EA labelled ‘irresponsible’ after appealing landmark human rights ruling

If you thought the Environment Agency existed "to create better places for people and wildlife, and support sustainable development", think again. After allowing the sewage scandal, now this: 

Lawyers have accused the EA of 'wasting time and taxpayers money' after the regulator lodged an appeal against a High Court ruling, which found that it had failed to protect the life of a five-year-old child in its regulation of the Walleys Quarryhttps://t.co/G5blQe2tz4

— ENDS Report (@TheENDSReport) November 8, 2021

Lawyers have accused the Environment Agency of 'wasting time and taxpayers money' after the regulator lodged an appeal against a High Court ruling, which found that it had failed to protect the life of a five-year-old child in its regulation of the Walleys Quarry landfill in Newcastle-under-Lyme. 

During the original hearing in September, Dr Ian Sinha from Alder Hey hospital said that unless Mathew Richards, who was born with bronchopulmonary dysplasia, had access to clean air his lungs will not recover and continued exposure to Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) emissions from the landfill site will mean that Mathew's life expectancy will inevitably be shortened.” 

The High Court ruled that the agency needed to do more to protect the local population as early as possible and that all measures must be “taken to reduce off-site odours as early as possible so that the WHO half hour guideline (5ppb) [five parts per billion] is met, addressing the undesirable current effects on people’s well-being and the symptoms they are experiencing”. 

It also said that from January 2022 off-site H2S should be reduced to below the US Environmental Protection Agency reference concentration of 1ppb. 

However, the EA was granted permission to appeal the ruling at the end of October. In its grounds for appeal, the EA argues that the judge presiding on the case “erred in deciding that judicial intervention was either justified or appropriate”. 

The EA argued that as the specialist statutory regulator, it was for itself and “not for the court, to evaluate and to determine the further action needed in order to restore gas emission levels at and in the locality of Walleys Quarry to acceptable levels and within an acceptable timescale”. 

The EA also argued that it was not found to have breached or to be breaching “positive obligation and [that there was] therefore neither a justification nor a requirement for a remedy”.  

Matthew Richard’s solicitor Rebekah Carrier, of Hopkin Murray Beskine, told ENDS that it was “astonishing” that the EA “had made extensive submissions to the Court of Appeal without even mentioning the fact that the pollution from the site is shortening Mathew’s life”.  

“Rather than waste time and public money on an academic appeal the EA should be putting their efforts into making the area safe.” 

Carrier said her legal team would “be drawing the Court of Appeal’s attention to the irresponsible failure of the EA to even mention the risk to Mathew’s health in its submissions to the court and asking the Court of Appeal to give the appeal the short shrift it deserves”.  

The Court of Appeal hearing is expected to take place before Christmas.

Is Aggregate Industries so short of money?

According to email correspondence, released through an FOI request, Aggregate Industries told Devon County Council in March 2020: 

...we are currently awaiting CAPEX approval before we can formally instruct Wood (Amec) to update the composite Maximum Winter Water Table Grid the EA requires to include the high groundwater level recorded at the site in 1990 and similarly, this is the case with one or two other issues. 

WTF. Really?? How much does it cost to update a few groundwater contours on a plan?  

It wasn’t until July 2020 that Aggregate Industries could happily report back to the Council: 

I have just had the 'green light' from the business to restart progress on the Straitgate application with the release of capital monies to complete the outstanding information. 

Goodness. Is Aggregate Industries so short of money? 

Or has the irrational pursuit of Straitgate Farm's sand and gravel devoured so much capital that strict spending limits are now in place? 

Or is the company not so bothered with Straitgate now, knowing the resource amounts to only 5% of what was originally thought possible?  

Or has the penny dropped that mineral extraction at Straitgate is never going to be profitable – not with a 46-mile round trip for processing the as-dug material, before any onward distribution, not with the current price of diesel and the shortage of HGV drivers? 

Let’s hope, if the worst happens, there’s enough money left in the kitty to actually restore the site!

Holcim at COP26

No wonder climate activists are worried that COP26 is a big PR stunt, when even cement polluters turn up to greenwash their gargantuan emissions.

Join our Chief Sustainability and Innovation Officer @AndersonMagali_ for an honest conversation with high level participants in Glasgow this afternoon. We know what needs to be done, and we know it is achievable. Now to do it.

🕑 14:00 GMT
🖥️https://t.co/WgDPyw6F8d#COP26 pic.twitter.com/tCgXXj8tKT

— Holcim (@Holcim) November 5, 2021

If we are honest? Are there times then when Holcim – parent of Aggregate Industries – is not honest??

Cement is responsible for 8% of global CO2 emissions. Thank goodness that growing demand now presents an opportunity for the world’s biggest cement producer "to change how we do things". In case Holcim has forgotten, the first COP was held 26 years ago.

"Global demand for cement is growing which represents a challenge, but we can see that as an opportunity to change how we do things. #COP26

We have to look at the full value chain from transporting products to circular building design."

📢 @Holcim CSO, @AndersonMagali_ @COP26. pic.twitter.com/Wf0gxceAGe

— We Mean Business Coalition (@WMBtweets) November 5, 2021

But when Holcim talks about looking at transportation, don’t hold your breath. If 23 miles separating proposed quarry and processing plant in Devon doesn’t make the company think twice, what will?

DCC has ‘no real evidence’ cattle crossing won’t cause problems

Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm has been beset by delays over the years – in part because of the cattle crossing issue: the 150 or so dairy cows that would need to cross the B3174 up to 4x daily to access alternative pasture if quarrying were to proceed, with literally who-knows-what impact on the functioning of the main road into and out of Ottery St Mary, and on the A30.

