Devon Minerals Plan submitted for examination

DCC advised today that:

Following its pre-submission consultation which ended on 16th November 2015, the Devon Minerals Plan has been submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for the purpose of examination.

The submitted Minerals Plan, together with consultation responses and supporting documents, can be viewed on the Council’s website here. The Devon Minerals Plan can also be viewed at County and District Council offices as explained in the attached Statement of Submission.

An inspector will shortly be appointed to conduct the examination of the Minerals Plan. To assist the inspector and act as the point of contact for examination participants, Mr Robert Young has been appointed as the programme officer and his contact details, together with information on the examination, will be published shortly here.

If you have any immediate questions on the Devon Minerals Plan, please contact the County Council’s Minerals Planning team by emailing mineralsplanning@devon.gov.uk or calling 01392 383510.

According to DCC's website, an inspector has already been appointed:

Mr Andrew Freeman BSc(Hons) DipTP DipEM FRTPI FCIHT MIEnvSc has been appointed as inspector to undertake examination of the Plan.

Furthermore:

During the course of the examination, a number of further documents will be produced by the County Council, the inspector and other examination participants. These will be added to the Examination Library as they are published.

One of the documents of interest to those following the farce being played out at Straitgate will be:

PD61 Dialogue on Hydrogeological Issues at Straitgate Farm

This series of documents shows how, because of statements such as these from Amec:

The removal of the unsaturated zone down to a level 1m above that defined by the maximum winter water level will mean that any change in the recharge/runoff split...

By maintaining an unsaturated zone thickness of at least 1m...

... a 1 m unsaturated zone should be enough to accommodate this intense rainfall event.

DCC was able to secure the following assurance from the Environment Agency:

Thank you for your email of 05 June 2015 forwarding the additional information submitted by AMEC in respect of the above. We are satisfied that the impacts on the hydrograph and ecology of the 4 springs, headwater streams and Cadhay Bog County Wildlife Site from dry working will not be significant. We are now satisfied with the information submitted with regard to the allocation of this site and have no objections to the inclusion of the Straitgate site from the minerals plan.

A couple of weeks later the EA confirmed:

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.

Of course, it now transpires that AI has absolutely no intention "to stop quarrying a metre above the water-table". DCC put its new Minerals Plan on hold for three years while it waited for this assurance from the EA - an assurance that now turns out to be based on a completely false premise. What the Inspector will make of all this is anybody's guess.

Great crested newts... and rising water tables

Aggregate Industries is desperate to use Blackhill beyond 2016 to process material from Straitgate, and has put up a range of arguments as to why it couldn’t use its derelict site at nearby Rockbeare instead; one of these arguments is the presence of great crested newts:

It has been demonstrated that 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

Natural England has demolished these arguments and doesn't see GCNs as a constraint. But guess what? Tarmac doesn’t see GCNs as a barrier to working either. It’s been working with them for years at a quarry in Cheshire, where "a number of ponds, pools and ditches have been created at Crown Farm Quarry as a result of historic quarrying activities". There’s even a paper on the subject:

The discovery of a widespread population of great crested newts at Crown Farm Quarry could have been a major constraint to the operators at this mineral extraction site. However, with early involvement of ecologists, appropriate management, innovative mitigation measures, and a positive approach by Tarmac, this potential constraint has become a success story.

But why all these "ponds, pools and ditches"?

An unexpected rise in the water-table has also contributed to the formation of these waterbodies.

An unexpected rise? It's hardly surprising. At Straitgate, hydrogeological consultants are trying to predict the maximum winter water table across some 63 acres with just six data points from around the perimeter. It's obviously not possible with any precision, however much their maps and contours would like to give the impression that it is. It’s one of the reasons why 1m is typically left unquarried above the maximum winter water table where private water supplies are at stake.

AI now says it has no intention of leaving this 1m unquarried at Straitgate. Perhaps it should ask itself, what would happen if there was an "unexpected rise in the water-table" here - and the void had been backfilled with just 1m of soil? What would happen to the integrity of private water supplies to 106 people, for example from animal faeces, nitrates or other pollutants? What would happen to restoration to any future farming use? What would happen to airport safeguarding?

What happened to dry-working at Thorn Trees and Venn Ottery? Unexpected rises in the water-table?

DCC refused farm-based AD facility in AONB

Aggregate Industries' plans for Straitgate Farm rely on securing continued permission for its Blackhill processing plant in the East Devon AONB. AI has failed to demonstrate the 'exceptional circumstances' required for such major development in an AONB.

