Sunday, 2 February 2020

EA’s revised conditions still allow AI to dig below MWWT

The MWWT – the maximum winter water table – would be the base of any quarry at Straitgate. The MWWT is a prediction with huge uncertainties. In large areas it will not reflect reality.

The Environment Agency has proposed a number of updated conditions which "must be secured on any planning permission". Here are two:
1. No working shall be undertaken below the ‘Maximum Winter Water Table (MWWT) grid’.
2. The MWWT grid and the extent of the extraction phases shall be reviewed immediately before operation of the quarry begins, using all the collected data from all site piezometers plus the 1990 groundwater level readings given in SJ Parkhouse, 1990, ‘Report on the reserves of pebble beds at Straitgate Farm near Rockbeare’. If any of the maximum recorded groundwater levels exceed the height of the MWWT grid then the MWWT grid shall be updated using that data. Maximum groundwater levels in the site piezometers shall then be reviewed annually and if any exceed the height of levels on the MWWT grid then the MWWT grid shall be updated using that data. This analysis shall be provided in the annual monitoring reports to be submitted to Devon County Council.
So, the MWWT will be updated before any quarrying starts. Fine. But let’s think about what might happen in practice after that – because plainly the EA hasn’t. The EA says:
Maximum groundwater levels in the site piezometers shall then be reviewed annually and if any exceed the height of levels on the MWWT grid then the MWWT grid shall be updated using that data.
The fact that the EA is even talking about groundwater levels exceeding the height of the MWWT grid is acceptance that the model may not represent maximum levels, and therefore acceptance that quarrying could go below the maximum water table. But that’s an aside.

What’s worse is that the EA’s conditions – as currently worded – actually permit Aggregate Industries to dig below the MWWT. How so?

Say we have a wet spring. With climate change, anything is possible. Say, in an April, groundwater levels exceed Aggregate Industries’ MWWT model. It’s happened before.

Under the EA’s conditions, those levels would only be "reviewed annually" and the MWWT grid "updated using that data" – maybe at the same time, maybe not. Say this annual review were due in March of the following year, which Aggregate Industries might get around to doing, after reminders, if pushed, by November. Think that unlikely? Aggregate Industries has a history of not complying with Section 106 water conditions, submitting annual water reports years late, if at all.

For 18 months, maybe more, maybe less, the MWWT grid – down to which Aggregate Industries would be quarrying – would therefore be wrong.

However, following that breach in April, as long as water levels subside over the summer and autumn months, as they invariably do, and as long as Aggregate Industries can comply with the EA’s condition 5 – "the base level to which the quarry is worked is no closer to the contemporaneous measured groundwater level than 1m" – the company would be permitted to quarry down to this exceeded MWWT grid – i.e. below the maximum water table – until such time as the annual review has been completed.

This would give Aggregate Industries enough time to have quarried down to this wrong level – doing goodness knows what harm, that may only become apparent years later – to have replaced the overburden, and to have said terribly sorry, awful oversight, won’t ever happen again. And that’s if anybody even found out.

The EA and DCC rely on others to report breaches of planning conditions these days. DCC says:
... we encourage you to report suspected breaches of planning control, relating to permitted sites and unauthorised development or activity, as soon as possible.
How are others expected to report breaches of water conditions – such as groundwater levels exceeding the MWWT grid – particularly given that AI put a stop to public scrutiny of groundwater data for the Straitgate application after the public informed the EA and DCC of the last occasion that the MWWT was breached, by up to 1.6m, and in four locations?
Posted by
Labels: , , , , , ,

EA ‘consolidates and revises’ conditions – but still fails to justify position

Since 1 September 2017 – when the Environment Agency first laid out the conditions it thought necessary if Aggregate Industries were to be permitted to quarry Straitgate Farm – much has come to light.

Not of course from Aggregate Industries’ own documents supporting the planning application – a planning application dogged by delays – but from the effort of others, including an eminent Professor of Hydrogeology who has repeatedly stressed his concerns about the company’s plans:
The proposal to quarry the Straitgate Farm area to the MWWT will impact on the Straitgate and Cadhay Springs and cause a significant deterioration in the water quality.
To reflect some of what’s come to light, the EA has now sent renewed guidance to Devon County Council, which "consolidates and revises our requirements for conditions and obligations."

If you compare the EA’s original letter from 2017 with the one from last week, you will see what changes have been made. These are all in line with matters already discussed on this blog. There are no surprises. However, some might sense that the EA’s tone has hardened:

In 2017, the EA’s position was "...we consider that the proposal will be acceptable but only if the subsequent permission includes appropriate worded conditions. In particular we recommend that permission includes conditions to achieve the following..."

In 2020, the EA’s position is now: "...we consider this proposal can only be acceptable if subsequent permission includes conditions and obligations to protect the water environment… we advise that the following must be secured on any planning permission..."

