AI’s proposal would PERMANENTLY alter the landscape – so why has the flood risk assessment only assumed a 10-12 year lifespan and 10% climate change uplift?

Aggregate Industries’ Flood Risk Assessment says: 

The development lifespan will be 10 to 12 years, so it is proposed that an allowance for a 10% increase in extreme rainfall is considered, according to NPPF guidance on climate change which states that an allowance of 10% is made for development with a lifetime extending to 2039 respectively;  

The change to the landform would not, however, be for just 10 to 12 years – it would be FOREVER. 

In our response in 2017, we wrote: 

114. The applicant has used an uplift of +10% in its runoff calculations to reflect climate change. However, since this proposal would result in a permanent change upon the landscape this uplift is inadequate. The EA forecasts peak rainfall intensity increasing by 20% in 2055-2085 and 30% in 2085-2115. 

We pointed to the LLFA’s response to Aggregate Industries’ ROMP application for Hillhead, which said: 

Following the publication of the Flood Risk Assessments: Climate Change Allowances document (dated 19th February 2016) by central government, the applicant will be required to use a climate change uplift value of 40% when sizing the proposed surface water drainage management system for this development.

40%, not 10%. 

In May this year, Devon County Council's Flood Risk Team, in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority, objected to Aggregate Industries' proposal, but was comfortable with what it understood to be the allowance for climate change: 

In terms of the concerns relating to climate change, the applicant has proposed a surface water management strategy which includes an allowance of 40% for climate change in terms of rainfall within the attenuation calculations. This is inline with the most up to date guidance from the Environment Agency: Flood Risk Assessments - Climate Change Allowances (July 2020).

Which would be brilliant – if 40% were true. The LLFA had either misread, or not read, Aggregate Industries' FRA. We wrote to the LLFA pointing out the discrepancy in their understanding.

Nevertheless, the LLFA has since withdrawn its objection, obviously still comfortable with the uplift for climate change even though it is only 10%. The statutory consultee pointed to the access road and holding area, and to national policy:  

The applicant has provided calculations to indicate that the proposed surface water drainage system for the access road and holding area has been designed to manage the 1 in 100 year event plus climate change which is in line with local and national policy.

Indeed, the access road and holding area may have a more limited lifetime, for which drainage calculations may be in line with national policy, but what about the 56 or more acres that would be permanently changed?

National policy considers the lifetime of development in terms of flood risk, and says: 

The lifetime of a non-residential development depends on the characteristics of that development. Planners should use their experience within their locality to assess how long they anticipate the development being present for. Developers would be expected to justify why they have adopted a given lifetime for the development, for example, when they are preparing a site-specific flood risk assessment. The impact of climate change needs to be taken into account in a realistic way and developers, the local planning authority and Environment Agency should discuss and agree what allowances are acceptable. Paragraph: 026 Reference ID: 7-026-20140306 

National policy also says: 

Indeed, for Aggregate Industries' proposal to construct an asphalt plant at Hillhead, the LLFA specified: 

MicroDrainage model outputs will be required to demonstrate that the proposed surface water drainage system is designed to the 1 in 100 year (+40% allowance for climate change) rainfall event. 

So why – when a 40% uplift was required at Hillhead for both the quarry and the asphalt plant, and when flooding has been acknowledged as such an important issue for communities downstream of Straitgate Farm – did the LLFA in all its flooding wisdom think that a 10% allowance for climate change would be acceptable, for a development that would not only leave a PERMANENT scar on the landscape, but would also PERMANENTLY change the way surface water runs off the site?

Has the LLFA not seen the news this year, the death and destruction that can happen when 150 mm of rain falls in 24 hours?

Events that were once in 100 years are becoming commonplace. Freak weather is increasingly normal.

After saying no more extensions – DCC agrees another extension for AI

Devon County Council – who in October 2020 said it would not be requesting a further extension of time beyond the end of 2020 to determine Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm – today issued a further extension of time to Aggregate Industries to allow just that, this time until the end of November 2021. 

Determination of the application is therefore expected to be on 20 October, given that there are no Development Management Committee meetings scheduled for November.

Has DCC forgotten its Scoping Opinion?

In 2015, Devon County Council issued a Scoping Opinion: PRE/0953/2015 Proposed extraction of Sand and Gravel at Straitgate Farm, Ottery St Mary. We posted about it at the time.

