Is AI attempting to disguise itself as a wildlife business?

Is Aggregate Industries now more concerned with wildlife than it is with quarrying or the local people whose lives it disrupts?

Fir0002/Flagstaffotos

Those not so cynically minded might, on reading the press release Aggregate Industries form powerful new partnership to protect London's wildlife, be inclined to think that its main line of business was actually in wildlife, with a bit of readymix on the side. 

Does AI hope that by showing people pictures of butterflies and damselflies they might overlook just how environmentally unsustainable and destructive to natural habitats quarrying is?

No damselfly survives the onslaught of AI's earth-movers, and it's disingenuous of an aggregates company to feign a love of nature. AI showed no such concern in 2002 when it protested that "the decision to protect the birds, as well as what English Nature called 'a rich assemblage of dragonfly and damselfly' restricted its use of [Bramshill]."

The recent corporate video - "Biodiversity - a priority at Aggregate Industries" (with some clips of Blackhill Quarry) - seeks to show how seriously AI now takes biodiversity. In which case we can be assured that it will not quarry Straitgate Farm and put the bio-diverse wetland habitats in the Ancient Woodlands of Cadhay Bog and Cadhay Wood at risk. Or are AI's proclamations empty words, and "biodiversity protection and enhancement" not quite the "priority" it claims?

An opinion

A number of people may believe that because DCC has become quiet, gone back to have a rethink and delay its new Minerals Plan, that the threat at Straitgate Farm has receded, and the idea has been 'kicked into the long grass'. This is a dangerous view. We must not think for a moment that Aggregate Industries has given up on Straitgate - despite all the obstacles thrown up in the Consultation.

As far as AI is concerned, Straitgate is where they want to come next. Whether DCC has Straitgate as a Preferred Site or not. Whether DCC has its new Minerals Plan ready or not. AI still owns the site, the gravel is still there, Venn Ottery Quarry has a limited life, and DCC has identified - wrongly in our view - a shortfall in sand and gravel reserves before the end of its Plan in 2031. Having sat on Straitgate for nearly 50 years, AI will not give it up without a fight.

For them Straitgate is the cheapest option - dig a hole, haul the as-dug material across Woodbury Common, process it at the existing Blackhill Quarry, sell the hole afterwards for inert landfill. No new expensive plant to build, maintain a foothold in the area and keep Rockbeare supplied. Just carry on as it has at Venn Ottery. Current economics are not favourable for AI - as their workers have found out - and demand is low. They would find it difficult to justify a new plant, so processing at Blackhill may be their only viable option.

So, we must expect to be ready for a fight. The planning climate has swung in favour of the developer, and if we are to be in with a chance of defeating a multinational giant, with its barristers and consultants, we will need to be organised, funded, and ready with the arguments. Having long petitions and local Councillors and MPs onside is good and shows weight of public feeling, but will not ultimately influence an Inspector at a Planning Inquiry. It's all about the reasons why this is the wrong site from a planning point of view. Fortunately for the people of Ottery St Mary and West Hill there are substantial planning grounds on which to refuse an application to quarry Straitgate Farm - such as the impact on groundwater supplies, the impact on flooding, the impact on Ancient Woodland, the impact on airport safeguarding, the impact on the European protected Woodbury Common, the need not robustly demonstrated, the viability not demonstrated, the impact on Grade I and Grade II listed buildings, and so on.

Oh, and if AI applies for permission before a new Minerals Plan is in place it must overcome the hurdle of "For as long as adequate sand and gravel reserves (i.e. a minimum of seven years’ supply) continue to be present at the existing quarries, there are no grounds to allow their further extension or new quarries" specified by DCC's current Minerals Plan. Devon has over 16 years' supply.

Some may question what a campaign could achieve, but if run effectively, and Buckfastleigh and Chew Valley are good examples, it can make a difference. There's a multitude of substantive planning reasons why Straitgate Farm should not be quarried. It will be up to us to ensure the authorities recognise these.

Lose the battle against a sand and gravel quarry and our children could be fighting an "asbestos dump"

If there's anybody who thinks that a sand and gravel quarry at Straitgate Farm would be innocuous, consider the campaigners in the Chew Valley who have been fighting against the disposal of asbestos at nearby Stowey Quarry.

If Aggregate Industries was to quarry Straitgate it is all too likely that after extraction has finished a change in planning conditions would be granted, and the site sold to an inert waste contractor. With sand and gravel profit margins so low, selling the resultant void adds a significant amount to a quarry's overall profit, whilst restoration costs only reduce it.

Stowey Quarry is an example of how planning conditions change. The site was originally granted planning permission in 1954 for the extraction of limestone. In 1979 permission was granted for the tipping of demolition and construction waste and other inert materials. In 2011 permission was sought for the tipping of Stable Non-Reactive Hazardous Waste, including asbestos. 