Our emphasis. Read into that what you will, perhaps nothing at all, but there are some very significant hurdles that Aggregate Industries will now have to overcome, not least concerning condition 6:
6. Although impacts to private water supplies and stream flows are considered unlikely, the applicant shall submit draft text for a Section 106 agreement to Devon County Council. This shall include Cadhay House Spring, Cadhay House mediaeval fishponds, Cadhay Bog and Cadhay Wood Stream. This should be based upon the principles described in section 2.8 of the July 2017 Regulation 22 responses report. Additionally, in the case where a period of investigation is required into adverse impact to a private water supply, the agreement shall provide for a temporary water supply during the period of investigation. The Section 106 agreement shall include a monitoring management and mitigation strategy. This strategy shall include an outline of possible mitigation measures which could be put into place in different circumstances. In its water quality provisions, the S106 agreement shall include pH.
As a reminder, "Section 2.8 of the July 2017 Regulation 22 responses report", was the part where DCC asked Aggregate Industries:
The planning policy section of the application includes the text from the Devon Minerals plan, ‘any proposal should include provision for alternative supply in the event of derogation of private water supplies resulting from mineral development’. However, there is no detail on this in the body of the report. Full detail should be provided including proposals for either a bond or legal agreement dealing with this matter.
Ongoing monitoring of flows/levels/water quality and water usage should be carried out by AI from now until the end of quarrying. This would establish a baseline against which to compare any changes in supply.
Also, information should be provided on the provision of alternative water supplies to mitigate any unforeseen adverse effects of the quarrying operation on the hydrology of the downstream County Wildlife Sites at Cadhay Wood and Cadhay Bog.
No "full detail" was, or has since been, forthcoming on how alternatives supplies could be provided, or how adverse impacts could be remedied. As for establishing a baseline, "from now [2017] until the end of quarrying", there are still properties that have had no monitoring, not least Cadhay. Derogation cannot be determined without a long-term baseline.

So, those concerned will no doubt be waiting with bated breath to see how condition 6 can be satisfactorily addressed.

It will be interesting to learn how long private water users might have to endure "a temporary water supply during the period of investigation" – months? years? – whilst it’s determined whether derogation is "in the opinion of the County Council, in consultation with the Environment Agency, on the balance of probability, attributable partly or wholly as a result of the winning and working of minerals at Straitgate Farm".

It will be interesting to learn how an immediate and sufficient adequate water supply would be provided to properties and businesses miles away from the mains.

It will be interesting to learn how water quality and stream flows to mediaeval fishponds and ancient woodland would be maintained in the event of problems or mishap. It will be interesting to learn how pollution events would cleared up.

It will be interesting to learn whether any of that is possible.

All of this comes after a planning lawyer wrote to the EA last month, complaining:
The duties on the EA are to consider the application and provide advice and reasons for that advice which are commensurate with the issues raised. The statutory duty of DCC is to engage with your consultation response and consider the issues identified. Neither of these has happened in this case. Professor Brassington's detailed letter and conclusions have not been addressed or, if they have, there is no evidence of how they have been addressed, nor how such consideration has led to the conclusion set out in the position statement.  
My client does not want to engage lawyers to argue its case but is adamant that it expects full consideration of the fundamental and legitimate issues raised by Professor Brassington before any decision is made by DCC on the application. Otherwise, in line with the detailed caselaw on this point, the decision by DCC will be legally flawed.
On this front, there continues to be a deafening silence from the EA – and therefore, according to the planning lawyer above, the EA’s statement is 'insufficient to enable DCC to determine the Straitgate application lawfully'. There is no attempt to explain why the Agency’s views diverge from Prof Brassington, holder of the Whitaker Medal "in recognition of an outstanding contribution to hydrogeology." There is no attempt to explain why quarrying down to the maximum water table – or an unreliable estimation of it – would be satisfactory for Straitgate Farm – with its gamut of sensitive water receptors – when 2m freeboards, or more, are routinely deployed elsewhere. There is no attempt to argue why the groundwater chemistry won’t be fundamentally altered, or why increased run-off wouldn’t cause reduced spring flow.

If the EA has genuine disagreements with Prof Brassington then it should come out and explain why, so that its views can be scrutinised like everybody else’s. It shouldn’t hide its light under a bushel; it should join the conversation!
Posted by
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

LafargeHolcim ‘will struggle – faced with seismic costs to decarbonise’


Could LafargeHolcim sell its cement 'assets' one day, and move into say timber, even telecoms? It’s not as far fetched as you think. Pressures are mounting on the cement sector and LafargeHolcim – the world's biggest cement producer and parent of Aggregate Industries – reports the Financial Times:
Redburn, the equity research house, has downgraded two major European cement producers, arguing that the industry will face huge costs to decarbonise from the middle of the decade. A "dramatic" escalation in the price of cement is forecast, as costs to produce the construction material will rise by some 61 per cent when the industry invests in technology to capture and store carbon, according to a new report.
Redburn downgraded LafargeHolcim from "neutral" to "sell", pointing out that cement represents almost four-fifths of the company’s income.
"That is a seismic level of extra pricing that the industry is going to have to unlock over time to make returns," said John Messenger, one of the authors of the report.
Large-scale investment will be needed from the middle of this decade in expensive carbon capture technology.... [This] will prevent the European construction material companies from paying out dividends to shareholders and they will struggle to compete with local competitors in developing markets, the report said.
LafargeHolcim claims it is "proactively addressing the challenge of its carbon footprint" blah blah blah. Last year, LafargeHolcim was named second worst company for increasing CO2 emissions.