Devon County Council said the Scoping Opinion was:

...a formal opinion as to the information that the applicant will need to include in the Environmental Statement to accompany the planning application for the proposal described above PRE/0953/2015. 

Given the LLFA's recent response, let’s remind ourselves what the Scoping Opinion said on flood risk:

 

In brief, emphasis added, the Scoping Opinion told Aggregate Industries that "as a minimum" it should – amongst other things – demonstrate that "it will be feasible to balance surface-water runoff to the greenfield rate for all events up to the 1 in 100 year storm plus an allowance of 30% for climate change"; that "Where SuDS are proposed, it must be demonstrated that they are feasible..."; that a site plan should show "exceedance flow paths". 

Pretty normal stuff. But obviously not for Aggregate Industries, who has so far been unable to show that its surface water management plans are feasible. 

Despite that, the LLFA has withdrawn its previous objection, on the basis that a pre-commencement planning condition is imposed: 

The conditions should be pre-commencement since it is essential that the proposed surface water drainage system is shown to be feasible... 

Amazingly, the proposed condition – to be resolved after determination, when 6 years have not been enough to resolve matters before determination – shows that the LLFA has not even seen "a plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site." Clearly, without such a plan – and a raft of other information too – Aggregate Industries has NOT demonstrated either feasibility or the safe management of flood risk. 

Has Devon County Council forgotten its Scoping Opinion, and its request that there should be "proper consideration of all of the likely effects of the project"? 

Has Devon County Council forgotten Regulation 18(4)(b) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 that says "An environmental statement must... include the information reasonably required for reaching a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the development on the environment..."?

EIA, planning conditions, and the law

When the planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm is determined, it will be accompanied by a raft of proposed conditions – conditions that, in the case of flood risk, would attempt to sort out after determination what Aggregate Industries and Devon County Council have failed to resolve over the past 6 years before determination, conditions that would negate any further public scrutiny.

As previously posted, the Council's Flood Risk Team, in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority, has withdrawn its objection to Aggregate Industries’ proposal on the proviso that a pre-commencement planning condition (sometimes referred to as a 'Grampian' condition) is imposed – a condition that would amongst other things include procuring a design for how surface water would be managed on the restored site i.e. in perpetuity. 

It is unclear whether the LLFA fully understands what is proposed. 

What is clear is that the LLFA does not know whether a scheme to control flooding – whilst maintaining stream flows, whilst maintaining groundwater recharge for drinking water supplies, whilst avoiding the creation of permanent bodies of water and an airport safeguarding hazard – would even be feasible: 

The conditions should be pre-commencement since it is essential that the proposed surface water drainage system is shown to be feasible

Nevertheless, the LLFA has clearly decided that it wants no further public involvement in the matter, and that the significant, thorny and as yet unresolvable issue of flood risk management should be sorted out behind closed doors at some future date. 

However, reliance by the Local Planning Authority on the LLFA’s recommendation would not only be reckless, considering the number of problems local people have already highlighted, but according to legal advice would also be unlawful. 

Let’s look behind that advice. 

Aggregate Industries’ planning application has been the subject of Environmental Impact Assessment. According to government planning guidance: 

The aim of Environmental Impact Assessment is to protect the environment by ensuring that a local planning authority when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a project, which is likely to have significant effects on the environment, does so in the full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and takes this into account in the decision making process... The aim of Environmental Impact Assessment is also to ensure that the public are given early and effective opportunities to participate in the decision making procedures. Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 4-002-20140306

Why is that important? The EIA contains the applicant's own assessment of the environmental impact of the proposal, which may be – and definitely has been in Aggregate Industries’ case – inaccurate, inadequate or incomplete. According to R (Blewett) v Derbyshire CC [2004] the EIA regulations: 

...recognise that an environmental statement may well be deficient, and make provision through the publicity and consultation processes for any deficiencies to be identified so that the resulting ‘environmental information’ provides the local planning authority with as full a picture as possible. 