On the issue of development in an AONB, a DCC officer reminded us of a recent planning application in the Tamar Valley AONB. DCC refused the application for the anaerobic digestion facility, saying:

1. The proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the Tamar Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty contrary to policy W12 and W18 of the adopted Devon Waste Plan. 2. There are no exceptional circumstances or need for the development which would override the reason for refusal set out in 1 above.

The applicants appealed.

The inspector concluded that the proposal would have a less than significant impact and did not amount to major development, despite the importation of waste material, as it was small scale and utilised redundant land within the farm. Although it was in a sensitive location and the NPPF gave great weight to conserving landscape and natural beauty in designated areas, the AD facility would be screened on all sides and no higher than the surrounding bunds and buildings. Vehicles visiting the site would be of the type and size associated with farming activities.

Permission was subsequently granted.

We raise this because, notwithstanding the appeal, it would obviously seem illogical and inconsistent if DCC were ever to recommend approval for an isolated heavy industrial sand and gravel processing operation in an AONB, with hundreds of incoming and outgoing HGVs a day - after recommending refusal for a small scale farm-based AD facility that "would involve no more than 2 vehicles per day".

Lip service

noun... to say that you ​agree with something but do nothing to ​support it

Many would argue that climate change is the biggest threat that humanity faces.

Indeed, DCC states in its draft Minerals Plan that:

One of the biggest challenges facing Devon’s communities and environment, together with the wider world, is climate change driven by global warming. It is generally accepted that the main cause of global warming is human activity producing increasing concentrations of ‘greenhouse gases’, notably carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As well as resulting in changing temperatures, climate change is also predicted to have a range of other consequences including increased frequency of extreme weather events, changing global patterns of weather and rising sea levels. 3.4.1

Devon's new Minerals Plan even pledges to do something about it:

Mitigation of and adaptation to climate change is a key consideration and statutory duty for the Devon Minerals Plan, and will be a cross-cutting theme for the Strategy. In particular, the spatial pattern of minerals development and the safeguarding of rail and water transport infrastructure will influence the distances that minerals are transported by road, while the management and restoration of mineral sites are capable of delivering positive measures for flood water management and habitat creation. 2.2.4

One of the first planning applications for a new quarry in Devon to be determined under this Plan - emerging or otherwise - is likely to be one of the most CO2 polluting: 1.2 million HGV miles just to transport the as-dug material for processing - before any onward sales distribution. It will be interesting to see what DCC and its new Minerals Plan will do about that? If the DMC meeting last month was any guide, then not very much.

What about the polluters themselves? Aggregate Industries’ parent, now LafargeHolcim after Holcim's takeover of Lafarge, says:

The 21st century will be defined by the challenge of climate change, in which the construction sector can play a key role. For LafargeHolcim, this global challenge requires a collaborative response that goes beyond our ambitious efforts in own [sic] operations. The Group is committed to reducing CO2 emissions across the entire construction value chain.

We have written about Aggregate Industries on climate change before, and how AI says:

We have long recognised the consequences of CO2 emissions and how both the manufacture of our products and their use in the built environment contribute to climate change... there is a real focus and drive to minimise the environmental impact of all we do.

Admirable words - ambitious efforts, real focus and drive - but what's the reality? For AI:

In 2013 our total process carbon emissions were 393,087 tonnes CO2e

In 2014 our total process emissions increased to 420,132 tonnes CO2e

Not to worry though, because the company has a plan:

By 2016 we will reduce process carbon emissions by 20% on 2013 levels in absolute terms.

The trouble is, AI said the same thing last year:

By 2016 we will reduce process carbon emissions by 20% on 2012 levels in absolute terms.

In fact, as far back as 2008:

Carbon remains a key focus for both us and society... We continue to work towards our 2012 target of 20% reduction per tonne of production from the 2008 verified baseline.

And how's AI doing? Look at the figures and judge for yourself:

AI would have you believe that:

For many years we have had our own CO2 reduction targets driven by a number of factors: Security of our energy supply, reducing the risk and exposure to unsustainable fossil fuels. Reducing the embodied CO2 impact of our products. Sites operating efficiently cost less to operate, and suffer fewer breakdowns. Legislation including Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRCEES), European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EUETS)...

But look at the EU ETS civil penalties, and see how many times AI has failed to comply with legal requirements.