The issue was raised more than 4 years ago. In 2017, Devon County Council wanted the company "to assess the implications of the farmer moving cattle across the B3174 as a result of the proposal". This June, East Devon District Council objected, saying Aggregate Industries' transport assessment:

...offers no detailed explanation for the conclusion that "there will not be a need to intensify livestock crossings". It also fails to explain how the applicant could prevent the farmer crossing livestock over the B3174 in the event that the mitigation measures prove unsatisfactory. In the seemingly likely event that a need arises for increased crossings of the B3174, neither the existing crossing arrangements nor the approved arrangements are considered suitable given the speed of traffic, the advance visibility and the fact that delays to traffic on this road would adversely affect a large number of businesses, schools and people in Ottery St Mary, as well as the emergency services.

What progress has been achieved in the last 4 years by the great minds at Aggregate Industries & Co? Following an FOI request, we now know. According to an email on 12 August 2021 from the case officer to Devon County Highways officers: 

AI still seem to be leaving the real impact of the quarry/cattle crossing/farm viability to us to consider with no real evidence that they won't be causing problems down the line – except their say-so.

This obviously represents a problem. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations say: 

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. Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 4-002-20140306 

Transport Assessments should include: 

...movements across all modes of transport that would result from the development and in the vicinity of the site; [and] an assessment of the likely associated environmental impacts of transport related to the development. Paragraph: 015 Reference ID: 42-015-20140306 

Policy M22 of the Devon Minerals Plan says: 

Mineral development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated, where appropriate through a Transport Assessment or Statement, that it would not have a significant effect on: (a) road safety; or (b) the capacity and functionality of the transportation network for all users.

So, how – "with no real evidence that [AI] won’t be causing problems", not least on the functioning of the B3174 and the A30 – could Devon County Council lawfully conclude that the development would be acceptable? Answers on a postcard.

Company planning 4 million km haulage scheme in Devon

... where each load of sand and gravel would require a 75 km round-trip for processing – says:

EA now accepts stream flows would change – with unlawful implications

The Environment Agency now accepts – in its "statement for the planning committee" of 13 August 2021, released after an FOI request – that changes to the unsaturated zone from Aggregate Industries' scheme to quarry Straitgate Farm would affect stream flows: 

In our view, the main risk of any increase in unsaturated zone flow rates resulting from the reduction in unsaturated zone thickness would be to the headwaters of the streams whose catchments are partly in the proposed quarry area (Pitt Copse Stream, Birdcage Stream, Straitgate Spring, Cadhay Spring, Cadhay Wood Stream, Straitgate Farm Spring, Cadhay Bog Stream)… 

   

Never mind, says the Environment Agency: 

...the arguments on headwaters presented above relate only to the timing of recharge. 

In May 2019, Professor Brassington wrote: 

If the proposed quarry increases runoff and reduces groundwater recharge, then the flows of both the Cadhay Wood Stream and the Cadhay Bog Stream will reduce as well as the various springs that flow into these woodlands. This will have a detrimental impact on the viability of the ecosystems that is expected to be permanent.

In October 2019, Professor Brassington also wrote: 

Wood describe the fact that removal of most of the unsaturated zone will result in flashier groundwater baseflows to the springs…. The streams that flow from the springs also support local habitats especially Cadhay Wood and Cadhay Bog.

This has implications for downstream riparian owners, who have legal rights under common law: 

A riparian owner is anyone who owns a property where there is a watercourse within or adjacent to the boundaries of their property and a watercourse includes a river, stream or ditch.  

In recognising the change in stream flows – whether "only to the timing of recharge" or otherwise – the Environment Agency is endorsing a scheme that imposes unlawful changes upon downstream riparian owners, riparian owners who have the legal right to receive a flow of water in its natural state, without undue interference in quality or quantity. 

The Environment Agency helpfully sets out the rights of riparian owners: 

Water should flow onto or under your land in its natural quantity and quality. This means that water should not be taken out of a watercourse if it could lead to a lack of water for those who need it downstream. 

This is based on case law, Chasemore v Richards [1859] 7 HL 349 29 LJ Ex 81. 

He has the right to have it come to him in its natural state, in flow, quantity, and quality, and to go from him without obstruction; 

It would obviously be unlawful for Devon County Council to permit any scheme knowing that by doing so would result in unlawful impacts to third parties.

‘You can grow concrete’

It's true. I've got a concrete farm just outside Crediton. It's free-range concrete. In the autumn I harvest it and sell it in bags to the construction industry.

— Miching Mallecho (@MichingMallech1) October 26, 2021

AI introduces new ‘MWWT +1m criteria’ to comfort LLFA

It would appear that Aggregate Industries has given up 1 metre of resource in its plans to quarry Straitgate Farm – according to emails sent by the company to persuade Devon County Council's Flood Risk Management Team in its capacity as Lead Local Flood Authority to withdraw its objection. 

Last month we posted 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’. 

Following an FOI request, and the release of a number of redacted emails, we can now see the reasons behind the LLFA's volte-face.  

On 19 July 2021, Aggregate Industries told the LLFA: 

The objection you have received shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our scheme, one of the reasons why we are monitoring the MWWT is to inform the depth of extraction so that a minimum of 1m unsaturated zone is maintained over the MWWT.

  

On 28 July, the LLFA confirmed their understanding: 

My query is that if the MWWT keeps getting higher (closer to the ground) will there be enough depth (the report says 1.45 m) to accommodate the required volume for infiltration? Bearing in mind no excavation within 1 m of the MWWT and the fact that in some places the BSPB is as thin as 3 m (although I’m not sure where these places are).

  

On 18 August, Aggregate Industries told the LLFA: 

Regarding depth of void excavation for runoff storage above unworked material to protect MWWT:… Effectively, the eastern downslope edge of the extraction void for phases 1 and 2 will be shifted upslope, on account of the MWWT +1m criteria limiting the ability to extract from the downslope-most edge of these phases.” 

One hour later, the LLFA wrote: 

I am happy with the response. Essentially they are shifting the void upslope to account for the MWWT and 1 m stand off to ensure there is sufficient depth/capacity for the runoff which is reassuring.