If the LPA considers that further information is required, planning guidance says: 

...they must ask the applicant, in writing, to provide it (regulation 25). All information provided must be publicised, and consulted on. Paragraph: 047 Reference ID: 4-047-20170728

The legal advice we have received points to the recent case of R (Swire) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2020] which itself draws on other cases. Here are three paragraphs from that case: 

...the underlying purpose of the Regulations in implementing the [EIA] Directive is that the potentially significant impacts of a development are described together with a description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, where possible, offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. Thus the public is engaged in the process of assessing the efficacy of any mitigation measures... 70

...it was not right to approach the matter on the basis that the significant adverse effects could be rendered insignificant if suitable conditions were imposed. The proper approach was to say that potentially this is a development which has significant adverse environmental implications: what are the measures which should be included in order to reduce or offset those adverse effects? 70

...It is clear that a planning authority cannot rely on conditions and undertakings as a surrogate for the EIA process. It cannot conclude that a development is unlikely to have significant effects on the environment simply because all such effects are likely to be eliminated by measures that will be carried out by the developer pursuant to conditions and/or undertakings. 78

Of course, it’s not just the public that should be "engaged in the process of assessing the efficacy of any mitigation measures." Such a condition also deprives councillors on the planning committee of the opportunity to assess mitigation measures. In R (Jones) v Mansfield District Council [2003]: 

The purpose of the Regulations was to allow an opportunity to debate the environmental impact of a proposal so that full account of both the impact and the proposed mitigation could be taken into account in the eventual decision. 

It’s common sense. The LLFA’s condition plainly indicates the Council is without significant information to enable it to make an informed decision about surface water management. In R (Jones) v Mansfield District Council [2003]: 

Without the results of the surveys, they were not in a position to know whether they had the full environmental information.

In the case of Aggregate Industries’ proposal, for example, the LLFA has conditioned that "Soakaway testing must be undertaken... in accordance with BRE 365." Aggregate Industries has already had a go at soakaway tests. What happened? The results were inconclusive, several tests "were not undertaken due to slow infiltration rates." For each one of the six test pits: 

TP1 Unable to calculate infiltration rate 

TP2 Unable to calculate infiltration rate 

TP3 Unable to calculate infiltration rate 

TP4 Unable to calculate infiltration rate 

TP5 Unable to calculate infiltration rate 

TP6 Unable to calculate infiltration rate 

Aggregate Industries' document admits: 

The soakaway tests did not allow an infiltration rate to be determined using the BRE approach...

But there’s another reason why the Council cannot leave something as significant as flood mitigation to be resolved by condition, post determination. A planning application can either be allowed, allowed with conditions or dismissed. There is no power to modify an application other than by condition, but the Planning Inspectors’ Handbook makes clear that:

...care should be taken that a condition does not substantially alter the nature of the development applied for. In the case of Wheatcroft v SSE [1982] JPL p37 the judge formulated a test to define what a "substantial alteration" is. If the change is such that third parties would be likely to want to comment on it then the condition should not be imposed, as to do so would deprive those people of the opportunity for comment. 

Clearly, if the LLFA has no idea whether a surface water management scheme is even feasible, then the proposed condition could obviously throw up a requirement for significant alterations. Since a quarry at Straitgate Farm would permanently alter the landscape, and thereby surface water drainage characteristics, stakeholders should of course be entitled to comment on alterations – particularly if such alterations had the capacity to impact third party land beyond the site for evermore. 

Why would Devon County Council think otherwise, other than to stitch the whole thing up?

Legal advice on LLFA decision

Legal advice has been sought on the decision by Devon County Council's Flood Risk Team, in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority, to withdraw its objection to Aggregate Industries’ proposal to quarry Straitgate Farm, providing that a "pre-commencement planning condition is imposed."

As we have previously posted, the LLFA is clearly not in possession of sufficient information to know whether flood risks can be adequately managed or whether a proposed surface water drainage system is even "feasible". The LLFA’s proposed condition shows that the statutory consultee is not even in possession of "a plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site." 

According to the legal advice: 

The Local Planning Authority's legal duty to assess the environmental impact of a scheme cannot be contingent on future mitigation, if that mitigation is not informed by sufficient information at the time the decision is made on the planning application. This issue was recently considered by the Court in R. (on the application of Swire) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2020] EWHC 1298 (Admin). In Swire, the Court said the following (emphasis added): 

"106 …because of the lack of expert evidence, the defendant [the LPA] was simply not in a position to make an “informed judgment”... It follows that when the defendant concluded that “he was satisfied that the proposed measures would satisfactorily safeguard and address potential problems of contamination” and that “the proposed measures would safeguard the health of prospective residents of the development”, he was making an assumption that any measures proposed under condition 21 would be successful, without sufficient information to support that assumption. 