Does this look like a company that's serious about climate change? Or is it, as with the planning applications for Straitgate and Blackhill, that AI can't get its head around CO2 and that there's a huge mismatch between its words and the reality?

.@marksandspencer have committed to becoming a 'zero carbon business'. Who else do you know who's taking action for our planet? #ShowTheLove

— WWF UK (@wwf_uk) February 11, 2016

Miscellaneous

1. ‘93 days to pay its bills’ - Aggregate Industries in row with the Forum of Private Business:

'We do not take kindly to implicit threats from organisations such as your own'

The group claims that AI is in breach of EU directive 2011/7/EU. Check out the Forum's 'Hall of Shame'.

2. Is this the sort of thing that could happen to the private water supplies from Straitgate? Middle Musquodoboit man blames quarry for murky, smelly well water.

3. Or maybe this - World-class drinking water threatened by deeper quarrying:

"When you're going close to the water table, there's always an issue with potential contamination"

4. Think a quarry could be good news for Ottery St Mary? Read this article, and think again. Campaigners celebrated a "significant victory" after controversial proposals to reopen Caldercruix’s Hillend Quarry were rejected:

"As far as I’m concerned this shows the dust and pollution coming from the quarry was harmful and I am pleased these plans have been rejected. It gives me peace of mind." Airdrie & Shotts MP Neil Gray said: "I welcome the unanimity of the decision, with all parties voting against an extension. To have done otherwise would have been to act against the interests of local people. It is important that the planning committee heeded the views of those who live in Caldercruix and the surrounding area." Alex Neil MSP added: "This was the right decision for local people. They had suffered enough from the fall-out from the quarry works. It is also good for the local environment, as it places a limit on the operation’s life. This will also help in persuading more people to live in Caldercruix."

5. Construction methods are changing. A report, published by Forrester Research in October, estimated that automation will eliminate 16 per cent of all jobs in construction and extraction by 2025.

6. Sources of minerals are also changing, particularly recycled minerals: 

Secondary raw materials left from industrial processes could come into their own in the next five or ten years, aided by market changes and better recycling technology

Even our friends at AI recognise the potential:

Tests show promise for recycled aggregate use in #concrete https://t.co/T4jctE4ADA via @CDRecycler pic.twitter.com/LTjjvjwD3T

— Aggregate Industries (@AggregateUK) December 14, 2015

7. Mark Twain's definition of a mine: "A hole in the ground with a liar at the top". He may have been thinking about gold mining, but you get the idea.

For major development where dormice are present…

...it’s all about planting mitigation that exceeds the losses and maintaining habitat connectivity.

Aggregate Industries already plans to rip out 2km of ancient hedgerows. No significant acceptable mitigation has yet been planted.

On the issue of habitat connectivity, look at the results of the dormouse survey below. AI’s new access plans are based at Little Straitgate. It obviously thinks it can rip out more hedgerows and chop down more mature trees to build a site access big enough to cope with up to 200 44-tonne HGVs a day. However, back in 2013, "survey results indicated two clusters of dormouse activity", one of which was:

Hedgerows and plantation edges to the southeast of Straitgate Farm and west/southwest of Little Straitgate (outside the revised proposal site Boundary) 3.2

A change of access arrangements would now put that cluster of a European Protected Species firmly inside the proposed site boundary.

Further hedgerows and habitat connectivity would also be lost to any internal haul road to this point.

AI will no doubt plough on regardless. The company is running out of options. However, the NPPF says:

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused 118

AI’s applications slip again

Aggregate Industries wrote to DCC at the end of November with likely timescales for the supply of further information for the Straitgate Farm and Blackhill planning applications, saying that "the next [development management] committee date is 16th March 2016 and this should now be our aim".

It's now clear that AI will not meet that target. In fact, it’s unlikely that the matter will be determined anytime soon. Drainage trials scheduled for December were postponed until January, and are now expected sometime before the end of March. Plans for a new site access would necessitate a new site boundary, a new planning application, new designs, new reports and new surveys.

So, for all DCC’s bluster that this site is deliverable for the Minerals Plan, for all AI’s "years of careful planning", there's still much to prove before a Swiss cement conglomerate can tear apart an East Devon farm. With all the reports and expense, and the limited resource above the maximum winter water table with the 1m standoff, Straitgate must be a consultant’s dream, and a mineral company’s nightmare.