This is not the first time these issues have been aired. In 2019, the governors of the Bank of England and Banque de France made a joint statement:
Carbon emissions have to decline by 45% from 2010 levels over the next decade in order to reach net zero by 2050. This requires a massive reallocation of capital. If some companies and industries fail to adjust to this new world, they will fail to exist.
A reallocation of capital is nothing new... one Malaysian cement producer sold all of its cement plants, and put the money into telecommunications instead (figuring that it could make more money for its shareholders, which it did).
Fund managers that are obliged to take environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks into their investment strategies may also decide to shift their money away from cement, due to the ‘stranded asset’ argument, as they have started to do in the oil industry. The risk being that the reserves (of oil, or of limestone) that have been laboriously and expensively built-up over years will be stranded in the ground by future environmental legislation - or prohibitive carbon permit prices. If the reserves cannot be economically accessed, then their value must be reassessed. There have been suggestions that on this basis some oil companies are already technically bankrupt. Some have gone bust for a variety of reasons, and the US fracking companies are well-known to be extremely indebted. If bankruptcies could and can happen to the oil industry, then they could happen to the cement industry, in what is known as a ‘gale’ of ‘creative destruction.’
Lower carbon footprint building materials will need to be increasingly used – adding to LafargeHolcim's woes. The Committee on Climate Change says "increasing the quantity of wood used in construction presents a significant opportunity to reduce GHG emissions." A recent study from MIT found:
Comparing the economic and emissions impacts of replacing CO2-intensive building materials (e.g. steel and concrete) with lumber products in the U.S. under an economy-wide cap-and-trade policy consistent with the nation’s Paris Agreement GHG emissions reduction pledge, the study found that the CO2-intensity (tons of CO2 emissions per dollar of output) of lumber production is about 20 percent less than that of fabricated metal products, under 50 percent that of iron and steel, and under 25 percent that of cement.
However, as the CCC point out, regardless of the amount of future timber-based construction, there needs to be "significant decarbonisation efforts in the sectors that produce key construction materials". For LafargeHolcim and Aggregate Industries, climate pressures mean the outlook is bleak.

Posted by
Labels: ,

Tuesday, 28 January 2020

Does the state of our rivers mirror the competency of the EA?

The Environment Agency is tasked with looking after our water resources, including our rivers.

Given that an eminent Professor of Hydrogeology is warning 'ANY quarrying at Straitgate would cause problems', Devon County Council is relying on the competency and expertise of an under-resourced EA to advise on the impact that Aggregate Industries' unorthodox, untried, untested seasonal working scheme would have on local water resources.

If what the EA has allowed to happen to our rivers is anything to go by, this confidence is misplaced.



Posted by
Labels:

‘A secure, high-quality supply of fresh water is vital to human health and well-being’

The Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds, the resource that Aggregate Industries want to remove at Straitgate, are an important source of groundwater in the Otter Valley – not only for private but for public supplies.

The Pebble Beds are the thin sliver of blue on the geological cross section below; Straitgate Farm sits on top of the hill to the left of the River Otter.


Those reliant on springs, wells and boreholes in the area for their drinking water supplies will know all about the importance of groundwater – and how important it is that we protect it.
They are not the only ones:




Posted by
Labels: ,

‘The atmosphere doesn't care that we are using carbon more efficiently’

The good, the bad and the ugly have returned from Davos, including the parent of Aggregate Industries:


If climate change is indeed "a major priority", it's not enough for LafargeHolcim to reduce its emissions:


LafargeHolcim claims it is "the most ambitious company in our sector and committed to reducing emission levels", but focuses on telling us about emissions per tonne. However, LafargeHolcim's "cost to society" is not determined on a per tonne basis, it is determined on a total CO2 emissions basis – which very nearly matches that of the Philippines and its 100 million inhabitants. As we posted in LafargeHolcim has a way with numbers – CO2 emission numbers, in 2018 the company's 1% efficiency gains were undone by selling 3.5% more cement.

Posted by
Labels: ,

DCC takes step towards net zero


These panels could reduce Devon County Council’s CO2 emissions by around 12 tonnes per year.

If Aggregate Industries’ plans for Straitgate were permitted, however, it would take these panels almost 400 years to offset the CO2 pumped out by the company’s multi-million mile haulage scheme – by which time large parts of our land mass will have been long under water, whether in Devon or New York.

Posted by
Labels: ,

UK government’s “dirty secret”

The UK is leading action to tackle climate change, or so it claims:



COP26, the 26th United Nations Climate Change conference, will be held in Glasgow this year. As the Newsnight clip points out, "UK policies on climate change will be scrutinised like never before."