With reference to the "void", on 30 June Aggregate Industries explained: 

The void created by mineral extraction acts as the infiltration basin so there is not a single cross section as this will change as extraction progresses... 

   

On 7 September, the LLFA withdrew its objection. 

Of course, "a minimum of 1m unsaturated zone... maintained over the MWWT" is brilliant news; we have been campaigning for material to be left unquarried above the maximum water table for years. 

Given that the Updated Resource Assessment claims: 

The MWWT will ultimately form the base of the workable deposit, and any variation will impact the potential resource.

we have suggested that Devon County Council ask for the resource to be recalculated taking the new "MWWT +1m criteria" into account. 

Or is all this just another big misunderstanding?

Has Aggregate Industries misunderstood its own scheme again?

Has Aggregate Industries – either intentionally or unintentionally – misled the LLFA officer?

Tackling climate emergency should be ‘top priority’ for planning system

That’s according to new guidance issued this week from The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA): 

The RTPI and the TCPA believe that climate change should be the top priority for planning across the UK. This is simply because the impacts of flooding, overheating and other consequences of climate change stand in the way of everything else we want to achieve in terms of the creation of vibrant communities and a sustainable and just society. We are particularly concerned that the damaging outcomes of climate change continue to have the most severe impacts on the most vulnerable and those least able to respond.

The new guidance warns: 

Climate change is the greatest challenge facing our society. Every decision we take must count towards securing our long-term survival. The science of climate change is now well understood, and we know that we must limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels if we are to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. A recent report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) made clear that drastic action to reduce carbon emissions is needed now if we are to have any hope of achieving that target. But we know that severe climate impacts are already locked in even if we do limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C. These impacts require urgent re-design of our communities to make them safe and liveable for future generations. We have to face up to this challenge now if human society is to have any chance of a long-term future. 

Indeed. What must planners do?

Clearly, this has not happened with the planners at Devon County Council. 

If they were seeking development options resulting in the biggest carbon reductions, they would not still be working tirelessly behind the scenes trying to make Aggregate Industries' scheme to quarry Straitgate Farm hang together; they would not still be entertaining Aggregate Industries' 2.5 million mile haulage scheme if climate change were their top priority. 

Neither, are they taking climate change seriously when thinking about future risks, because when it comes to the important matter of flooding a worst case scenario has not been applied. 

 

Letter to DCC questions – as we all do – AI’s credibility and Council’s priorities

If, in the course of nearly seven years, an international company with quarrying interests is unable to produce a cogent planning application for a quarry, then it is reasonable to conclude that there is something seriously wrong with the application or the applicant or both. No reasonable observer, taking into account the lengthy correspondence between the Planning Authority, Aggregate Industries (AI) and those of us questioning the application's credibility, could conclude otherwise. Questions on climate change, sustainability, quarrying methods, hydrological sensitivity, road safety (and more) remain inadequately addressed, or not addressed at all. The serial postponements and delays, alongside inaccurate, misleading and sometimes downright wrong information in AI's submissions mark it unacceptable to any credible planning assessment. 

There is a question too about the role that DCC has played in this process, which has been to indulge AI with seemingly unlimited time allowances while doing very little to support the Devon environment and those resident in it, which are its primary responsibility. It would be facile to point out to members where their interests should be focussed, they will know that well enough, but at the moment it is impossible to discover any sense that the planning authority has a role beyond finding a way, against all reason, to approve an application which should not be approved, and rubber stamp the avarice of a foreign company with no interest whatever in Devon beyond what it can extract from it. There will no doubt be pressure from AI to approve, regardless of the final condition of their ramshackle application, but Council Tax payers expect their environment to be protected, and the planning process to proceed fairly. That must surely be the Council’s overriding priority. 

I do, therefore (for the fourth or fifth time) urge the Authority to show some genuine concern for Devon and the people who live here and reject this dreadful application. Chris Wakefield

Sustainable aggregates

Over the years we have posted about secondary aggregates and recycled aggregates, both of which represent more sustainable alternatives to primary or virgin aggregates. 

Here's another example, this time from a Lanarkshire company that has recently launched a new range of low-carbon aggregate produced from incinerator bottom ash, together with recycled sand produced from street sweepings and gully waste:

Scottish waste management solutions company @LevenseatWM is the fist company in the country to achieve 'end-of-waste' status for is new low carbon aggregates product range ♻️ #ScotlandIsNow #ClimateActionhttps://t.co/fEZASLu1qM pic.twitter.com/bRVux1EdFQ

— Scottish Development International (@ScotDevInt) October 11, 2021

Levenseat’s low carbon product offering is designed to help construction firms lower their building costs while also reducing their environmental impact by replacing virgin aggregate within concrete – for each tonne of recycled aggregate used, 29kg CO2 is saved from being emitted. In 2020 2.7 million tonnes of IBA was produced from Energy from Waste plants in the UK. 

Earlier this year, we posted about carbon-negative aggregates. This has now helped Jackson Civil Engineering secure an Environment Agency Flood & Coast 2021 Excellence Award. O.C.O’s aggregates sales and development manager said: 

Not only have we been able to show that carbon-negative aggregates have a role to play in sustainable construction and the road to carbon zero, but also, just as importantly, that they offer a credible alternative to using up our finite resources of traditional sand and gravel. 

I really feel the tide is beginning to change; people will have to start looking for alternatives and I think this award will open their eyes to the fact there is a manufactured product that can be used in various applications – such as asphalt and Type 1 concrete – which is both proven to work and is environmentally friendly.