Cozy relationships

It might look to many - from the debacle last Wednesday - that Devon County Council’s Minerals Planning function is joined at the hip with a global cement conglomerate.

Aggregate Industries' planning applications have yet to be determined, but many of the numbers and arguments contained within them have already fallen down on scrutiny; some of these can be found in the draft Minerals Plan.

But it goes further. Take one look at DCC’s 4th Local Aggregates Assessment published late last year. Some of its conclusions are supported by references. When one of those references* - backing the flawed argument for both 'southern' and 'northern' sites because the "proportion and size of gravel decreases from south to north" 2.5.4 - is taken from AI’s own undetermined-catalogue-of-errors planning application for Straitgate, you know you're in trouble.

We’ve already dealt with the issue of Gravel at Hillhead, and the fact that this didn’t stop Hillhead Quarry operating for decades, the fact that this doesn’t stop Hanson working Town Farm Quarry near Burlescombe, the fact that this won't stop AI from applying to quarry Penslade if its application for Straitgate founders, and the fact that this hasn't stopped DCC from relying on Penslade to cover the sand and gravel shortfall indicated in its Minerals Plan.

Indeed, one of the planning applications DCC received last year was the "variation of existing permission at Blackhill Quarry to allow for importation of sand and gravel from Houndaller (Hillhead) Quarry for processing to end of 2016 (awaiting validation)" 2.5.7.

But some people in DCC gave up listening to anybody other than the quarrying industry years ago. Consultation with the public has been a charade. In reality, Devon’s new Minerals Plan has been shaped by the minerals industry, for the minerals industry. Silly of us for thinking it could be any other way.

*SLR Consulting Ltd (2015) Proposed Extraction of Sand & Gravel at Straitgate Farm, Devon and Retention of Quarry Processing Plant at Blackhill Quarry, Woodbury, Devon: Environmental Statement Volume 2. Sheffield: SLR.

In the news

The Press page is updated as and when the issue of Straitgate crops up in the local news; here's the latest article from the Sidmouth Herald:

AI's latest idea?

Up to 200 44-tonne HGVs pulling into and out of this entrance every day - onto the main 60mph road into and out of Ottery. Crawling up the hill, hauling as-dug sand and gravel 8 miles to Woodbury Common. 

This was what a surveyor was working on this morning. Does that sound sensible? Or safe? Good luck to Aggregate Industries on convincing people of the merits of that scheme.

EDIT 29.1.16 It's all very well that AI may now be desperate to find some way out of this site, having failed to check its legal rights for the first idea, but lots of people are already contacting us to say that they are flabbergasted that this access point is even being considered. As locals attest, this is already a dangerous stretch of road, because of the speed and overtaking it attracts and the blind crest; fully loaded HGVs pulling out and crawling up and down this hill - up to 20 per hour - one every 3 minutes - is just asking for trouble. Here are some of the accident statistics included in AI's Transport Assessment.

Local democracy in action...

DCC councillors yesterday approved, with two votes against and one abstention, the new draft Minerals Plan, with Straitgate Farm as a Specific Site - despite huge questions hanging over deliverability. The draft Plan will now be submitted to the Secretary of State for examination. Watch the webcast to see local democracy in action; discussion on the Minerals Plan begins 33 minutes in.

From the off, the Chair made it clear that he didn't want to talk about Straitgate Farm at all: "that's a request"; "this is about the strategic document, it is not about site specific" - which seems somewhat at odds with a Minerals Plan that is allocating Straitgate as a Specific Site.

Despite that, discussions centred wholly around Straitgate. Cllr Claire Wright made an impassioned presentation, advising members of the Development Management Committee that there were "fundamental issues that cannot be ignored" - namely on water, quantities, access and processing.

DCC’s Head of Planning was having none of it. Straitgate’s "been through numerous levels of evaluation - it clearly fulfils the criteria for the Plan".

But after all these years of evaluation, when allocation as a Specific Site - where viable resources are known to exist, landowners are supportive of minerals development and the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms - has been made apparently "in recognition of the degree of evidence available on its potential impacts" 5.4.9, DCC can't even tell you how this site is to be accessed, how it will be worked, how much material there is, or how it will be processed; four fundamental points that define a quarrying operation.