107. Mr Honey relied upon the advice given to the defendant by the Environment Agency, which advised that conditions requiring risk assessment and remediation proposals would be sufficient to mitigate against potential adverse impact on the groundwater. The Environment Agency previously advised the Council that without conditions “the proposed development poses an unacceptable risk to the environment”. I do not consider that the advice from the Environment Agency justified the approach adopted by the defendant. It confirmed the view of the Environmental Health Practitioner and the Council that further investigation and assessment was needed. It did not provide the defendant with any evidence that there was no risk of adverse environmental impacts, nor that mitigating measures had as yet been identified which would satisfactorily overcome any such risk." 

Furthermore, the Court has made it clear on several occasions that a Grampian condition cannot be used as a means for 'kicking into the long grass' an issue which should be fully addressed at the time the application is determined. It is clear from the LPA's handling of the application (and Policy M24 of the Devon Minerals Plan) that the management of flood risk from the development is of crucial importance. Accordingly, it would be unlawful for the LPA to rely on subsequent consideration of this issue under a Grampian condition as justification for approving the permission, as that is not the purpose of Grampian conditions. Instead, Grampian conditions should only be used when there is a realistic prospect that their requirements will be met so that the development can proceed. It would appear that is not the position here, as the fundamental issue of flood risk management is not being considered in full prior to determination of the application and, as such, the LPA cannot lawfully conclude that the development would be acceptable with the proposed Grampian condition.

Does the LLFA actually understand what’s proposed?

If Aggregate Industries has been unable to produce a workable coherent flood mitigation scheme in SIX YEARS, why does Devon County Council's Flood Risk Team – in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority – think it’s a good idea to sort it all out post determination, other than to avoid further public scrutiny? 

The LLFA has now withdrawn its previous objection, subject to a range of conditions being imposed – including the approval of "a plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed." But how well does the the LLFA actually understand what’s proposed? 

Let’s take just two examples from the LLFA’s response. 

One: The LLFA observes that: 

The haul road will be stripped of soils before coming into use which will enable infiltration directly into the Pebble Beds and avoid the risk of soil compaction. 

Fantastic. The problem? Aggregate Industries' Supporting Statement says: 

3.1.3 An internal haul road will be constructed to link the mineral stockpiling area to the access point on Birdcage Lane. This haul road would be asphalt surfaced from the proposed wheelwash to the junction at Birdcage Lane to ensure that no mud will be deposited on the public highway.

So, "asphalt" or "Pebble Beds"? 

Two: The LLFA will no doubt have put much thought into the proposed conditions. One of them reads:

(c) The applicant should commit to re-working the base of the void to a depth of 1 m as well as the removal of any silt accumulation to ensure the base is fully functionable for infiltration purposes. 

At first glance, another sensible idea. The problem? The void created by any quarrying at Straitgate would be defined by the maximum water table. The Environment Agency has stipulated:

No working shall be undertaken below the ‘Maximum Winter Water Table'

So what on earth is "re-working the base of the void to a depth of 1 m" all about?

DCC’s Flood Risk Team withdraws objection – WITHOUT sight of ‘a plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed’ WITHOUT knowing whether a drainage scheme is even ‘feasible’

Yes, you really did read that correctly. 

Friends of the Earth describe an Environmental Impact Assessment as:

an information gathering exercise which follows a prescribed, well established methodology carried out by the developer and which enables a local planning authority to understand the environmental effects of a development before deciding whether it should go ahead.

Without certain basic information the local planning authority is in no position to understand or to make an informed decision about whether permission should be granted. Friends of the Earth point to Judicial Reviews and say: 

Our claims will often question whether the authorities have considered all material factors. 

A plan indicating how surface water would be safely managed would plainly be a material factor and the very minimum a flood risk team should need to understand in order to make an informed decision. 

Six years ago, for Aggregate Industries’ first application to quarry Straitgate Farm, Devon County Council's Flood Risk Management Team – in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority – requested a "detailed surface water strategy": 

This should include detailed design regarding [the infiltration features'] size, details whether infiltration is permitted at the proposed locations and where targeted at areas where infiltration is required to support the spring lines of the existing watercourses (as commented by the Environment Agency), together with details of exceedance pathways. 

The reason? 