‘High-carbon buildings morally indefensible, even racist’

Concrete, steel and glass buildings are ‘racist’ claims green professor https://t.co/j4C0S8RD7o

— Construction Enquirer (@ConstructionEnq) October 15, 2021

University of Bath Professor of Zero Carbon Design David Coley wants materials usage to become a moral issue with a complete rethink over common design elements including high levels of glazing and excessive use of steel and concrete. He argued that architects, contractors, planners and construction clients must consider building projects from a moral standpoint based on their lifetime carbon impact in a new essay titled Are buildings evil? Rethinking responsibility in the construction industry. 

It says buildings should be seen as “harmful emitters” and that given a disproportionate amount of this harm, in the form of rising sea levels and temperatures will fall on the non-white population of the global south, designing and constructing energy-intensive buildings “fuels global climate injustice and is therefore morally offensive, and potentially a form of unconscious institutional racism.” 

Professor Coley said: 

“We urgently need to rethink our approach to construction and adopt zero-energy practices. The largest proportion of our carbon emissions come from our buildings, not industry or transport, as is often assumed. 

“We know how to build, and have built, some exemplary low-energy buildings, so our failure to adopt them as the norm can be viewed as deliberate. 

“We need the public to demand zero-energy buildings, developers to set zero-energy briefs and architects to draw zero-energy buildings – and all because they find anything else unacceptable, even repulsive.” 

‘Newspaper closures open door to corporate crime’

The new paper from @HarvardHBS professor Jonas Heese confirms that the press serves as a watchdog and keeps businesses in check https://t.co/K0xbCmygpo

— Harvard University (@Harvard) October 13, 2021

In the US, "a study of misbehavior among publicly traded companies illustrates the critical watchdog role that newspapers play, and the problems that arise when publications go out of business", according to research by Harvard Business School Professor Jonas Heese. 

When local newspapers shutter, some businesses evidently treat the lack of press coverage as permission to act badly and end up committing more illegal violations, including pollution, workplace safety infractions, and financial fraud, according to Heese’s research. 

According to Professor Heese:

If you can do whatever you want and no one is looking, you’re more likely or more willing to engage in fraud. If the local media doesn’t make a fuss, you can pay the penalty to regulators without it affecting your reputation.

For his research, Professor Heese relied on Violation Tracker, "the first wide-ranging database on corporate misconduct" which traces violations and penalties from 44 federal regulatory agencies. 

Here's the Violation Tracker entry for LafargeHolcim – the parent company of Aggregate Industries. Penalties since 2000 in the US alone total $281,993,283 at the time of writing. 

Other violations around the world can be found here.

Fortunately in East Devon, the local press continues to survive. A search of the Sidmouth Herald archive shows the newspaper has followed the Straitgate debacle since 2011.

Around the globe, @LafargeHolcim is accused of polluting waterways and other forms of pollution. In the US alone, Lafarge has paid $279 million in penalties since 2000 (cc @GoodJobsFirst) https://t.co/odVMUN3Mjv

— CleanWaves (@CleanWaves3) May 3, 2021

For years, @LafargeHolcim violated the law and leaked toxic chemicals into tributaries of the Hudson River.

As a result of their illegal actions, we recovered $850,000 and we're forcing Holcim to take measures to prevent any future environmental harm.https://t.co/pE6xAdvwcn

— NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) April 30, 2021

South West aggregate trends

The latest Aggregate minerals survey for England and Wales, comparing sales of primary aggregates between 2014 and 2019, was published in August.

The South West was the second largest source of land-won primary aggregates (28.2 Mt, 21%). Sales of primary aggregate increased 13% in the region between 2014 and 2019 (25.4 to 28.8 Mt). 

However, whilst sales of crushed rock aggregate increased by 18% (21.4 Mt to 25.3 Mt), sales of land-won sand and gravel in the South West decreased by 12% (3.3 Mt to 2.9 Mt), the largest fall in England. Over the same period, sales of sand and gravel in England decreased by 4% (52.4 to 50.5 Mt).

   

Sales of sand and gravel in the South West have fallen 60% since 1973.

 

DCC defers judgement on AI’s Straitgate planning application YET AGAIN

Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate will not now be determined in October. The company has failed to meet yet another agreed extension, the 13th such extension since 2017. 

On 23 September 2021, the case officer wrote: 

I have agreed an extension of time until the end of November although I hope to take it to Committee in October.

Less than 3 weeks have passed since then, but the goalposts appear to have been moved for Aggregate Industries yet again. Clearly, after all these years, the company is still struggling to join the dots, still struggling to provide the necessary information, and the Council seems prepared to give the cement giant all the time in the world to do so, at considerable cost to local people and businesses blighted and unable to move on from the overhanging threat of development. 

Back 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 and if the information is not provided in sufficient time for a determination at the meeting on 27th January, then it is my advice that the County Council is likely to proceed to determine the application as it stands and in the absence of the clarification we have requested on a number of important points. 

That was 2020. Three extensions have been agreed since then, and no doubt Aggregate Industries will now be looking for another. 

It is unclear, however – 12 months on from that letter, with 12 extra months granted to Aggregate Industries and 12 extra months of blight for the community – why Devon County Council, who is under a duty to act fairly, did not feel in a position "to determine the application as it stands". One can only guess. 

The next DMC meeting is scheduled for 1 December.

Who’s to say this couldn’t happen at Straitgate?

...the mineral has been variable in quantity and quality and the amount remaining may be considerably less than estimated.

Market demand has also fluctuated due to the Covid-19 pandemic and issues with the quality of the mineral in certain places has resulted in the site not being worked in accordance with the phasing plans and has taken longer to extract. 

Too small grain size and thick pockets of clay along with no sand in areas has added to the situation. 

Production has also been delayed due to flooding and phases could not be followed which has also impacted upon the phased restoration

The above concerns a site in Cheshire. 

But who’s to say it couldn’t happen at Straitgate Farm? After all, Aggregate Industries failed to produce what was promised at Marshbroadmoor, Venn Ottery, Houndaller and Chard Junction: 

the sand and gravel reserves were found to be significantly shallower than anticipated 

Quarrying for sand and gravel is an uncertain business. At least, the benefit is uncertain; the harm to the landscape would not be.