Specifically, on the matter of access over third party land, the Minerals Officer was asked (58 minutes in): "Were the landowner’s concerns taken into account during the consultation". After some off-mic discussion, the officer carefully answered:

The development of the Minerals Plan has taken account of views of a whole range of people including the farmer, who’s a tenant of the actual extraction site [not correct] and who owns the fields beyond. The evidence at the time from the operator or the indication from the operator was that they believed that they had access rights over this land. In the course of the planning application that’s been received since, it’s been suggested that this is not the case and we are seeking further information from the operator on that. So it’s a very fluid position.

Without site access, there is no quarry. DCC allocated this Specific Site to include the third party land without seeing any evidence that the operator had rights over such land. Click here for the whole story.

It’s been the same all along. As we wrote in our response to the Minerals Plan, "time and time again the Council has taken the operator at its unsubstantiated, unevidenced word, whilst ignoring other voices that have proved to be the more accurate". Still, the unelected officer knows best. Let’s hope we get more sense out of the Planning Inspector. The Public Inquiry has already been booked for the summer. Of course, by then Aggregate Industries’ planning applications may have already been determined.

If water from Straitgate can do this now - just think if a quarry were there

Water from one of the four watercourses originating at Straitgate has today closed the road between Ottery St Mary and West Hill. The road may be closed for several weeks. The Express and Echo writes:

A large hole has appeared on an East Devon road.

The road between Westhill and Ottery has been closed at Foxenhole Mill because of the collapsed culvert.

Police were called to the scene early this morning and on arrival highways crews were made aware.

The hole is described as 2ft by 3ft on the surface and 15ft by 10ft underneath.

EDDC Officer Reports

East Devon District Council raised objections last year to both of Aggregate Industries’ planning applications: to quarry Straitgate Farm, and to process the material 8 miles away at Blackhill Quarry.

Both planning applications have already generated so many documents and responses that it can sometimes be difficult to keep track of them all. For those following matters closely, and further to EDDC objects again, here are links to the EDDC Officer Reports, and an excerpt from the Council's Blackhill objection last month. Who, but AI, could argue with its conclusions?

East Devon District Council responded to the original submission of this proposal on 22nd July 2015 raising objections on the following issues:

Blackhill Quarry is in a sensitive location in the AONB and SSSI and after earlier extensions to its life cycle, East Devon District Council consider the adverse impacts of its retention outweigh any benefits of re-using its processing plant. The quarry should be closed and restored in quick order to prevent further harm to habitats and landscape.

Aggregate Industries have not demonstrated that alternative solutions cannot be utilised.

The road impact of taking materials first from Straitgate to Blackhill, then from Blackhill to the marketplace, is severely adverse.

Under Reg 22 of the EIA Regulations, the applicant has submitted revisions. Of particular interest to East Devon District Council has been Chapter 5 that has tackled need and alternatives to processing at Blackhill.

East Devon District Council understands and accepts there is need for crushed aggregate, sand and gravel and that these quarries are of regional importance in providing materials for development growth.

Straitgate Quarry [sic] has been discounted as a location by the applicant due to noise, traffic and visual impact. Rockbeare Quarry has been discounted for various reasons including silt lagoon capacity, newts and other technical issues. Further afield, Hillhead Quarry at Uffculme has been discounted due to distance and cost.

East Devon District Council are not persuaded that any of the aforementioned processing options are less worthy or less sustainable in planning terms than transporting the 1.5 million cubic metres of material to Blackhill Quarry over 5 years and then shipping it out again to market. Like Blackhill Quarry, all of the alternatives listed have constraints that ultimately have a financial burden on the mineral processor. That burden is a fact of life in mineral production.

It is considered that all of the alternative sites are better than processing at Blackhill Quarry due to the impact on the AONB and sensitive habitats around. The impact on the AONB is wide-ranging, from the visual impact of HGVs traversing the middle of the Common on the exposed B3180, the noise and congestion they cause, the visual impact of stockpiles and the noise and disturbance of processing, particularly when witnessed on nearby public rights of way. Secondary delivery trips by aggregate HGVs spread out through local low-grade roads and residents in villages such as Woodbury are familiar with the lorry movements and the impact they have.

For these reasons, East Devon District Council consider the proposals to be at odds with both the adopted and emerging East Devon Local Plan and unsustainable development.

RECOMMENDATION

Objection raised.

Devon Minerals Plan - update

DCC’s Development Management Committee will meet on 27 January at 2.00pm, and will be asked to endorse the Pre-submission Draft Devon Minerals Plan, for submission to the Secretary of State, and for subsequent examination by a planning inspector. DCC writes:

Whilst a number of objections have been made to the Plan, it is considered that these do not raise fundamental issues of soundness, and submission of the Plan in the form that was recently consulted on is therefore warranted.