The surface water management is inextricably connected to Flood Risk Management/Airport safeguarding and the need to maintain and recharge watercourses. This issue is so important in terms of the likely significant impacts of the proposal the MPA would wish to ensure that a SWM scheme can be designed to meet all of the requirements identified in advance of the determination of this application.  

An issue "so important." A surface water management scheme "in advance of the determination." Not our words – Devon County Council’s. 

Since then, Aggregate Industries has had SIX YEARS to join the dots, SIX YEARS to produce a workable flood mitigation scheme, SIX YEARS to come up with a detailed design. The company has been unable to do so. Click the flooding label for the whole sorry tale. 

Clearly, Devon County Council hopes that poor Aggregate Industries will have more success away from the eyes of public scrutiny. The LLFA – which had previously objected – now says: 

Our objection is withdrawn and we have no in-principle objections to the above planning application at this stage, assuming that the following pre-commencement planning condition is imposed on any approved permission... 

What condition? The LLFA proposes – only AFTER councillors have voted – that: 

No development hereby permitted shall commence until the following information has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: 

(b) The applicant should submit a detailed drainage design... prior to commencement of each Excavation Phase. This should also include the detailed design of the surface water management strategy proposed for the Restoration Stage as well as cross sections of the proposed basins and infiltration testing... 

(d) A plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed at the site. 

(e) A plan indicating how surface water will be managed in the areas which will be stripped for storage of materials.

How on earth can councillors make an informed decision about so important an issue – particularly for downstream flood-prone communities – knowing that the Council’s Flood Risk Team has not even seen "a plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed"? It beggars belief. 

The reason given for these conditions? 

The conditions should be pre-commencement since it is essential that the proposed surface water drainage system is shown to be feasible... 

Yep, you read that correctly too. As things stand, Devon Councty Council and the LLFA have no idea whether a drainage plan at Straitgate Farm is even feasible?

Policy M24: Flooding of the Devon Minerals Plan says proposals for mineral development:

...will be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment that must demonstrate that the proposal will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. 

With NO PLAN for "how exceedance flows will be safely managed", and NO PLAN for "how surface water will be managed in the areas which will be stripped for storage of materials", Aggregate Industries' Flood Risk Assessment has very obviously NOT demonstrated that the proposal will be safe.

Straitgate decision postponed again

Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm will not now be determined in September. The company has again failed to meet an agreed extension.

 

Nine years have passed since Aggregate Industries’ consultants started crawling over Straitgate Farm in preparation for plans to quarry the site. Six years have passed since the company’s initial application. The determination date for the re-submitted application has been extended 12 times. 

In October 2020, Devon County Council warned Aggregate Industries: 

There is increasing and justified concern within the community about the length of time being taken to determine this application and the delays in providing requested information. 

This application has now been with the County Council for nearly three years [six years since the initial application] and the uncertainty for the local community is a situation that the County Council as Mineral Planning Authority can no longer accept by continuing to request further delays in the determination due to a lack of the information we have been asking Aggregate Industries to provide. 

I must advise you that any extension of the determination date will now be limited to a reasonable period of time for you to do this work. The County Council will not be requesting a further extension of time beyond the end of this year… 

It was a hollow threat. Two weeks later, Aggregate Industries wrote to the Council "to confirm our agreement to a further extension of time until the 31st March 2021." 

That extension was missed, and on 11 March 2021, the Council offered yet another extension: 

I am writing to ask you to formally agree to extend the period for the determination of your application until 30 September 2021. You have indicated this will give you adequate time.

This week we found out that it was not adequate time. 

It's the same old story. Aggregate Industries says one thing and does another. On 7 April 2021, Aggregate Industries wrote to Devon County Council with "our final submission of additional information."

It was not final. On 30 June 2021, Aggregate Industries wrote to Devon County Council with "our final response to the queries raised as part of the consultation." 

That was not final either.

So, where do we stand now, 12 months on from when the Council said no further extensions would be agreed? The next possible date for determination is 20 October 2021.

BAU is not an option

As far as Aggregate Industries is concerned, the proposal to quarry Straitgate is just business as usual.

In reality, it would be worse than business as usual – when you consider the multi-million-mile haulage scheme, with the processing plant a wholly unsustainable 23 miles away from the proposed quarry face. 

Not one single aspect of the proposal reflects the climate and biodiversity emergency we face. 