No part of government, and no part of the economy and society, could be left unaffected if the push towards net zero was to be successful, said [Jim Skea, professor of sustainable energy at Imperial College London]. “We really need to do it all,” he said. “Nothing can be wiped off the table. No sector can be left to not contribute – really, this needs contributions from absolutely everything.”
Which, of course, also includes our friends at Aggregate Industries, and parent LafargeHolcim.
Posted by
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, 27 January 2020

Another accident on the B3174 Exeter Road

The Air Ambulance was on the scene of yet another accident outside Straitgate this morning.



Posted by
Labels: ,

Friday, 24 January 2020

‘Treating the world’s resources as limitless is leading towards global disaster’

The report found that 100.6bn tonnes of materials were consumed in 2017, the latest year for which data is available. Half of the total is sand, clay, gravel and cement used for building, along with the other minerals quarried to produce fertiliser.
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Curbing the great sand grab

Posted by

‘Never demolish, never remove or replace, always add, transform, and reuse!’

In the UK, the construction industry accounts for 60% of all materials used, while creating a third of all waste and generating 45% of all CO2 emissions in the process. It is a greedy, profligate and polluting monster, gobbling up resources and spitting out the remains in intractable lumps. On our current course, we are set to triple material extraction in 30 years, and triple waste production by 2100. If we stand any chance of averting climate catastrophe, we must start with buildings – and stop conceiving them in the same way we have for centuries.
"We have to think of buildings as material depots. Waste is simply material without an identity. If we track the provenance and performance of every element of a building, giving it an identity, we can eliminate waste."
[Copenhagen architect Lendager Group] thinks it has some of the answers. It has just completed a housing development, called Resource Rows, that Lendager says represents a 50-60% reduction in CO2 compared to conventional construction, simply by reusing materials. They saw an opportunity in the demolition of Copenhagen’s vast Carlsberg brewery, whose bricks wouldn’t usually have been reused because modern cement mortar makes it very difficult to separate them. Instead, they took an angle grinder to the walls and sliced them up in one metre square chunks, stacking the panels to form a striking patchwork facade for the new apartment block. Windows, meanwhile, have been reused to make greenhouse roofs for shared allotments. The green credentials have proved popular: the homes were rented out more quickly than any other housing scheme in the city.

Posted by
Labels: ,

‘No Boris bounce for construction in 2020’

The CPA has downgraded its forecasts for total construction output once again amid continuing political uncertainty. A year ago, the CPA was predicting growth of 1.4% in 2020 and 1.7% in 2021. Last summer this was revised downwards to 1.0% and 1.4% respectively. Now it is saying that total construction output in Great Britain is forecast to fall by 0.3% in 2020, before a rise of just 1.2% in 2021.
And that is assuming that HS2 is allowed to go ahead.
No wonder the Mineral Products Association says "Get HS2 Done". This despite the costs ballooning from £30bn to over £100bn, or more. This despite the losses to our natural habitat. Just keep digging up the landscape – says the MPA – that should do it.

Posted by
Labels: ,

Thursday, 23 January 2020

What ‘freeboards’ are adopted elsewhere?

Last week, it was reported that a High Court judge had rejected a judicial review of Shropshire Council's decision to grant permission for a quarry near Bridgnorth. We posted about this site back in 2018.

The claimant argued the council had downplayed the proposal's potential impact on local groundwater, that "there was inadequate evidence upon which to conclude that significant effects were not likely." However, the judge ruled that the council was within its rights to conclude "the proposals are not considered likely to lead to any significant impacts in relation to groundwater" – notwithstanding "major ambiguity in the [Environment] Agency's response." How could the council be so sure? Here’s the clue:
The applicant is willing to accept a condition ensuring that a minimum freeboard is retained above the aquifer. A freeboard of 2m is suggested, using results of the proposed groundwater monitoring scheme. In practice however, the applicant’s hydrological data indicates that any freeboard is unlikely to be less than 8m.
Aggregate Industries, on the other hand, would be on far shakier ground at Straitgate – where the impact on local groundwater from its plans to quarry the site is also a significant bone of contention. Here, the freeboard proposed by Aggregate Industries – the amount of material planned to be retained unquarried above the water table, to protect surrounding drinking water supplies for 100 people, to act as a margin of safety, to act as a margin of error – is precisely nothing, zero metres. Professor Brassington warns:
any proposals to quarry at Straitgate Farm will impact on the fragile groundwater system and cause the flows of springs to decrease and the quality of the water also to deteriorate
Prof Brassington also says, instead of a 0m freeboard, or even a 2m freeboard, at Straitgate – which as Dr Rutter recognised has "a very steep hydraulic gradient":
...if quarrying were to be permitted, I maintain that a 3 m unquarried buffer should be left above the maximum water table to minimize the negative impacts.
If there were ever a challenge to the Straitgate decision and the potential impact of the development on local groundwater – claimants could point not just to the 2m or more left at Bridgnorth, but a range of other quarries where the proposed freeboard was greater than Aggregate Industries' zero:

