsoils that would provide the infiltration once the site's restored - and could leave ponding, in perpetuity. Of course, AI doesn’t highlight that.

It's one thing misleading locals, it's another thing misleading statutory consultees.

Group responds to AI’s Regulation 22 responses

A further response has today been submitted by Charlie Hopkins, MA (Oxon) PG Dip Law Solicitor (non-practising) Planning & Environmental Consultant, on behalf of Straitgate Action Group, to DCC in relation to Aggregate Industries’ Regulation 22 responses - and "should be read in conjunction" with the response from members of the group, found here. Charlie's previous response can be found here.

Responses from consultees can be found with the Straitgate and Blackhill application documents.

And the reason for the delay until 2016?

It's unreal. At this late stage of the application process, Aggregate Industries is still having difficulty with agreeing to leave a 1m standoff of unquarried material above the maximum water table to protect drinking water supplies and stream flows.

DCC asked AI in the middle of October to clarify the subject. Two weeks later, the matter remains unresolved and "will be the subject of a meeting between AI/Amec/the Environment Agency and DCC as Flood Authority in the second week of November".

It’s disgraceful that AI is still not being straight on such a critical issue. It makes a mockery of AI's claims that "the applications were the culmination of three years of careful planning and consideration". The importance of leaving this 1m of unsaturated material has already been acknowledged. AI's ridiculous attitude is even more shameful given that the company proposes no Section 106 to safeguard Cadhay’s water supplies, the subject of an Environment Agency SPZ that stretches across the proposed excavation site.

Since AI is unable to straightforwardly confirm that this 1m would indeed be left unquarried, one can only assume, given the list of attendees, that AI wants to renegotiate the condition and thereby reduce the protection for local peoples' drinking water, the protection for wetland habitats in ancient woodland, and the protection for downstream communities against flooding - the condition confirmed by the EA back in July, the condition detailed in DCC’s draft Minerals Plan, the condition assumed by AI's own hydrogeological consultants:

The proposed quarry at Straitgate Farm would work the mineral dry and to a proposed limit of 1m above the highest predicted water table.

It is difficult to identify if “winter flashiness” is due to reduced unsaturated zone thickness or other factors that affect recharge… Within the proposed development the establishment of a 1m freeboard over and above the highest known water level provides for this eventuality.

In its letter, DCC warned AI:

Given the importance of this point, to you as the proposed operator, and evidently to the MPA and the EA who were both of the understanding that you had agreed to this restriction. I am now asking you to clarify in writing whether you are intending to work to the proposed levels set out in the Amec technical Note to the Policy Team and the EA (and on which their recommendation was clearly based) or whether you wish for the MPA to consider your proposal as working to the highest measured level of the winter water table without the 1m standoff.

You will understand the importance of this point and the need for absolute clarity in your response as it has serious implications for the further progress of this application.

DCC has confirmed that AI's response will be posted on the website with the application documentation, if and when received.

Environment Agency

Decision on Straitgate and Blackhill delayed until 2016

If Aggregate Industries was hoping to get all this decided in 2015, that window has now closed.

It's hardly surprising, given the shortfall and reliability of information in AI’s planning applications; the inconsistencies, the inaccuracies, the fabrications, the need for DCC to raise 82 substantive issues. It's hardly surprising, given AI's inability to demonstrate why it has no choice but to process in an area of European importance to nature, not a nearby industrial estate. It's hardly surprising, given the risk of further blighting an AONB and SPA/SAC, and the risks of 1.2 million HGV miles on unsuitable roads. It's hardly surprising, given the potential harm to ecology and water supplies, and how little material is really available for the price of an East Devon farm. It’s hardly surprising, given that DCC is "still awaiting information and clarification", that determination has been delayed until 2016, 27 January at the earliest.

Miscellaneous

1. 69% say they no longer trust any major company or organisation

After the VW emissions scandal, is it any wonder? Aggregate Industries' planning applications for Straitgate and Blackhill, were littered with spin, inaccuracy and falsehood. Even for its current operation at Venn Ottery, AI said there would be an average of 138 trucks a day for a 4 day week - yet on the random day we checked, there were 194.

So it’s likely that AI has also misled people about the pollution it has pumped out; "HGVs make up approximately 5% of traffic flow and yet contribute more than 38% of the total NO2 emissions".

2. Britain joins calls for limits on truck CO2 emissions

Lorry-makers have made no progress on fuel economy in 20 years.

3. Exceptional circumstances not proven in support of housing scheme

In ruling against an appellant planning to build up to 50 dwellings in the Cornwall AONB, an inspector decided that exceptional circumstances required under paragraph 116 of the NPPF had not been demonstrated.... The harm to the scenic qualities of the AONB was sufficient to reject the scheme.