However, business as usual is not an option. The UK must cut emissions, and fast: 

CCC: UK must cut emissions ‘78% by 2035’ to be on course for net-zero goal | @Josh_Gabbatiss @AyeshaTandon @rtmcswee #archive

Read here: https://t.co/fDG9k6YhJv pic.twitter.com/FiFbx5FpFC

— Carbon Brief (@CarbonBrief) September 7, 2021

On net zero, Aggregate Industries and parent Holcim talk the talk: 

Here @Holcim we take a rigorous & science-driven approach to sustainability to build progress for people & the planet. Working in partnership with SBTi, we have set ambitious #climatetargets to build a #NetZero & inclusive future🤝 https://t.co/LrldhPaPyI

— Holcim (@Holcim) July 16, 2021

We have a mission - cut carbon in everything we do. Infrastructure projects have been huge contributors to the UK carbon output and we are working to be the first net zero construction company. Read more about our targets and #sustainability projects: https://t.co/nuVGmRPRp6 pic.twitter.com/sEr0xQN0rV

— Aggregate Industries (@AggregateUK) February 18, 2021

However, the Straitgate proposal shows no intention to walk the walk. Talk of net zero is just greenwash.

Holcim faces fresh criminal charges for financing terrorism

Aggregate Industries’ parent company Holcim is in the news again for all the wrong reasons.

It’s over the company’s involvement in Syria – a subject we have posted about before. 

France’s top court has rejected the cement giant’s bid to dismiss charges of "complicity in crimes against humanity" for financing terrorism in Syria, overturning a previous ruling. 

The company has been accused of paying millions of euros to Daesh/ISIS to keep its Lafarge operation in Syria running. It is also accused of supplying cement to the terrorist group which "is known to have constructed fortified shelters and tunnel networks against the Coalition powers led by the US." 

In its ruling, the Court of Cassation said: 

In this case, the knowing payment of several million dollars to an organization whose purpose is exclusively criminal is sufficient to characterize the complicity, regardless of whether the concerned party is acting in pursuit of a commercial activity. 

 

BREAKING & SIGNIFICANT: Highest French court just decided cement manufacturer Lafarge CAN be prosecuted for "complicity in crimes against humanity" and "endangering the lives of others" during its activities in Syria. Bravo, @ECCHRBerlin & @Asso_Sherpa https://t.co/uZhhQdLNjV

— Fritz Streiff (@fritz_streiff) September 7, 2021

France – In a ground-breaking judgment rendered today, the French Supreme Court approved the indictments of the French multinational cement company Lafarge for complicity in crimes against humanity & financing of terrorism committed by the ISIS. Read More https://t.co/7cucEkwgDY

— Yazda (@YazdaOrg) September 7, 2021

Today's decision is first and foremost a victory for those affected by illegitimate business practices that put profits before human rights. It is important that big corporate actors are held to account for their wrongdoings so that those affected can finally achieve justice! pic.twitter.com/7npHaakZzg

— ECCHR (@ECCHRBerlin) September 7, 2021

8/ The case continues: the investigating chamber will have to rule again on Lafarge’s #ComplicityInCrimesAgainstHumanity taking into consideration today’s groundbreaking ruling. Stay tuned and contact us for further information.
presse@asso-sherpa.org pic.twitter.com/VEJEuupWP3

— Sherpa (@Asso_Sherpa) September 7, 2021

Earlier this year, the company changed its name from LafargeHolcim to Holcim in an effort no doubt to distance itself from controversy over Syria – as well as over Myanmar, human rights and pollution.

AI’s application to extend Chard Junction Quarry in Dorset AONB refused

Yesterday, Dorset Council’s Strategic Planning Committee rejected Aggregate Industries’ planning application WD/D/19/000451 to extend the life of Chard Junction Quarry. The company wanted to extract some 830,000 tonnes of sand and gravel from a new site at Westford Park Farm in the Dorset AONB.

Previous posts on this application can be found here. 

Dorset Council planning officers had recommended that councillors approve the application – despite the proposal's "significant adverse landscape impact on the character of the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty", and despite the NPPF saying that development within AONBs: 

should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.

A last minute letter from Aggregate Industries was sent directly to members of the committee in response to a damning technical review by an independent quarry design expert commissioned by objectors. Amongst other things, the expert claimed: 

...revised Application Plans incorporates some fundamental design flaws which mean that the scheme as it stands is not capable of being developed into a detailed design that would comply with the provisions of the Quarries Regulations 1999. 