To protect groundwater quality ... Across the whole of the site 1 metre of sand will be left above the maximum recorded groundwater level.
A minimum stand-off of 1 metre will be maintained between the base of extraction and the underlying watertable (based upon peak groundwater levels)…. The peak groundwater level contours are derived from piezometer data collected over a monitoring period of up to 20 years.
Conditions were imposed to restrict the extraction of sand to within 1.2m of the highest recorded water levels to ensure there was no effect on the local ground water system.
Although the sand deposit continues at depth there are no proposals to extract any deeper material to ensure a suitable stand-off of at least 2m above the water table as is the case with the current extraction.
the limitation of all workings to at least 1m above the highest water table… Historically quarrying has always left 1 metre of undisturbed sand and gravel between the bottom of the quarry and the surface of the groundwater.
The maximum depth of excavation shall be no deeper than 2m above the maximum groundwater levels
The quarry floor will be maintained approximately 2 m above the maximum recorded groundwater level in common with other sections of the quarry.
Even in Devon:
The scheme proposes extraction within the Pebble Beds to 1m above the highest recorded water table level.
And last but not least, in Shropshire.
The Glaciofluvial Deposits are classified by the Environment Agency as a Secondary A aquifer, however there are no known groundwater abstractions in the vicinity of the Site…. In modelling the resources, a base of deposit at 45mAOD was assumed; this is approximately the level of the floor in the Buildwas Quarry and is some 2-3m above the water table.
Why have we saved this one for last? Well, not only is the freeboard one of the largest, but the person responsible for calculating the 1.9 million tonnes of sand and gravel available at Buildwas – 2-3m above the water table – once worked for Aggregate Industries. Not just that. He was, in fact, the author of the controversial 0m freeboard proposal at Straitgate. Small world. One rule for some...

Further afield we find that in Switzerland – the home of Aggregate Industries’ parent LafargeHolcim – the government has banned the extraction of sand and gravel from areas where drinking water is sourced, except "in a limited number of exceptions" in which case:
a protective layer of material must be left that is at least 2 m above the highest maximum ten-year groundwater level;
If a zero metre freeboard were such a good idea, why hasn't it been adopted elsewhere? Think how much more sand and gravel could be recovered. 

At Straitgate, as Prof Brassington points out:
The method of working that is proposed is untried anywhere else in the country and is designed to maximize the sand and gravel dug with no regard to the changes it will inevitably bring to both the quantity and the quality of the groundwater and the springs it discharges through.
How exciting it would be for locals dependent on their wells and springs for drinking water from the Straitgate aquifer to be part of one huge experiment!

Posted by
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 22 January 2020

Mining execs charged with homicide

The mining tailings dam collapse in Brazil last year has now resulted in this:


Posted by
Labels: ,

Climate emergency tops agenda at Davos – Trump, Greta & LafargeHolcim attend

Climate change and the environment is top of the agenda at the World Economic Forum at Davos this week, in large part due to Greta Thunberg – Time magazine’s 2019 'Person of the Year' – and other teenage activists from across the world.


Donald Trump – and his entourage of seven helicopters – was there to talk about "prophets of doom" and his "spectacular" economic turnaround in the US. Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz from Columbia University slammed Trump’s speech:
He managed to say absolutely zero on climate change. Meanwhile we’re going to roast.
LafargeHolcim – the world's largest cement company and parent of Aggregate Industries – was also there. "Head of Group Communications and Branding" told those prepared to listen "about running a socially responsible and #sustainable business in the 21st century" – which is quite a leap, given LafargeHolcim is Acting in a way that would "wipe out most life on the planet", pumping out 135 million tonnes of CO2 in 2018, up from 131 million in 2017, up from 127 million in 2016.

What will make businesses like LafargeHolcim be #sustainable in the future, not just talk #sustainable – if humanity's greatest existential crisis has had no impact on their emissions? As Greta Thunberg remarked:
The climate and the environment is a hot topic right now thanks to young people pushing. But if you see it from another perspective, pretty much nothing has been done.
What might make businesses act is their own existential threat. A recent survey found "the impact of climate change has soared up the CEO agenda", with two thirds of UK bosses worried that climate change could threaten their business:
Achieving net zero by 2050 will demand innovation and transformation at an unprecedented scale and speed and will require business to take positive action.
Others also sense a change:
I have come to Davos for well over a decade and I see behind the scenes, among top executives, a huge change in perception of the risk of climate change.
However, it's one thing perceiving a risk and another thing doing enough about it. Here's what Greta Thunberg had to say at Davos, with her closing remarks below; wise words from a 17-year old:
I wonder, what will you tell your children was the reason to fail and leave them facing a climate chaos that you knowingly brought upon them? That it seemed so bad for the economy that we decided to resign the idea of securing future living conditions without even trying?
Our house is still on fire. Your inaction is fuelling the flames by the hour. And we are telling you to act as if you loved your children above all else.
Last month Greta Thunberg was guest editor for BBC Radio 4's Today programme; here's the video of when she spoke to Sir David Attenborough.