DCC's report can be found here. 

Straitgate Farm will still be put forward as a Specific Site; a site supposedly:

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

but, in actual fact, a site where the landowner of the proposed site access is not supportive; a site where processing relies on extending the use of an isolated factory, 8 miles away in an area designated of European importance to nature in the East Devon AONB.

It's hardly surprising then, after the voices of 370 individuals and organisations who objected to Straitgate in 2012 were completely ignored, that in 2015 - after Aggregate Industries had already submitted twin planning applications for Straitgate Farm and Blackhill Quarry, and after people had already written to the Council in response to those applications - many will have considered it futile to respond to the Minerals Plan yet again.

When you scrutinise the actual data...

'Let us quarry right down to your water table', says Aggregate Industries - after all, Amec, its consultants, have been measuring the groundwater at Straitgate for years and should know what's going on.

If that’s the plan, then some scrutiny should be applied to those groundwater figures, the ones that Amec has used to derive this 'maximum' water table - after all, it's people’s drinking water that would be at risk.

Amec has been recording groundwater levels since January 2013 for piezometers PZ01-PZ06, and since September 2013 for PZ07-PZ11. Amec says "The highest groundwater levels on record (20 February 2014) have been hand contoured and are shown in Figure 2.2" 4.2.

But check the actual data, because it's not the same as in Figure 2.2; in fact, the actual data for 20 February 2014 is almost half a metre higher on average than Figure 2.2's "February 2014 (high levels)" - see the workings and data below.

Amec recognises that "the 20 February data... does not necessarily reflect the peak groundwater level at each piezometer" and "has developed an alternative maximum groundwater level grid" such that "when compared with the 20 February 2014 levels, the new maximum water table grid indicated that across the proposed extraction area the water table grids are generally similar and within 1m of each".

In itself, this appears to be an admission by Amec that it cannot predict the maximum water table to any greater accuracy than 1m - reason enough to leave 1m unquarried above the maximum water table. 

But it gets worse, because the actual maximum groundwater level for each piezometer (data highlighted below in yellow) is over one metre higher on average than the Figure 2.2 data. No surprise that the discrepancies are in AI's favour.

Amec doesn’t have enough data to produce a maximum groundwater contour map with any degree of accuracy. Now it's clear that the data it does have is not being used properly. It's simply astonishing then that AI thinks it should be permitted to quarry right down to Amec's predicted 'maximum groundwater level' - when there are so many people dependent on the site for their drinking water, and when there are so many inaccuracies, inconsistencies, unknowns and anomalies.

But then Amec wrote its hydrogeology reports never really thinking that AI intended to quarry right down to the maximum water table - as all the documents and cross sections illustrate.

The proposed quarry at Straitgate Farm would work the mineral dry and to a proposed limit of 1m above the highest predicted water table. 3

Quarrying still the most unpopular form of development

Latest survey by Development Intelligence sees quarrying at bottom of table for third year running

OPPOSITION towards new quarries has hardened and quarrying is still the most unpopular form of development, recent research by strategy consultancy Development Intelligence has revealed. DI Tracker, an annual survey commissioned by Development Intelligence, showed that three-quarters of people would oppose a new quarry in their local area and just one in 10 would support it. The survey, carried out in late 2015, spoke to 2,005 British adults and found that twice as many people would be prepared to support fracking in their area rather than a quarry...

...reports Agg-Net - a news service for the quarrying industry.

AI truck comes off the road on Woodbury Common

There's already plenty of photo and video evidence to show why the B3180 is not suitable for Aggregate Industries’ HGVs. AI's planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm relies on using this road to haul as-dug sand and gravel, through the village of West Hill, to its isolated processing plant at Blackhill, on Woodbury Common in the East Devon AONB.

If any more evidence were needed, here’s a report of an incident involving one of AI's HGVs on the B3180 from this week's Exmouth Journal: Police called as lorry ends up in a ditch on Common road. Fortunately, no one was injured, but it could have been far worse - if, for example, it had involved a pedestrian or a cyclist. Read the article, and then read AI’s claims afresh, because the company thinks it’s fine to put up to 200 of these 44-tonne HGVs on this road each day. AI says:

the proposed B3180 is considered to be suitable as the recommended route for the transport of material from Straitgate Farm to Blackhill Quarry 4.2.1 the increased flows along [the B3180] are insignificant to cause a noticeable impact to road users 4.3 Based on the findings of this assessment it can be concluded that the proposed development will have no material adverse impact on the operation or safety of the local road network. 8.0

As with other parts of AI's planning applications, these claims are just utter nonsense.