An extensive local campaign was waged and the application was refused last week. The waste operator can appeal.

It's not just the sand and gravel, the noise and the dust, the disruption to watercourses and the drinking water supplies, the flood risk, the haulage past people's homes and across Woodbury Common. It's what could happen to that big hole in the ground that should also concern people.

Aside from polluting watercourses, the above photograph makes it clear why the site could not be used for household landfill, attracting gulls directly under the approach for aircraft landing at Exeter Airport

What 'Earth Scar' would be OSM's legacy?

After the ground has given up its mineral, the agriculture gone, Aggregate Industries' profit made, what then for Ottery St Mary and its surrounds?

Aggregate Industries is proud to supply Windsor Castle with 80-100 tonnes of crushed Blackhill gravel each year, but is it as proud of the 'Earth Scars' it leaves behind for local people?

If Aggregate Industries was ever allowed to quarry Straitgate Farm, the 'Earth Scar' would not be as deep as in the pictures above. If the company was restricted in the same way as at Thorn Tree Plantation at Blackhill, it would only be permitted to quarry down to one metre above the maximum water table.

But over time the 'Earth Scar' could grow to be almost as extensive, due to the extent of the deposit - with the sites S1-S10 at risk of befalling the same fate. Aggregate Industries already has most of the mineral rights, and could make OSM its home for generations.

And what imaginative ideas would Aggregate Industries or DCC have in mind for all those holes created so conveniently close to the Exeter populace? Housing, inert landfill, industrial units, composting? Any natural restoration scheme that increased the potential for bird habitats in Exeter Airport's flight path would of course not be permitted.

NIMBYism

Councillors should take care before dismissing local consultation respondents as nothing more than NIMBYs. The BBC article "Would YOU live next to a NIMBY?" considers that:

"To be called a NIMBY can be a devastating insult, undermining one's well argued case and labelling it as simply a statement of self-interest (...) But environmental lawyer Professor Peter Kunzlik says the instinct to be a NIMBY can be valuable (...) "One of the slogans that came after the Rio Summit was Think Globally, Act Locally. Governments claim to want everybody to do that, and so far as the environment is concerned, where do you experience it? It's where you live. So if you're going to take issues seriously, you do so locally, otherwise it becomes a bit hypothetical.""

A survey by The Saint Consulting Group (SCG) found that "nearly nine out of 10 people in Britain are NIMBYs". In fact "almost a quarter of all UK households have objected to a planning application of one kind or another in their local area over the last 12 months". In other words, for the very people who elect councillors into office, the act of defending their home and neighbourhood against threats from local government or Swiss multinational giants is natural. It is certainly no more selfish than the profit motives of the world's largest cement producer. 

And it's hardly surprising when you hear of plans passed such as the one in Plymouth last year - it's obviously not just DCC that doesn't listen to local concerns. Would the councillors who voted for the waste incinerator and its 95m chimney stack, just 60m from the closest home in a socially deprived part of the City, have voted differently if they had lived in one of the 450 homes within 250m of the site?

Whether one agrees or not with its conclusions, the think-tank Policy Exchange recognised in a recent paper that "...local people see many costs and few benefits from new developments". "As 'neighbourhood' is people’s number one priority for homes, many NIMBYs are not selfish or unreasonable but defending their property rights" and "the legitimate fears of NIMBYs must be acknowledged, rather than NIMBYs being insulted".

According to SCG "quarries remain one of the most disliked forms of development behind casinos, power plants and landfill sites". When the BGS warn "Quarrying can significantly deflate the perceived and actual value of local property prices by reducing the desirability and demand for housing near the quarry as a result of noise, traffic, safety, dust, and visual intrusion concerns observed or envisaged by potential purchasers" are councillors surprised that not everybody might be in favour? Would they be happy living next to all that? Losing value on their home? And then losing their water supply too?

SCG advice to mineral operators is to "engage with the local community and educate members of the public (and likely opponents) about how important the aggregates sector is, and the positive impact that a quarry can have on the community." But if it won't bring any new jobs, the 384 consultation respondents would be interested to hear from Aggregate Industries what positive impacts a quarry at Straitgate Farm would have for the population of Ottery and West Hill. And they don't just want talk about restoration, because those plans have a habit of changing or simply not happening at all.

Signs produced by
Ottery Quarry
Action Group

SCG adds "Operators need to establish close ties with their local communities early on, as it is much easier to present the industry’s message to local residents whose position has not already been influenced, than it is to change their preformed opinions." Yet at the recent consultation Aggregate Industries was nowhere to be seen, and was not even prepared to share the working or restoration plans drawn up for the site. "Preformed opinions"? Sorry - too late.