Posted by
Labels: ,

Monday, 20 January 2020

LafargeHolcim: ‘We are accelerating our vision...’

Sound the trumpets. LafargeHolcim – parent company of Aggregate Industries – claims to be changing.


Is this more meaningless greenwash from LafargeHolcim’s CEO Jan Jenisch – at a time of growing outrage from communities already battling with climate change – or could the world's largest cement company really be committed to accelerating to a different, to a better, to a less harmful business model, in an attempt to keep up with the increased ambition voiced by other companies?


If LafargeHolcim’s idea of accelerating its #carbonneutral vision is hauling bog-standard sand and gravel a 46-mile round trip for processing – hauling "1.5 million tonnes of as-dug material" to a location that already has millions of tonnes of resource – then Jan Jenisch's words will indeed look like nothing more than greenwash.

The company's Sustainability Report 2018 claims "LafargeHolcim is at the forefront of efforts to mitigate climate change." You would hardly know. In 2018, LafargeHolcim's gross CO2 emissions increased to 135,000,000 tonnes, UP from 131,000,000 tonnes in 2017, UP from 127,000,000 tonnes in 2016. Total indirect CO2 emissions added another 30,000,000 tonnes.



Is LafargeHolcim doing anything to reduce its mind-boggling emissions? If it is, the company appears apathetically slow on the uptake – having seemingly only just discovered the merits of wind power in one of its largest markets:


In fact, the whole of page 28 of the company's 2018 Sustainability Report is devoted to these turbines, telling us of "the first LafargeHolcim operation in North America to harness wind energy.... which should eliminate the equivalent of at least 9,000 tonnes of CO2." Such savings pale into insignificance when only in the small print of the report does it become clear that LafargeHolcim's annual gross CO2 emissions have increased by 8,000,000 tonnes over the last two years.

Climate scientists warn we have little more than 10 years to turn things around. Given that a tree sequesters 0.060 tonnes of CO2 on average in the first 10 years of its life, LafargeHolcim would have to plant 6.55 billion trees to offset its last three years' emissions. If LafargeHolcim could plant 1 tree every second, the job would take more than 200 years!

It will need more than a few visions and wind turbines to deflect accusations of crimes against humanity:


Posted by
Labels: , ,

Friday, 17 January 2020

Deep-sea mining

Ocean-dwelling species are disappearing twice as fast as land animals. A new animation – a collaboration between Greenpeace and Aardman – highlights the threats to sea turtles and our oceans, including from mining. Watch, sign the petition, and share.




Posted by
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, 16 January 2020

EA statement ‘insufficient to enable DCC to determine Straitgate application lawfully’

Unconnected to the Environment Agency’s unprompted response this week, the planning lawyer instructed by Cadhay has now written to the Agency again – despite their wish to be left alone – after it delivered its Position Statement on Aggregate Industries' proposal to quarry Straitgate Farm:
Unfortunately, the EA's position statement is inadequate. In his recent letter (31 October 2019), Professor Brassington identified several concerns relating to a letter from Wood (2 September 2019), including a need to revise the MWWT model prior to determination of the application, the need to provide an adequate protective buffer on top of the MWWT levels, the inaccuracy of the MWWT model, the impact of quarrying on the spring flows, a misunderstanding of the effect of the prevailing geology and a misunderstanding of the operation of the Cadhay fishponds. Professor Brassington's views are summarised in his "Final Remarks" section of his letter.
Professor Brassington is pre-eminent in this field, his expertise recently recognised by the Geological Society in November 2019 when he was awarded the Whitaker Medal (Hydrogeological Group). His opinions are not only well-evidenced but also demand detailed consideration and analysis.
The EA will be aware of its statutory obligations in its role as a consultee, and of the importance for the County Council to have all necessary and relevant information to enable it to determine the application. The Court has considered this issue on many occasions. For example, in R v Secretary of State for Social services ex p Association of Metropolitan Authorities [1986], the Court stated that "in any context, the essence of consultation is the communication of a genuine invitation to give advice and a genuine consideration of that advice". In Secretary of State for Education v Tameside [1977], the Court confirmed that in making any decision, a public authority must ask itself the right question and take reasonable steps to acquaint itself with the relevant information to enable it to answer that question correctly. Furthermore, the Court has confirmed on several occasions that some matters are so material that failure to consider them would be unlawful (eg CREEDNZ Inc v Governor General [1981] and DLA Delivery Ltd v Baroness Cumberlege of Newick [2015]).
Given the seriousness of the issues raised by Professor Brassington, the position statement fails in every material respect to provide a consultation response on those issues sufficient to enable DCC to determine the application lawfully. When analysed, the position statement merely describes the development, sets out the EA's role and remit and summarises the chronological history of EA's involvement in the matter. Its conclusion then states that the EA is satisfied "that the applicant has undertaken appropriate risk assessment and proposed appropriate mitigation measures to protect water resources", before then stating that the EA will not be providing any further responses on the application.
For the reasons set out above, this is not acceptable. The duties on the EA are to consider the application and provide advice and reasons for that advice which are commensurate with the issues raised. The statutory duty of DCC is to engage with your consultation response and consider the issues identified. Neither of these has happened in this case. Professor Brassington's detailed letter and conclusions have not been addressed or, if they have, there is no evidence of how they have been addressed, nor how such consideration has led to the conclusion set out in the position statement.
My client does not want to engage lawyers to argue its case but is adamant that it expects full consideration of the fundamental and legitimate issues raised by Professor Brassington before any decision is made by DCC on the application. Otherwise, in line with the detailed caselaw on this point, the decision by DCC will be legally flawed.
In the circumstances, I would be grateful if you could either provide a detailed justification for the conclusions in the position statement or, alternatively, now undertake such an assessment so that DCC may proceed to assess your response in full.
Posted by
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Alternative water supplies: EA’s remit is ‘objectives and outcomes, not solutions’