4. Using marine sand for aggregate is "unnecessary and obsolete"

The tragedy of this situation is that the UK aggregate companies have insisted on investing, with approval by the government, in marine dredging when actually the technology exists to wholly source sand from recycled quarry waste. This is not pie in the sky hyperbole. It is fact. Japan now sources the overwhelming majority of its sand to make concrete from quarry waste, and has been a pioneer in developing this new technology. Australia is on the brink of following suit.

5. Residents cry foul over quarry's aquifer appeal

A Christchurch quarry is being accused of using delaying tactics to avoid cleaning up its operation and of placing the town water supply at risk of contamination.

It's a story from the other side of the world, but something to bear in mind for those reliant on Straitgate for their drinking water, when AI talks about S106s and emergency tanker supplies.

6. England’s natural beauty areas at risk, says National Trust

Some of England’s most beautiful landscapes are threatened by inappropriate development because planning rules are not being followed properly, the National Trust has claimed.

7. Horseshoe bat establishes most southerly roost in Cornwall

Another article on bats that again puts Straitgate’s wildlife in context:

Of the 18 species of bat found in the UK, 10 can be found at Penrose. In the 20th century UK bat populations have declined by an estimated 70% and Greater Horseshoes have declined by 90%. They are under threat from unsympathetic building developments, loss of habitat and changing farming practices.

At Straitgate, "at least eleven bat species were recorded flying over the site" 8.114.

8. Revised plans approved for Buckinghamshire crematorium

The High Court judge ruled that Aylesbury Vale District Council had failed properly to take into account the possible presence of great crested newts on the site when granting permission for the project. The CCJC submitted a revised application, along with additional information showing that Natural England would grant the required licence if the scheme was approved.

9. Cement company blows up limestone hill and renders snail extinct

No cement business has ever admitted the scale of the problem. They tout their biodiversity pages in their websites and sustainability reports with pictures of ducks and frogs and children enjoying the wetlands created from the hills they remove. They give and receive prizes for their restoration work – but do not acknowledge what is being lost.

DCC has now supplied provisional sand and gravel production figures for 2014

2014 sales of sand and gravel in Devon were 531,900 tonnes. Reserves of sand and gravel at the end of 2014 were 7,502,087 tonnes.

Production in 2014 was therefore up 47k tonnes on 2013, but still down 24% on pre-recession 2007.

It was widely reported that 2014 was "the best year for British construction for over 18 years", but, in Devon at least, the long term decline of sand and gravel continues - as measured by the 10 year rolling average, the mineral industry’s indicator of choice:

The Devon Stone Federation is very pleased to see that the weighted average has been dropped and the LAA is now based on a straight average of the last ten years... C.5

For the planning application to quarry Straitgate, Aggregate Industries framed its need on the basis that:

The annual production of sand and gravel in the period from 2001 to 2009 averaged 0.8 million tonnes. 5.23

AI forgot all about 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, and that the 10 year average was 0.62 million tonnes. DCC said AI's need assessment was "misleading and inaccurate and should be re-cast", and the company has now re-presented its case. It claims there are exceptional circumstances why it must continue to scar and blight Woodbury Common and the East Devon AONB with its processing plant and hundreds of thousands of HGV movements. It claims need is one of those exceptional circumstances:

Given the… need for the mineral to maintain the seven year landbank in Devon as set out in the NPPF… 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

But, at the end of 2014, Devon had a sand and gravel landbank of 12.9 years, so need - along with all the other exceptional circumstances AI has given - is clearly not exceptional at all.

Blackhill restoration doesn't need Straitgate

Another one of Aggregate Industries' claims, is that material from Straitgate would allow it to finish restoring Blackhill:

...the applicant would submit that there are benefits to the local biodiversity and landscape that would result from permitting the continued operation at Blackhill Quarry for a further 5 years. 2.35

In the absence of this development the existing lagoon will remain as a deep, steep sided, angular lagoon, which is incongruous within the wider landscape setting of the AONB and Pebblebed Heaths. 4.1 EMMP

The silt from Straitgate development will enable the existing south-eastern silt lagoon to be filled and restored as heathland in accordance with the consented restoration and aftercare scheme. 3.26

But the consented restoration and aftercare scheme says nothing of the sort. It does not rely on the importation of further material to complete the restoration of Area 6 (Lagoon 3), the area in question; the agreed restoration scheme calls for the wall of this steep sided, angular lagoon to be removed:

On completion of silting operations at the end of 2016, the eastern wall will be clear felled and the timber removed from the site and soils will be stripped and stored for use in the restoration of the area. The eastern wall will then be removed to a depth of 3 metres above the surface of the drying silt. The material from the wall will be used with other indigenous material to form a capping to the silt body, approximately 1 metre in depth, and to batter the side slopes. The soils will be thinly spread over the whole area. 4.8.3

As a DCC officer explained, if material from Straitgate were not available, the already agreed earthworks would produce a perfectly acceptable landform.