WHPC voice flooding concerns

‘You can't trust this company, and you don't want them in your area’

We were alerted this week to a battle that took place between 1998 and 2005 on the other side of the Atlantic, a battle between St Lawrence Cement (SLC) – who wanted to build a cement plant and limestone quarry on the banks of the Hudson – and concerned residents, who ultimately won. SLC was part of Holcim, the parent company of Aggregate Industries. 

The website stoptheplant.com recalls: 

St. Lawrence Cement spent $58 million dollars over more than six years in a failed effort to build a massive, coal-fired plant that would have overwhelmed the small but historic City of Hudson (NY) — population 7,500. 

The story is told in more detail in Hudson 101: The Cement Plant Battle: 

From that 406-foot stack would have belched a pollution-laden plume extending as long as six miles, roughly the distance from Greenport to Philmont in a direct line. 

This gun to our collective heads would have been loaded with 500 million pounds of coal annually, to pulverize limestone blasted from a 1,200-acre quarry nearly as large as the entire City of Hudson. “Alternative” fuels such as garbage, tires and hazardous waste could have been added to the cauldron— a side of incinerator to go with your cement plant. 

By SLC’s own admission, the plant sought permits to emit up to 20 million pounds of pollutants per year, including greenhouse gases such as nitrogen and sulfur dioxides, heavy metals and volatile organic compounds: arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and more.

... citizens discovered that SLC and its Swiss-owned parent company Holderbank—now called Holcim—had an appalling track record of fines for pollution and price-fixing violations. Whatever promises the company was making, it had broken similar promises to other communities worldwide. (The company had also used slave labor in Europe during World War II, and actively profited in South Africa during Apartheid.) 

Protestors had experience of the company’s activities from elsewhere. One said: 

“You can’t trust these cement company bosses farther than you can throw ’em. Their promises don’t mean nothing unless it’s written down.” 

Another said: 

“You can't trust this company, and you don't want them in your area.” 

According to the Wikipedia entry for Hudson, NY: 

Opponents argued the proposed project violated state environmental regulations and would adversely affect the river, shoreline, and related habitats. 

The controversy gained national attention from news outlets such as CNN and The New York Times, as well as media outlets in Canada and Switzerland. The project was withdrawn after New York Secretary of State Randy Daniels determined that the company's plans were inconsistent with New York State's 24 coastal policies. 

Tungsten West plans London IPO to raise funds to restart Hemerdon mine

Tungsten West PLC – operator of the Hemerdon tungsten and tin mine near Plymouth – plans to list on the London AIM market on 21 October to raise funds to recommence production:

Tungsten West's business plan also includes selling the significant volumes of aggregates that are produced as a by-product from the primary mining operations at Hemerdon, which was historically treated as a waste product from operations.

‘WTF is a vehicle like that doing on the pavement?!’

Aggregate Industries’ proposed site access at Straitgate for its 44-tonne HGVs is exactly where children stand waiting for school buses. 

What could possibly go wrong?

WTF is a vehicle like that doing on the pavement?! 🤬

— Cath Rodkoff 💙 (@rodkoff) October 3, 2021

Especially when there’s a huge dent in the danger zone on the left

— vorkuta (@Rainbowfables) October 1, 2021

EDIT 7.10.21 The above was obviously not an isolated incident. Aggregate Industries’ truck drivers clearly think it’s ok to drive on pavements.

 

@AggregateUK is this one of your London Concrete lorries? There was no need for them to drive up and over the kerb. This causes #danger to pedestrians and #damage to the street. I presume they were coming from the Merstham Park school building site. pic.twitter.com/Ox6cpXgLgl

— Sam Dilliway (@samdilliway) October 7, 2021

EA turns blind eye to AI’s BELOW the water table plans, but DCC still in no position to determine Straitgate application lawfully

Oh, how lucky Aggregate industries is to have the Environment Agency do its bidding. What, you may ask, has the company done to deserve such special hand-holding? It can’t be down to providing cogent environmental arguments, so what can it be? 

Of course, any idea that the Environment Agency might want to protect groundwater went out the window a long time ago when multiple warnings from a renowned Professor in Hydrogeology were flatly ignored. The Agency is obviously far more concerned about securing a diminished sand and gravel resource for Aggregate Industries, than it is about protecting the aquifer that supplies drinking water to so many homes and businesses. 

It will therefore come as no surprise that the Environment Agency has decided to turn a blind eye to another aspect of the planning application for Straitgate Farm that doesn’t work. 

We have posted – here and here – about the problems in the proposed soil storage areas. In these areas, Aggregate industries would need to dig down and remove topsoil and subsoils to expose the overburden layer, upon which – for like-on-like storage – other overburden soils from the rest of the site could be stored. This would be required to restore the best and most versatile agricultural land in the future. The problem? In these areas, the groundwater is very close to the surface, so close that seepages and springs occur. In other words, in these areas Aggregate Industries would need to dig BELOW the maximum water table. 

But it’s not just in the soil storage areas where this is a problem – it’s the loading area too, the central hub of any quarry. If the water table rises above the elevation of the loading area, all manner of problems could result, not just flooding. 

The implications of this have not been assessed. Aggregate Industries’ Environmental Statement is silent on the matter. Groundwater levels have not been monitored in the areas where overburden would be stored and where the loading area would operate – despite the clear evidence of elevated levels. 

Devon County Council needs to have all the necessary and relevant information to enable it to determine the application and reach a lawful decision: 

The Environmental Statement must include at least the information reasonably required to assess the likely significant environmental effects of the development listed in regulation 18(3) and comply with regulation 18(4). 

But, you ask, wasn’t the site only meant to be worked dry? Weren’t there arguments at the Minerals Plan Examination about that? Didn’t the Public Inspector get involved? Wasn’t the Environment Agency pushing for all quarrying to stop 1m above the water table? 