Not many days have passed since the Environment Agency said it had finished responding to Joe Public about Aggregate Industries’ plans to quarry Straitgate Farm:
...we will not be providing further responses over-and-above the information contained within this position statement.
But what do we find? This week, out of the blue, seemingly unprompted, the EA has responded again. Perhaps people at the EA had time to reflect about Straitgate over the Christmas break, time to think about alternative water supplies and how they might be provided – to people, to farms, to mediaeval fishponds, to wetland habitats in ancient woodlands – should the whole thing go belly up, time to think that they don’t want that responsibility on their shoulders thank you very much.

We have in the past questioned how alternative supplies might be provided. There’s no point having a legal agreement to provide alternative drinking water supplies – if you have no idea how those supplies might be provided, how fast they could be provided, or even whether indeed they could. Recently, we have posted AI’s water consultants are still confused about Cadhay’s mediaeval fishponds –
 but now have ‘no objection’ to including them in a Section 106. We have also posted about AI’s legal assurances for alternative water supplies “unfit for purpose” and about AI breaking S106 water monitoring agreements.

In its reply to Professor Brassington’s letter in December, the EA provided a position statement. There was no attempt to explain why the EA disagreed with the eminent hydrogeologist, who says:
It is my view that this application should be turned down and that no quarrying be permitted as to allow it will threaten these water resources for many years to come.
This week, in an email to solicitors representing the owner of Cadhay, the EA wrote:
[Further to our last email] which was sent following our careful consideration of the information supplied by you and Professor Brassington, I am writing to provide some information which was omitted from our email. The below wording should have accompanied our position statement…
You asked in your email of 15 November 2019 about ‘workable proposals’ for provision of alternative supplies. We reviewed the applicant’s draft Section 106 agreement and provided a response to Devon County Council. We see our role in the Section 106 review as giving comments on objectives and outcomes, rather than recommending specific solutions now that may not be appropriate or practical in the future. Devon County Council are responsible for ensuring that the Section 106 is enforceable and contains the appropriate level of detail.
Whether the EA really did give information supplied by Prof Brassington "careful consideration", readers will have to decide. Plainly, if the EA "omitted" important information, the feeling might be they didn't.

In fairness, for all that careful consideration, the EA wasn’t actually asked to come up with their solutions – because that’s the job of Aggregate Industries. What was asked for was merely "sight of workable proposals", any workable proposals; because none have been forthcoming so far.

But clearly, the EA wants to stress – and read into that what you will – that responsibility for these mythical workable proposals for alternative water supplies, for all the above-named receptors, should fall upon DCC's shoulders. It even looks like the EA itself doesn’t know how replacement water supplies would be provided – if it prefers to talk about "objectives and outcomes" not "solutions".

Unfortunately, objectives and outcomes won’t cut it with local people whose drinking water supply has been lost or contaminated; they will be looking for solutions – and quickly. We saw how successful the EA was with objectives in Dawlish.

Devon County Council will have to assure itself that alternative water supplies would work – would immediately work – or local people and businesses could be left without drinking water, and the Council involved in expensive litigation. It’s no good pointing to "objectives and outcomes" from the EA, it’s no good saying "the EA’s happy, so we’re happy". DCC will need to know that mitigation would work in the real world – the one where people and farms are miles from a mains water supply, the one where mediaeval fishponds are central to the setting of a Grade I Tudor manor house.

Photo: Matt Austin

Even if it could be decided quickly who is at fault – and no doubt Aggregate Industries would engage legions of lawyers and experts to prove, as they invariably do in the construction industry, it's not our fault, gov! – there is, as posted here, the small matter of:
* where are the alternative water supplies;
* how reliable are those supplies;
* what is the quality of the water from those supplies;
* how quickly can sufficient supplies be made available; and
* what rights does the applicant have to secure those supplies?
The same planning lawyer who pointed that out also stressed:
As the Council will be aware, as a matter of law the ES is required to properly set out the mitigation measures proposed to address any significant adverse impacts likely to be caused by the development, following which the local planning authority can then assess those mitigation measures. In other words, if there’s a problem which might be caused by the development, the LPA must know how that problem will be mitigated, and then assess such mitigation.
In relation to the security of water supplies, the applicant has not provided any details of the proposed mitigation measures in the event that the supplies are disrupted: the proposed planning obligations are bereft of any such details. Without having details of the proposed mitigation, the Council cannot properly assess the environmental impact of the scheme.
To underline the EA's new attitude to Straitgate – its attitude to hearing from Professors of Hydrogeology, its attitude to bearing any responsibility for real-world solutions – this week's email finishes:
If you have further concerns regarding the Straitgate planning application, these should be directed to Devon County Council...
Which says it all.
Posted by
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Quarry activists to petition EU over threat to drinking water supplies