AI is prepared to say anything to win permission to stay at Blackhill, whether true or not. 

AI was granted planning permission to continue to process material at Blackhill in 2011, with Condition 7:

The restoration shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme, or such alternative schemes as may be subsequently approved in writing by the MPA.

AI would be contravening this Planning Condition if the site were left with a "deep, steep sided, angular lagoon, which is incongruous within the wider landscape".

What message would that send out, at a time when it's trying to persuade people to trust its restoration plans for Straitgate?

Why does AI's extraction boundary not reflect what's actually recoverable?

There are areas at Straitgate Farm, that Aggregate Industries has indicated should be quarried and that are within the boundaries of extraction, that are not realistically quarriable at all.

We have already shown that AI is overstating the saleable resource by at least 500,000 tonnes; now it's clear that AI is exaggerating the extraction area too.

At least 1m must be left unquarried to protect groundwater supplies and at least 1m of topsoil and subsoil must be retained on site for restoration. There are areas in the south and east of the site, where the thickness of material above the maximum water table is under or just over 2m, that have little if any material to recover.

Why does AI's extraction boundary not reflect this? Or does AI have absolutely no intention of leaving the 1m of resource to safeguard drinking water supplies? After all, once AI gets its excavator teeth into the site, who would ever know??

Table: Points within the extraction boundary that have 2.5m or less of material above the maximum water table

Brown contours: surface topography (AI). Blue contours: maximum groundwater level (AMEC).

Birdstrike risk would fall on the shoulders of AI’s quarry manager

If Aggregate Industries was to win permission to quarry Straitgate Farm, it is proposed that:

Where a wildlife hazard is present that cannot be effectively managed, the Quarry Manager will notify Exeter Airport so that they can inform pilots of additional risk levels. 4.2 EMMP

The safety of 100,000s of passengers flying into and out of Exeter Airport would therefore, at least partly, be reliant on AI’s quarry manager. 

But that statement is also an admittance that AI's proposal could result in additional risk.

AI still proposes that lower-lying areas "are likely to hold ephemeral waterbodies and could be developed as wet grassland" 5.15, clearly against CAA advice, and that local people and birds can look forward to a variety of bird scaring and culling techniques:

During operations the Quarry Manager will be responsible for monitoring the conditions on site and instigating bird scaring techniques (bird scarers, birds of prey, and the like, including those methods described in the WHMP) when site activities may potentially attract more birds to the site, eg during soil stripping, during periods of prolonged heavy rain; such measures to be agreed in advance with the LPA and EHO to mitigate any adverse impacts on local residents. 4.6.2

At weekends, holidays and after restoration, when no quarry manager is on site, it's not clear who would bear responsibility.

Restoring low fertility heathland of European importance with soil from a dairy farm?

It’s common sense to assume that high fertility soils from a dairy farm would not be compatible with the restoration of low fertility heathland on Woodbury Common SAC SPA SSSI.

Natural England was clear in its response on the matter:

The proposal to add the silt washed from the ‘as dug’ quarried material from Straitgate into the lagoons at Blackhill requires further detailed investigation and analysis. The designated heathland communities surrounding Blackhill quarry are nutrient poor and an increase in available nitrogen as it leaches from the lagoons could result in a change in the vegetation composition of parts of the site and affect the composition of any regeneration that may happen as the quarry site is restored. We advise that there may be an increase in nitrogen and other soil nutrients due to the land at Straitgate being farmed as a dairy enterprise. [our emphasis]

In Aggregate Industries' Regulation 22 response, there is no detailed investigation or analysis. AI says:

Any nutrients added to the surface as part of the dairy management practices would be unlikely to infiltrate through the top 1m of slowly permeable soil material to accumulate in quantities in the overburden and mineral resource that will be taken to Blackhill Quarry for processing. 2.12

There is therefore little evidence to suggest that the mineral and overburden that would be transported to Blackhill Quarry for processing would contain significant quantities of nutrients that might potentially affect the integrity of the surrounding habitats. 2.14

Slowly permeable or not (and remember, AI's drainage scheme "is feasible because of the highly permeable geology at the site" 3.40) Straitgate has been farmed for hundreds of years; slowly doesn't enter the equation. The fact is, AI has no idea by how much or by how far nutrients have permeated over this time, into the overburden and minerals it wants to work, and admits elsewhere in its response:

The pH and nutrient status of the existing soils is currently unknown, although productive farming is an established activity on the site and it is assumed that regular fertiliser applications and/or other husbandry will have sought to increase fertility. 5.33

Furthermore, in the original application, AMEC reported that at Straitgate:

All water samples showed elevated nitrate (NO3) concentrations ranging between 18 to 46 mg/l ...[one] showed nitrate concentrations greater than the UK threshold p18

Plainly therefore, AI has NO evidence to suggest that Straitgate's soils would not affect the integrity of a site of European importance to nature; its plans rely on a wing and a prayer.