As it was DCC pitching northern and southern sites against each other in the consultation, respondents did not deserve to be brushed aside with the misconceived accusation of NIMBYism. It's only too apparent from the documentation that locals know more about their locality than either Aggregate Industries or DCC. Councillors should appreciate people taking the time to furnish the facts, rather than criticise.

Local people are pragmatic enough to accept the need for sand and gravel, but Devon has over nine million tonnes already reserved and is using less than half a million tonnes each year. "But don't we need to build for economic recovery"? Like Spain, Ireland et al?

Strike ballot at AI

If the company treats its workers like this, what hope would there be for our community?

GMB is in dispute with the Company following a history of total disregard of our members' right to be consulted about major changes. Aggregate Industries has a track record of imposing not consulting, telling not asking and, in general, treating its loyal and committed employees with no dignity or respect. 

Aggregate Industries, however, said the financial climate meant it had no choice but to alter the pay date...

One can understand GMB's position. Workers are being forced to subsidise AI and its £13.8bn parent, "by a few days each month", without the company first seeking agreement. The Employment Rights Act 1996 makes it "unlawful for an employer to make any deduction from the wages of a worker employed by him unless the worker has agreed in writing to the deduction being made or it is required by law". 

SSSI - a denial of AI's Human Rights?

If Aggregate Industries was denied permission to continue operating on Woodbury Common due to SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) and other designations, would it again complain, as it did at the High Court in 2002 - R (on the application of Aggregate Industries UK Ltd) v English Nature, that it was a "breach of section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act"? 

In February 2000, shortly after AI was notified that new European nature conservation designations would restrict quarrying at Blackhill on Woodbury Common, the company purchased almost 700 acres of land in Hampshire, only to see it then designated a SSSI by English Nature in July 2001, to safeguard the habitat of rare birds - the Nightjar, Woodlark and Dartford Warbler.

AI sought a Judicial Review of English Nature's decision, claiming the land had been deprived of its development potential, but this was rejected on the grounds that the site is "rightly regarded as an area of European importance".

Woodbury Common, the largest continuous expanse of heathland in England, is also recognised to be of European importance - Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area (SAC, SPA) - with populations of Nightjar, Woodlark, Dartford Warbler, and other legally protected species.

Yet having first been served notice in 1999, AI is still there, now with permission to process sand and gravel until 2016. How did DCC let that happen? Firstly in 2002 AI persuaded DCC to allow it to quarry a site adjacent to the SAC/SPA at Thorn Tree Plantation. Then in 2008 AI persuaded DCC to allow it to process material at Blackhill from Marshbroadmoor, Rockbeare. Then in 2011 AI persuaded DCC to allow it to process material there from Venn Ottery.

And now AI wants to persuade DCC again, this time to allow it to continue beyond 2016 to process material there from Straitgate. Until when? 2026? Longer? Hauling millions of tonnes past peoples' homes and across the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths - SAC, SPA, SSSI, AONB?

Is Woodbury Common the right place for a sand and gravel "factory" processing material from further afield? Blackhill's processing plant was only ever intended to process material extracted from the site, and that finished in 2009. At some point AI will have to expense a move. In 2003 it was intending to move to Rockbeare. By 2008 plans had changed and the intention was to move to Houndaller at Uffculme. Those plans were then put on hold. Desperate times may call for desperate measures - but a round trip of 15 miles, transporting each load of as-dug sand and gravel from Straitgate for 10 years or more? 100 movements or more a day? The profitable supply radius reduced by half. What can AI be thinking?

So never mind AI's "Human Rights". What about the rights of those - be they birds or people - who make this area their home, not just a profit centre?

SA ‘audit’ raises inconsistencies

Now that it is clear that the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) was performed as an "audit" of the site appraisals rather than to inform them, as Dave Black explains in his letter of 10 August, an inconsistency arises that DCC will need to explain. Specifically, how did the Aggregate Industries owned Straitgate Farm (S7), with the joint second most references to "significant negative impacts" (where there is no likely mitigation) in the SA summary for the southern sites, manage to conveniently avoid any "showstoppers" in DCC's earlier site appraisal?

The Environment Agency (EA) also recognised the inconsistency, and wrote "It is apparent from the SA that some of the excluded sites may [be] preferable in environmental terms". DCC would argue that the site appraisal assessed a smaller area for S7 than the SA, but as the EA pointed out for one of the impacts "distance is irrelevant, as the wetland functioning of the [County Wildlife Site] is reliant on the watercourse supply". The SA considered S9 "too small to be viable" and did not assess it.

To many it will look like site ownership influenced DCC's judgement; the site appraisals would hardly have been different if Aggregate Industries had performed the exercise themselves.