Unfortunately no longer an option for us – but an interesting story all the same.
Cork County Council granted permission to construction company Roadstone to open the quarry two years ago – but activists appealed it to An Bord Pleanála, who then granted them an oral hearing.
Weeks out from that hearing on 1 October this year, Roadstone, withdrew its application for the quarry.
Locals are concerned that if this aquifer is disturbed, their water supply would be threatened, and so are taking a citizens’ petition to Europe.
Locals fear this company, or another one, will try again in the future. They are joining forces with others across Ireland in an effort to push for better regulation of quarries.
Posted by
Labels: ,

AI’s target start date for Straitgate is 2021 – apparently


The delay is not surprising. Last year, a ROMP application DCC/3655/2014 for Hillhead let the cat out of the bag that Aggregate Industries didn't 'need' Straitgate Farm until 2021:
Should Straitgate Farm obtain planning permission in 2018, extraction would likely commence in 2021.
We posted at the time So, Straitgate’s not ‘needed’ until 2021 – says AI – which proves it’s not needed at all. Previously Aggregate Industries had proclaimed it couldn't do without Straitgate Farm because the remaining reserve at Hillhead was just too sandy, but for 5 years the company has happily disproved this assertion – evidenced by huge stockpiles of gravel.

But there is now confirmation within documents from the the company's application for Straitgate Farm – the Transport Assessment released under a recent FOI request – that Aggregate Industries' timescales for this site have indeed slipped:
5.1.1 Sand and gravel extraction at Straitgate Farm is proposed to be conducted on a campaign basis over an estimated 10 to 12 year period. On this basis the assessment covers the period between 2021 to 2033. Campaign periods are envisaged to last between five and seven weeks and secure 60,000 tonnes of mineral for transportation to Hillhead Quarry for processing. Subject to market conditions between two and three campaigns are proposed each year resulting in a period of working between 10 and 21 weeks of the year.
Aggregate Industries' application for Straitgate Farm was first launched in 2015, to provide for when operations ceased at Venn Ottery at the end of 2016.

Local people repeatedly ask about Devon County Council's attitude to these continued delays. Back in March 2018, we were informed by a planning officer:
There is no specific policy as far as I'm aware. Some applications take longer than others to determine. If there was complete inactivity we might ask for it to be withdrawn, but as this is an allocated mineral site and we have formally asked for additional information from the applicants we are giving them the opportunity to provide this. I imagine that you would expect the applicant to response to issues that have come up in the course of the determination of this application and at the moment this is what they are endeavouring to do.
That was almost two years ago.

To give some idea of how long planning applications for quarries typically take, the MPA recently published its seventh AMPS report:
It takes 29.4 and 29.9 months respectively to secure permission for both sand and gravel and crushed rock reserves, based on a 10-year average.
As the Council's planning officer made clear, some applications will indeed take longer than others, longer than that 10-year average figure, and likewise, some will be determined sooner. To the end of last year, the clock on Straitgate had been running for 54 months – almost twice as long as the average.

Straitgate, if permitted, would be considered a small quarry – hardly viable. Goodness knows how long Aggregate Industries might take for a normal size quarry.
Posted by
Labels: ,

Plastic kerbs


Cumbria County Council has been using plastic kerbs for more than 10 years. Other local authorities are now set to follow, with trials taking place in Hampshire and Wokingham.

Durakerb use a polymer blend containing 88% recycled material. Each kerb contains the equivalent of 182 recycled plastic bottles and weighs just 6kg. It is claimed that each kerb saves around 30kg of CO2, and is also "lighter than stone or concrete, therefore easier to handle, and does not generate harmful crystalline silica dust when cut."
Councillor Rob Humby, Hampshire County Council’s executive member for environment and transport, supports the trial. He said: "We’re committed to clear action, embedding carbon reduction measures in services across the county council. This innovative use of recycled plastic kerbing, which is durable but much lighter than the concrete equivalent, results in 40% less carbon during manufacture."
Wokingham borough councillor Cllr Pauline Jorgensen, executive member for highways and transport, said: "We are looking for ways to make our services greener and this solution allows us to find an effective use of recycled materials while carrying out important highway maintenance across our network." "Exploring further use of recycled products like these kerbstones are the type of changes we are looking into as we aim to be a carbon neutral borough by 2030," added Cllr Gregor Murray, executive member for climate emergency.


Posted by
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)