The expert also raised questions over a culvert that had the potential to restrict the flow of a watercourse, "unless carefully designed." This seemed to irk the author of Aggregate Industries' letter, who retorted with "why on earth would we design something uncarefully?" 

But we all know that this is exactly what has happened for multiple parts of the company’s proposal to quarry Straitgate Farm – including, coincidentally, reliance on a small, easily-blocked 3rd party culvert for surface water drainage of a large part of the site. Aggregate Industries does not have a good track record here of relying on assets that do not belong to them. Readers will remember that the company's first application for Straitgate was withdrawn in 2016 after it made the careless error of failing to check it had the necessary rights over 3rd party land. 

For the Chard Junction application, Aggregate Industries’ panicky letter failed to persuade councillors, who were left unconvinced there were exceptional circumstances that would warrant such harm to the AONB – particularly given that around 90% of the extracted material would be for the decorative market. One councillor pointed to the NPPF's newly included reference to the UN’s 17 Global Goals for Sustainable Development, and to the reference that sustainable development means "using natural resources prudently". 

Councillors voted to reject the application by 6 votes to 3. How refreshing to see sense prevail.

Chard Junction Quarry extension rejectedhttps://t.co/Q7MOwyJoEP

— Bridport & Lyme News (@thebridportnews) September 10, 2021

Why is soil conservation important?

It takes 200 – 400 years to create 1 cm of new soil; it takes around 3,000 years to make a soil fertile. 

Soil is therefore considered a non-renewable resource: once it has been destroyed, it is lost forever. 

According to a World Wildlife Fund report: 

humanity must now produce more food in the next four decades than we have in the last 8,000 years of agriculture combined

In 2017, the Environment Secretary warned: 

Countries can withstand coups d’état, wars and conflict, even leaving the EU, but no country can withstand the loss of its soil and fertility. 

UK is 30-40 years away from 'eradication of soil fertility', warns @michaelgove → https://t.co/CKAr6LCU7A #SustainableSoilsNow pic.twitter.com/Hmn9V7uzSZ

— Sustainable Soils (@SoilsAlliance) October 24, 2017

In 2014 Sheffield University researchers said that UK farm soils only had 100 harvests left in them, and a year later a UN spokesperson warned that at current rates of degradation, the world’s topsoil could be gone within 60 years.

 A recent study warns that soil erosion will increase because of climate change:

Soil loss in EU and UK to soar 22.5% by 2050 https://t.co/lLHJOVEvQl

— Independent Climate (@indy_climate) September 3, 2021

Aggregate Industries' proposal to quarry Straitgate Farm has prompted renewed concerns from Natural England about the storage of soils – topsoil, subsoils and overburden – soils that currently form best and most versatile agricultural land. These concerns have not been addressed. The Devon Minerals Plan states "a proposal affecting the best and most versatile land should provide for the restoration of the land to its former quality." Click on the soils label for more detail.

AI’s loading area would be UNDERWATER too

The central hub of any quarry at Straitgate Farm would be the loading area. 

Deciding its location would have warranted some careful consideration. Or so you would have thought. 

Aggregate Industries has proposed a "50 X 50M LOADING / STOCKING AREA / LORRY PARKING": 

The mineral would be loaded into articulated dump trucks for transport to the designated stocking area where it would be placed in temporary stockpiles pending export off site. The sand and gravel would be taken by articulated HGVs to Hillhead Quarry for processing. 1.5.3  

A parking area for quarry vehicles will be established within the loading area to the north of Straitgate Farm. 3.1.5

The loading area is where much activity would take place. It has obviously been positioned centrally in the site, furthest away from neighbouring properties. The plan is to surround it with 5m high piles of overburden. These piles, together with the piles of topsoil and subsoils, would not only be required to restore the site back to best and most versatile agricultural land – if that were possible – but would also act as noise attenuation and screening. As the Good Quarry Entrance Design Handbook remarks: 

Many quarries are located in the countryside; the introduction of noise into a rural context can be an impact in itself; it can draw attention to the quarry entrance and to have a cumulative effect with other impacts. Noise is most likely to be a regular source of complaints when the quarry and especially the processing and loading areas, are located near to residential property. 