DCC asked AI to confirm access rights back in 2012

In the post Are AI’s plans unravelling? we wrote:

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

But in actual fact, DCC asked AI to confirm access rights at the proposed location back in 2012.  

For reasons only DCC can explain, the Council continued to blindly pursue Straitgate - upgrading it to a Specific Site this year in its draft Minerals Plan - without seeing any evidence that AI had the rights to use third-party land.

For those worried about losing their water supply…

More than 100 people are reliant on Straitgate for their drinking water. On the question of security of supply, AI says that "draft Heads of Terms are provided for discussion with DCC":

In the event that in the opinion of the EA, as party to this agreement, the balance of probability is that contamination or interference of groundwater boreholes or private water supplies or the inability to draw satisfactory water supply has occurred partly or wholly as a result of the wining and working of minerals at Straitgate Quarry then AI shall forthwith make alternative temporary and/or permanent arrangements for water supply to the users affected at AI’s cost and liability, proportionate to the cause. 3.4

AI proposes the following letter of 'comfort', but, if the loss or contamination of supply is disputed, water users could be left with a legal headache and a large bill:

But AI’s Section 106 agreement 3.5 is not all that it seems, since Cadhay Spring, which derives its water from Straitgate under protection of an Environment Agency SPZ and supplies 60 people at Cadhay and surrounding properties and 2,000 people each year in its Tea Room, is notably excluded:

The monitoring schedule included as part of the s.106 agreement shall include [list of springs and wells, not including Cadhay Spring]. In addition, monitoring will continue at Cadhay Spring. 3.6

Presumably, AI is not wholly confident that it would not impact this water supply in some way.

23% of accidents on B3180 involved HGVs in 2014

As part of the Regulation 22 request, the County Highways Authority asked to see "more comprehensive up-to-date accident data for the whole of the proposed haulage route included within the application". AI has now supplied road accident data for the B3180 "obtained from DCC to cover the most recent time period available, from 1st January 2014 to 31st December 2014" 2.31. Why had AI not supplied this data before? Perhaps this is why:

In those 12 months, 13 accidents were recorded between Daisymount and Blackhill. AI assessed that "two of the accidents involved HGVs" 2.47. But even simple numbers confuse AI and SLR; because HGVs clearly played a part in three, NOT two, of those accidents:

Prickly Pear to Tipton Cross

An accident that resulted in slight injury occurred when a bus/coach reversed into a car when allowing an articulated lorry to proceed in a narrow section of road 2.39

Lynch Head Road to Halfway House Junction
The other occurred when a driver lost control of the car and collided with the verges when trying to avoid an oncoming HGV 2.41

Sanctuary Lane to Castle Lane
The other accident occurred when an HGV collided with the rear of a car in front 2.44

It’s easy to see how the first one happened; watch this truck being forced to reverse by an AI truck:

AI makes the astonishing claim that "the majority of accidents that involved HGVs did not include causes/factors exclusively linked to the characteristics of HGVs; these types of accidents could have occurred with any vehicle type on the road at that time" 2.49. But, with wide HGVs on a narrow road with discontinuous central road markings, that was plainly NOT the case in at least two of the above.

AI says "drivers should be aware of the approaching conditions and proceed with caution, particularly given the rural nature and narrow width of the road" 2.48.

But given the narrow width of the road, it's obvious that the B3180 cannot satisfactorily accommodate AI’s 44-tonne HGVs, as the above video patently demonstrates. This application should be judged against the current Minerals Plan, the one that says:

Proposals for mineral development will not be permitted... where the generation of heavy goods vehicle movements could not be satisfactorily accommodated on the existing local highway network. MP43

AI can't get its head around CO2

If anybody’s wondering why all the Regulation 22 documents, for Straitgate and Blackhill, have changed, and why the consultation has been extended, it’s because SLR has submitted, apparently at DCC’s request, a revised set of documents, corrected (as far as we can see) for the triplication that many of the documents suffered and the nonsense CO2 figures that we have already pointed out.

For CO2, instead of:

AI and its consultants SLR have had a rethink, and we now have:

You'd have thought that AI/SLR would have checked this revised version very carefully, but not so. Because no HGV would be permitted on our roads if it really did emit 1.4807 tonnes of CO2e per mile. Numbers are obviously not AI's strong point.

If SLR are minded to amend this document again, it might also want to look at the word massively that still finds itself in the line "Processing at Hillhead may be feasible, but would generate a massively greater quantity of CO2 emissions from the additional mileage required to be travelled" 8.48; 47,241,000 tonnes certainly is massive, 3,344 tonnes somewhat less so.

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.