Picture: Simon Horn

#Devon On Woodbury Common the B3180 is NOW CLEAR - the broken down lorry has been recovered [PL]

— BBC Travel SouthWest (@BBCTravelSW) January 7, 2016

‘...we are moving into a period of unknown extremes’

Watercourses originating from Straitgate pass through four communities downstream; communities that are prone to flooding. Any quarrying at Straitgate Farm must not make the situation worse, either during work or afterwards. DCC has requested that any plans make the situation better. How this could be so, with the loss of millions of gallons of groundwater storage capacity in the unsaturated layer of sand and gravel on top of the hill above these communities, remains to be seen.

The EA's flood defence scheme at Thorne Farm Way in Ottery St Mary was completed in 2012, following flooding from the Cadhay Bog watercourse in 2008 - when 6.3 inches of precipitation fell in 3 hours, a total of 7.4 inches over 27 hours. What has come out of the dreadful Christmas flooding in the North of England is that the EA says we need a "complete rethink" on UK flood preparations in the face of climate change and extreme weather events. In the Cumbria floods of 2009, 12.3 inches of rain fell in single day. In December 2015, this record was surpassed when Honister recorded 13.4 inches in the same period. In Keswick, the new £6 million flood defences built to withstand the 2009 highs were overwhelmed. The Mayor of Keswick said: "The flood defences were designed for a one in 100 year event and since it's six years since we had the last one, we were sort of surprised that we got one so soon". The EA deputy chief executive admitted: "We are in a period of known extremes and we are moving into a period of unknown extremes".

Any flood mitigation at Straitgate must therefore be more robust than that planned in 1968, when 5 inches of rain fell in one day in East Devon; downstream communities will know exactly who to blame if not. AI's plans inspire little confidence; it's clear the company hasn't fully grasped what's at stake.

Smoke and mirrors

Amec has now come back with the scope of additional work it will carry out in an effort to show why its client, Aggregate Industries, does not need to leave the 1m of unquarried material above the maximum water table to protect people’s drinking water supplies; the 1m that is typically required of other operators. Yet another report will be produced and consulted upon to support AI's planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm, this time to include a full survey of all surrounding groundwater dependents including the mediaeval fishponds at Grade I Cadhay, the results of infiltration testing of overburden, and:

Description of the plan for excavating to the maximum water table level but still maintaining a 1 m unsaturated freeboard, and justification of why the use of overburden will be suitable. The results of the infiltration testing etc. will inform this section of the Summary Report. In addition, the concepts will be illustrated by annotated sketches.

When Amec says "maintaining a 1 m unsaturated freeboard", what it really means is a summer and winter working regime, entrusting AI to only quarry down to the maximum winter water table during the summer months when groundwater levels are lower, backfilling with top soil and subsoils before groundwater levels rise in the winter. Of course, restoring just 1m of soils above the maximum water table would not normally be considered adequate to protect drinking water supplies from future land use pollutants - the infiltration testing on site this month, of back-fill against in-situ material, will check drainage rates not attenuation of nitrates. Furthermore, the estimated maximum groundwater level is unlikely to be the maximum, when it has only been derived from the last couple of years' data.

It’s interesting, because not so long ago Amec was the same set of consultants that assumed that 1m of sand and gravel was to be left unquarried:

The proposed quarry at Straitgate Farm would work the mineral dry and to a proposed limit of 1m above the highest predicted water table. 3

And made its conclusions based upon that:

In removing a proportion of the unsaturated zone including the soil layer there will be a reduction in the storage capacity/buffering and so recharge may move more quickly through the unsaturated zone. The extent to which this makes the groundwater hydrograph more “flashier” would be difficult to quantify with a high degree of certainty… Within the proposed development the establishment of a 1m freeboard over and above the highest known water level provides for this eventuality.