Noise calculations have been performed for the Straitgate application based on the loading area location: 

HGV movements are included in the site noise calculations, at a two-way flow of 16 HGV movements per hour, on the quarry access road between the stockpiling / loading area and the new access onto Birdcage Lane, which links in to the B3174 Exeter Road. 11.2 

The location of the loading area and soil mounds has implications for dust and visual impact too. 

Last month we posted that Aggregate Industries had overburden storage problems. Groundwater is close to the surface in the areas where it is proposed to store overburden – areas where topsoil and subsoils would first need to be removed, potentially breaching the maximum water table. No groundwater monitoring has been carried out in these areas. The Environment Agency has proposed a condition that working should be no lower than the maximum water table.

But, of course, it’s not just the overburden storage areas where the maximum water table could be breached – it would be the loading area too. 

And readers will hardly need us to point out what would happen when the water table rises above the elevation of the loading area. Not only would quarry vehicles be adding goodness knows what contamination to groundwater, but water would also gush down the sloping haul road, adding to any surface water run-off at the time, with obvious flooding implications – as yet unassessed. 

Has Aggregate Industries been aware of this risk all along, hoping no one would notice? It’s hard to believe the company didn’t know, given it has been preparing for this planning application since 2012. 

Or is the company just inept in the fundamentals of quarry design – something so central to its business?

Whichever it is, Aggregate Industries is clearly not taking water at Straitgate seriously enough – be it groundwater or surface water – as we have shown time and time again. 

And water is a serious subject. Get it wrong and not only would the wider community suffer, but we could be seeing scenes like this:

Autumn will bring an increased risk of flooding... says AI

Autumn will be here before we know it! And with that brings an increased risk of flooding. Take a look at why investment in SuDs has a major role to play in protecting and preparing the nation against the threat https://t.co/08iSI1GOQR pic.twitter.com/lejfjdeLM2

— Aggregate Industries (@AggregateUK) August 27, 2021

Indeed, SuDS do have a major role to play. At Aggregate Industries’ very own proposal to quarry Straitgate Farm, SuDS would be needed to protect downstream communities from flooding.

Aggregate Industries’ Updated Flood Risk Assessment for Straitgate – which at now at almost 5 years old has not been updated, and has not been informed by the elevated groundwater levels recorded at the site, nor the revised maximum water table contours – says: 

The DCC Minerals SFRA states that suitable Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) strategies should be employed within Mineral Development Sites so that surface water runoff rates are managed to greenfield rates. 4.1.3 

However, as it stands, Aggregate Industries' SuDS scheme at Straitgate is unworkable – runoff rates would not be managed to greenfield rates – click on the flooding label for more. 

But whilst we’re on the subject of Aggregate Industries and protecting, do take a look at what the company planning a multi-million mile haulage scheme for Straitgate is doing to protect the planet ♻️.

"We're striving for a circular economy in everything we do. We improve resource efficiency through reuse, recovery and/or recycling of waste materials in our production processes. Take a look at what we're doing to protect the planet ♻️ https://t.co/zBLECYCgeB pic.twitter.com/fIkV4J9y1T

— Aggregate Industries (@AggregateUK) August 25, 2021

Of course, Aggregate Industries would still rather we did not read such claims. No idea why.

Drakelands operator strikes secondary aggregates supply deal

Waste granite from tungsten mine boosts construction supply chain https://t.co/si06uiiD7T #constructionnews #construction #businessnews pic.twitter.com/4ZFELjXf3w

— Construction Index (@TCIndex) September 2, 2021

GRS has joined forces with Tungsten West, operator of recently reopened Hemerdon tungsten-tin mine near Plympton, Devon, in a multi-million pound venture to sell high-quality secondary aggregate and transport it nationwide mostly by sea and rail. 

Starting this month, GRS expects to ramp-up secondary aggregate volumes from Hemerdon to distribute more than a million tonnes each year for the next decade and beyond, the company said. After a 10-mile lorry journey from Hemerdon, the aggregate will be loaded onto ships at Plymouth for transportation to other ports around Britain. The aggregate will also be hauled five miles to nearby Marsh Mills where it can be loaded onto trains for onward distribution via the rail network. Through its Cornish subsidiary Maen Karne and London-based business Walsh, the GRS Group already transports secondary granite from the Cornish China Clay industry into London by sea and rail.