Yes to all the above. The Environment Agency previously said: 

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

Devon County Council put a line through that 1m during the Examination. The Inspector commented: 

The Inspector's suggestion was intended to reflect the on-going uncertainty about what could be an acceptable way of working the site. An unsaturated zone of 1m may or may not feature in the final solution. However, it could be seen as inappropriate for Table C.4 to commit to a definite method of working when potentially acceptable alternatives have not been determined. The important points are that (a) only dry working would be acceptable… 

Only dry working would be acceptable. This is how the Minerals Plan was modified:

The Inspector's Report said: 

74. Provided that dry working takes place, as is proposed, I see no reason why water supplies would be materially affected. An acceptable solution would be determined in discussions involving the Environment Agency, as stated in Table C.4 

Provided that dry working takes place. This is what the Minerals Plan says today: 

5.4.9  Policy M12 therefore provides for the supply of sand and gravel through a Preferred Area at Straitgate Farm, near Ottery St Mary, subject to extraction being limited to dry working above the maximum water table to avoid potentially adverse impacts on private water supplies and water-sensitive habitats. 

Limited to dry working. The Environment Agency’s most recent stated position says: 

Our position remains that 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: 1. No working shall be undertaken below the ‘Maximum Winter Water Table (MWWT) grid’. 

The man on the Clapham omnibus would take that to mean no digging below the maximum water table across the proposed site as set out at the top of the Environment Agency’s letter:

EXTRACTION OF UP TO 1.5 MILLION TONNES OF AS RAISED SAND AND GRAVEL, RESTORATION TO AGRICULTURAL LAND TOGETHER WITH TEMPORARY CHANGE OF USE OF A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING TO A QUARRY OFFICE/WELFARE FACILITY STRAITGATE FARM, EXETER ROAD, OTTERY ST MARY, DEVON, EX11 1LG 

The proposal is not limited to the extraction area. No quarry ever is. The size of the proposal, the size of the red line boundary, is helpfully defined by Aggregate Industries:

The application site covers an area extending to some 42.5ha, with mineral extraction proposed to take place within 22.6ha with the remainder of the site occupied by temporary soil storage bunds, mitigation planting and site management and access areas 

The proposal requires the storage of soils and the construction of a loading area and haul road. Overburden storage and loading areas alone amount to some 7 hectares. 

We wrote to Environment Agency with our concerns about the water levels in the overburden storage areas. The Agency said the matter "will be taken into consideration". However, the very same day, the Environment Agency reiterated its ‘no objection’ position provided "subsequent permission includes several robust conditions to ensure the protection of groundwater resources and quality." There was no mention of the soil storage areas, so we wrote to the Environment Agency again: 

It is clear that Aggregate Industries would have to dig beneath the maximum water table in large areas beyond the proposed excavation boundary in order to accommodate like-on-like storage of overburden. 

The EA’s approach to protecting groundwater is outlined in its position statement: 

"Where the potential consequences of a development or activity are serious or irreversible the Environment Agency will adopt the precautionary principle to manage and protect groundwater. The Environment Agency will also apply this principle in the absence of adequate information with which to conduct an assessment." 

Do you not agree – particularly given the absence of groundwater monitoring in the proposed soil storage locations – that there has not been "adequate information with which to conduct an assessment"? 

Whilst the Environment Agency did not deny the problem, it did not agree either. This week it wrote:

Our recommended conditions concerning the Maximum Winter Water Table (MWWT) are intended to apply to the quarry working area only, not the soil/overburden storage area and the Planning Officer is aware of the intention of the recommended conditions. 

Quarry working area only? That will be news to most people. No geographic limit is defined in the condition. Groundwater needs protecting whether it is inside or outside the extraction area. 

Let's repeat the Minerals Plan again, this time from the Table C.4 referenced above: 

The development of this site will only involve dry working, above the maximum winter (wet) level of groundwater. 

Development of this site. If there was any intention by the Environment Agency to restrict the condition to just the working area, it has only been arrived at since the elevated groundwater levels in the soil storage areas were highlighted. 

Devon County Council and the Environment Agency need to send Aggregate Industries back to do more extensive groundwater monitoring. Without such information, the Council is in no position to determine the application lawfully.

‘HS2 loses vast amounts of highly polluting clay slurry in aquifer’

Accidents happen. 

That's why a precautionary approach must always be taken when dealing with groundwater and aquifers.

HS2 loses large amount of potentially highly polluting bentonite into the chalk aquifer and the @EnvAgency says blah, blah, blah.

“We take the protection of groundwater and watercourses – including chalk streams – very seriously, as...........",https://t.co/fUSfnLytR3

— Feargal Sharkey (@Feargal_Sharkey) September 10, 2021

HS2 has lost vast amounts of a potentially highly polluting substance in an aquifer during the construction of the high-speed rail link, it has emerged. 

Environmental campaigners have raised concerns about the impact of this on the water supply. 

The company lost 1,600 cubic metres of clay slurry known as bentonite, which is used in construction work, in the last few months of last year. 

A Network Rail environmental guide to bentonite says that as a liquid it is highly polluting. “If it enters watercourses or drains it can cause damage to plants and animals,” the guidance says.

HS2’s development partner Align has produced a report analysing the impact of this loss on the aquifer on the site where works are being carried out, north of Chalfont St Peter in Buckinghamshire. 

The lost bentonite is thought to be sitting in the fractures and fissures around the sides of the aquifer.

Align’s own report states that while no lasting damage is thought to have been done by this loss, at two monitoring boreholes there has been "significant effects on pH, turbidity and other water quality parameters"…. 

An Environment Agency spokesperson said: "We take the protection of groundwater and watercourses – including chalk streams – very seriously, as well as the protection of the wildlife and ecosystems that rely on them."