Amec was the same set of consultants that admitted uncertainty over where the maximum groundwater level actually was:

...there is uncertainty about how smooth the [seasonal groundwater elevation] transition is because there is no piezometer in the centre of the Site and there is the possibility for steps in the water table related to faulting 2.4 ...unmapped local faulting... 3.1 ...the two [maximum water table grids] therefore represent just two of the many possible interpretations of the data which themselves are based on an incomplete parameterization of the detailed groundwater dynamics of the site 4.2 Groundwater levels do not fluctuate evenly across the site... 4.2

But then Amec was also the same set of consultants that produced a "conceptual cross section across Straitgate Farm" , Fig 3.1, to illustrate the groundwater regime - the same sort of smoke-and-mirrors diagram that AI used in the seven suits meeting to hoodwink the EA and DCC; a cross sectional diagram showing the piezometers PZ01, PZ02, PZ03 and PZ11 where groundwater levels are recorded.

But look carefully, and in the new report too - when Amec says that "the concepts will be illustrated by annotated sketches", because there are NO piezometers running in a line across the middle of the proposed extraction area; the position of the piezometers don’t even match the corresponding section line that Amec has drawn on Fig 2.2, see below. When PZ01, PZ02, PZ03 and PZ11 all lie outside the area AI wants to quarry, it's no wonder Amec admits that there's "incomplete parameterization of the detailed groundwater dynamics of the site".

So is Amec really prepared to now make the case for AI to quarry right down to the maximum water table and forget its previous conclusions, forget about all the uncertainty over groundwater levels, forget about rigour and professional integrity? AI has put Amec in a difficult position. But that's what you can do if you are a multinational cement conglomerate - and the first set of conclusions don't suit.

EDDC objects again

Following East Devon District Council’s earlier objection to Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm, the Council has responded again, this time to the company's Regulation 22 response:

In light of the further information, East Devon District Council still objects to the application for the following reasons:

it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal for processing materials from this site is sustainable having regard to the environmental sensitivity of the area;

it has not been demonstrated that the proposals for mitigating the landscape impacts of the development and for the restoration of the site are appropriate and achievable having regard to the landscape value of the site and airport safeguarding; and

concerns remain regarding flood risk and impact on the water table, particularly in relation to the potential effects on local residents.

Here is EDDC’s earlier objection to AI's plan to extend the operating period of Blackhill Quarry.

As this blog enters its 5th year…

AI's planning applications for East Devon run on and on, careering from problem to problem, riddled with inaccuracies, inconsistencies, fabrications and falsehoods. Huge questions still have to be answered before they go anywhere near the Development Management Committee. Here are just a few:

The question of what happens when all of the unsaturated material above the maximum water table is removed, and millions of gallons of groundwater storage capacity is permanently lost on top of a hill above flood-prone communities, at a time when flooding events are happening with increasing frequency and intensity; DCC has already requested that, "due to the nature of the flood risk downstream, betterment should be achieved".

The question of what protection is left for people’s water supplies, when AI proposes to quarry right down to, and remove all the sand and gravel above, the maximum groundwater level across the whole site. The question of the proposed Section 106 and who decides if the water is lost or polluted, and who picks up the tab if the cause is disputed; the question of the 60% of groundwater users not intended to be covered at all. The question of why AI thinks it’s acceptable to leave just 1m of soil post-restoration between the surface and maximum water table as protection against future pollution; at nearby Town Farm, where far fewer water users were at risk, Hanson made it clear that "Post restoration (including the placement of soils) the resulting ground surface will be at least 2m above the water table".

The question of soil storage, after AI conceded it has no rights to use 3rd party land for this purpose; the question therefore of revised plans and new boundaries; the question of 340,000m3 of top soil and overburden - enough to take out another 42 acres of farmland if piled 2m high.

The question of continued processing at Blackhill, when AI can’t demonstrate the "exceptional circumstances" required by the NPPF for continued working in an AONB.

The question of importing a million tonnes of nitrate-rich soils from a dairy farm into a nitrate-sensitive wildlife site of European importance.

The question of the absent tree planting and dormouse mitigation, when 2km of their ancient hedgerow habitat is proposed to be grubbed up; NPPF: "...local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused".

The question of site access. AI’s plans rely on the use of 3rd party land - outlined below in yellow. Having conceded it has no rights for soil and overburden storage, staff facilities, wheel washes or footpaths on this 3rd party land, AI can't produce the relevant lease to prove it has rights of access either. AI has now confirmed in writing that "the Company would need to revise the quarry development proposals".

AI must surely rue the day it came across Straitgate Farm. 2016 will be interesting - one way or another.

We wish readers a Happy Christmas and Peaceful New Year.