"The agency is working closely with HS2, their contractors, local community groups, the water industry, and local authorities to ensure the environment is protected throughout the project."

Hemerdon Mine operator sets out secondary aggregates ambitions

Tungsten West – the operator of the tin and tungsten mine at Hemerdon near Plymouth, the mine "formerly known as Drakelands", and subject of previous posts – has issued an EIA Scoping Request to Devon County Council PRE/1523/2021 in connection with its proposal to increase the output of secondary aggregates.

Tungsten West has formed a subsidiary, Aggregate West. The company claims: 

4.7 For a viable operation, Aggregate West Limited’s business plan allows for incremental growth over a 5‐year period. Assuming 20 tonnes of aggregate per HGV and movements 6 days per week, this is likely to require an average number of daily exportation movements as follows:

Year 1 (2022): 150 Aggregate HGV Exportations 

Year 2 (2023): 150 Aggregate HGV Exportations 

Year 3 (2024): 200 Aggregate HGV Exportations 

Year 4 (2025): 250 Aggregate HGV Exportations 

Year 5 (2026): 300 Aggregate HGV Exportations 

Year 5+ (2027+): (To be agreed as maximum based upon assessment of highway capacity including mitigation required). 

Assuming 50 working weeks per year, the company’s ambitions are seen to grow from 900,000 to 1.8 million tonnes per annum. 

According to the supply deal announced last month with GRS, a proportion of the aggregate would be loaded onto ships at Plymouth for transportation to other ports around Britain, and onto trains at Marsh Mills for onward distribution via the rail network.  

Local residents are understandably concerned about the scale of such ambitions.

CMA issues deadline on ending ‘greenwashing’

The Guardian reports: 

The UK competition watchdog has given companies that make misleading claims about their environmental credentials until the end of the year to stop the practice, which is known as "greenwashing". 

Too many businesses were "falsely taking credit for being green" in order to woo environmentally minded consumers, the Competition and Markets Authority said.

Could Aggregate Industries – UK subsidiary of Swiss cement giant Holcim – be accused of "falsely taking credit for being green"? After all, the two tweets below can’t both be correct.

 

Why is concrete the ideal sustainable material for our future?

💪 Resilient, durable and versatile
♻️ Infinitely recyclable
🌳 Naturally absorbs CO2#BuildGreen #BuildingProgress

Learn more from @Holcim 👉 https://t.co/K92ggmxJTD pic.twitter.com/8zvBG7kp3j

— Aggregate Industries (@AggregateUK) September 21, 2021

Concrete: the most destructive material on Earth https://t.co/zWBPFtCV7K

— Guardian US (@GuardianUS) February 25, 2019

‘Stop knocking down buildings, top engineers urge’

#ClimateChange: Construction companies told to stop knocking down buildings. Making bricks and steel creates vast amounts of #CO2, with cement alone causing 8% of global #emissions. #EmbodiedCarbon #ClimateEmergency https://t.co/kytVMAt41k

— Richard Ashwell 🌍 💙 (@RichardLAshwell) September 24, 2021

The report, steered by the Royal Academy of Engineering, said a new way of thinking is needed before planning new homes, factories, roads and bridges. 

Prof Rebecca Lunn from Strathclyde University, one of the report's authors, said: "Our biggest failure is that we build buildings, then we knock them down and throw them away. We must stop doing this." 

Fellow author, Mike Cook, adjunct professor at Imperial College, challenged the government's £27bn road-building programme because of the embodied emissions created to obtain the concrete and tarmac, as well as the use of very polluting machines to construct the highways. 

Prof Cook told BBC News: "We have to radically revise the way we look at things."

Prof Cook said questions should be asked whether projects such as HS2 - with its massive embodied carbon - will really benefit future generations.

Global sand & gravel extraction conflicts with half of UN SDGs

According to a new study led by researchers at #McGill and @uni_copenhagen, the human and environmental costs of sand and gravel extraction on lower and middle-income countries have been largely overlooked.https://t.co/wWYS67KarM

— McGill University (@mcgillu) September 2, 2021

The UN says: 

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015, provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future. At its heart are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are an urgent call for action by all countries - developed and developing - in a global partnership.

A new study – Sand, gravel, and UN Sustainable Development Goals: Conflicts, synergies, and pathways forward published recently in One Earth – concludes that global sand and gravel extraction conflicts with half of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: 

Sand and gravel are the most mined materials in the world, with between 32 and 50 billion tonnes extracted globally each year. They are being extracted faster than they can be replaced. But according to a new study led by researchers at McGill University and the University of Copenhagen, the human and environmental costs of this extraction on lower and middle-income countries have been largely overlooked. 

“With this work we’re able to show that in low- and middle-income countries, sand industry is in direct conflict with almost half of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals,” said Mette Bendixen an assistant professor in the department of Geography at McGill University and one of the lead authors of the work, which was published recently in One Earth. “The impact that sand and gravel mining have on the environment, conflicts with goals linked to the natural dynamics of ecosystems. Furthermore, pollution, health-related issues and the informal nature of many mining activities creates societal inequalities negatively affecting small scale miners and their families.”

As usual, Holcim – parent company of Aggregate Industries – has its own take on things:

Concrete is playing a vital role in reaching the Sustainable Development Goals (@GlobalGoalsUN). That’s why we are accelerating our overall commitment to the SDGs to build a world that works for people and the planet.

➡️ https://t.co/l8vECWFEHL#UNSustainableGoals #UNSDG pic.twitter.com/7E7cpaTxxw

— Holcim (@Holcim) December 11, 2020

DCC issues 9th and 10th LAA

Devon County Council is tasked with producing an annual Local Aggregate Assessment which includes information on sand and gravel production and reserve levels. 

The Council's 8th LAA was published in May 2020. At the time, we posted DCC says correlation 'broken' between aggregate sales and housing completions. It confirmed the long-term decline in sand and gravel sales in Devon. Since then, sales of sand and gravel have fallen further – as shown here. Last month, we posted that Sales of sand and gravel in Devon were down 12.6% in 2020.

This week, the Council published its 9th and 10th LAAs for the years 2010-2019 and for 2011-2020 respectively. The LAA highlights the ongoing decline in sales: 

For the three years to 2020, the average sales were 2.439 million tonnes for crushed rock and 0.493 million tonnes for sand and gravel, both falling below the ten years average for the first time in recent years. 

There has also been a significant "reassessment" of mineral reserves during 2020. 

At the end of 2019, reserves of sand and gravel were 4.199 million tonnes, and reserves of crushed rock 95.378 million tonnes. In 2020, after sales of 0.437 million tonnes of sand and gravel and 2.289 million tonnes of crushed rock, reserves had fallen to 2.880 and 81.323 million tonnes respectively – a loss in reserves of 0.9 million tonnes and 11.8 million tonnes in excess of sales. 

How careless. The LAA says: 

This can be attributed to a reassessment of reserves by operators. 

In other words, operators had overestimated the available resource, even misrepresenting the benefit at the time of applying for planning permission – something Aggregate Industries has made a habit. 

What about more sustainable sources of aggregates? The most recent LAA tells us that "despite the pandemic, sales of secondary aggregates increased by 2% in 2020 from the previous year": 

In addition to the existing sources of secondary aggregates outlined above, [there are] other potential sources that may be available in the future. This includes secondary aggregates from the processing of waste from tungsten and tin extraction at Drakelands Mine, near Plymouth, which commenced extraction in summer 2015 but ceased in autumn 2018. A new owner is looking to recommence operations at the site shortly.

‘The ESG investing industry is dangerous’

Tariq Fancy – previously chief investment officer for sustainable investing at BlackRock – has written an essay on environmental, social and corporate governance: The Secret Diary of a ‘Sustainable Investor’ — Part 1:

This is the first of a three-part essay that shares how my thinking evolved from evangelizing ‘sustainable investing’ for the world’s largest investment firm to decrying it as a dangerous placebo that harms the public interest. It’s not short. But this topic is critically important: it lies at the heart of how we reform capitalism to address important environmental and social challenges with concrete action. I challenge business leaders who have advocated the ideas I question below to offer a serious rebuttal. 

The essay has been picked up by the FT. 

The ESG investing industry is dangerous https://t.co/ylZZ3Ouogy | opinion

— Financial Times (@FT) August 24, 2021

Tariq Fancy is quoted as saying: 

In my role at BlackRock, I was helping to popularise an idea that the answer to a sustainable future runs through ESG and sustainability and green products, or in other words, that the answer to the market’s failure to serve the long-term public interest is, of course, more market. A bit like the NRA’s traditional answer to mass shootings and related concerns around public safety — the answer is more guns. 

He says senior executives at Blackrock are too smart to believe their own claims about ESG: 

They must know that they’re exaggerating the degree of overlap between purpose and profit . . . These leaders must know that there is no way the set of ideas they’ve proposed are even close to being up to the challenge of solving the runaway long-term problems . . . And right now all of the other stuff they’re saying — the marketing gobbledegook — is actively misleading people. 

Tariq Fancy lays out a number of arguments. Here, quoted from the FT article, are three: 

Argument five. Giving people the dumb idea that shifting their savings from one investment fund to another is going to help materially with, say, climate change creates a dangerous distraction from solutions that fit the scale of the problem, all of which involve changing the rules of capitalism through regulation. 

Argument eight. Corporations, and the whole legal and social apparatus in which they sit, were built around the idea that companies exist to maximise shareholder wealth. That’s what they are designed to do and are required to do. Thinking that fiddling around in the financial markets is going to make companies fit for a radically different purpose — helping with broad social problems driven by economic externalities and tricky collective action problems — is simply bonkers.  

Argument nine. Do you really want financial industry bigwigs making choices about how to solve our biggest social problems? Fancy quotes one of the signatories to the hilariously empty and meaningless 2019 Business Roundtable statement on the purpose of the corporation: “There were times that I felt like Thomas Jefferson.” So said Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky, who led the drafting of the BRT’s groundbreaking statement on stakeholder value. It’s easy to understand why he felt that way, given the weight of such lofty words about the future direction of not just business, but indeed society in general. But not enough people have asked a simple question: does it make sense that a CEO should feel like a famous US president? Only one of them is elected by the people.   

The author of the FT article finishes by saying: 

I myself find argument five particularly important. From what I understand, it’s clear we need, for example, a whopping big carbon tax, and soon, or we’re cooked. But we have some of the smartest, most powerful people in the corporate world rattling on about this sustainable investing drivel instead. It scares me.

It should scare us all. Holcim – parent of Aggregate Industries – emits more CO2 than many countries:

✅ We achieved a number-one ESG ranking in the construction materials sector out of more than one-hundred peer companies, according to ESG research and ratings agency Sustainalytics. #FinancialResults #LHN #H12020Results pic.twitter.com/kI1TA0tyA4

— Holcim (@Holcim) July 31, 2020

We are proud to announce that we have concluded our first issuance of ESG notes & that we have also amended all of our committed bilateral facilities.

These transactions are in full alignment w/ our “Business Ambition for 1.5°C” pledge.https://t.co/IXIRaJCftq

#OurOnlyFuture pic.twitter.com/y2UCJERbYI

— Holcim (@Holcim) September 29, 2020

‘Aggregate Industries hikes franchised driver pay rates in face of skills crisis’

Earlier this month, Motortransport.co.uk reported: 

The construction materials sector is hiking franchised driver rates as the driver shortage crisis continues. Breedon Group, Aggregate Industries and Tarmac have boosted their pay in the past few weeks, MT has learnt. The rate rises come as the haulage sector continues to struggle to attract and retain HGV drivers in the face of the widespread UK driver shortage.