If you have a private water supply the Environment Agency needs your help

The Environment Agency has recently sent a letter to households who are potentially reliant on water from the Straitgate area. In the first instance they wish to put together a list of all the wells, boreholes and springs in the area "...with the aim of being better able to protect the source of that water, now and in the future." For those who have received a letter it is important to reply, not only to confirm and enhance the information they already hold, but also so that the Environment Agency can gauge the importance of the Straitgate aquifer and make an informed response to any future quarrying proposal. If anybody has not received a letter but lives near Straitgate Farm and has a private water supply, please contact the Environment Agency on 01392 354057.

Is it even viable?

Is this AI's only financially viable plan?

Back in April, DCC was asked whether it could verify "That Aggregate Industries confirmed to the Council prior to the Consultation that, besides Blackhill, there are a number of other commercially viable alternative locations for the processing of material from the area at Straitgate being consulted upon." 

DCC replied that "Aggregate Industries have confirmed there are other suitable locations for the processing of material but we cannot state whether they are commercially viable. We would not expect to go into the detail of commercial viability at this stage of the process." 

This was surprising because the NPPF says “173. Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable.” DCC appraised 45 factors for each site, but commercial viability was not one of them. A site might perform best environmentally but if it does not make business sense for an operator it is not going to be deliverable.

For Straitgate to be included in the Minerals Plan, DCC would need to know that, if processing at Blackhill on the heavily protected Woodbury Common was not to be permitted beyond 2016, it would be commercially viable for Aggregate Industries to set up plant at Rockbeare or Straitgate for the relatively limited amount of sand and gravel available. Without that knowledge there would be no substance to the Council's Plan, merely wishful thinking.

Poor profit margins on sand and gravel mean an assessment of commercial viability is important. Not only for the Council to be assured of continuity of supply, but also so that local people may have a modicum of faith that the operator will afford restoration plans, or in the case of financial default another operator could be attracted to continue and restore the site.

RICS has just released "Financial viability in planning". Whilst this is more concerned with housing development, it still emphasises that "Financial viability has become an increasingly important material consideration in the planning system" and "Viability considerations should form a critical part of the evidence base behind planning policies".

To date it would seem that commercial "viability considerations" have been absent from DCC's thinking, and before going any further Aggregate Industries should be asked for assurances that if they had to finance another plant the numbers would stack up.

Why was DCC in such a hurry?

© Crown Copyright/MOD 2007

DCC recognised some time ago that airport safeguarding issues could restrict quarrying at Straitgate, and when the CAA has said that "It must be recognized that it is not possible for an aerodrome or aircraft operator to mitigate the hazard caused by water bodies and watercourses, or to prevent birds using areas of open water in the vicinity of the aerodrome" why was DCC so determined and in such a rush to select a site directly under Exeter Airport's flight path?

It's unclear who in DCC wrote Safeguarding Mineral Resources and Infrastructure in February 2011, but here it recognised that "To the north of the AONB, parts of the [Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds] have been sterilised by existing development at West Hill and Uffculme. However, the remainder of the resource is relatively unconstrained, although local designations, groundwater considerations and airport safeguarding arrangements may provide localised constraints."

These "localised constraints" plainly didn't concern DCC when it selected Straitgate as a Preferred Site. DCC had made its mind up some time before its Development Management Control (DMC) meeting of 7 March 2012, saying "All but one of the sites in the southern area were found to have at least one ‘showstopper’ impact in the site appraisals". In all likelihood DCC had decided much earlier, since Aggregate Industries had been assured enough to expense consultants' reports and plans, made available to the Council on 27 February. But how could DCC be so sure that Straitgate was the right site when the Site Appraisal was incomplete - "Conflict with Aerodrome Safeguarding Areas" being left with "In process of checking implication with airport"?

After all this was not an insignificant detail when Straitgate and other southern sites are directly under the flight path. The CAA has made clear that "almost without exception, water developments increase the bird hazard in ways that cannot be adequately controlled. Often, they are a consequence of minerals extraction, in which case there will probably be more similar proposals that will progressively surround the aerodrome with water. Even where this is not the case, there are nearly always pre-existing water bodies with populations of waterfowl nearby. In practice, isolated ponds that will not generate waterfowl movements do not exist. Any additional water will inevitably increase a pre-existing hazard from waterfowl."

DCC sent a copy of Aggregate Industries' plans to Exeter Airport shortly after 27 February, but didn't wait for their response before voting at the DMC meeting to consult on Straitgate and rejecting the alternatives. The Airport's reply arrived 2 days later, and said that "To ensure aviation safety it is suggested that no ponds or body of water be allowed as part of this development." At this point DCC could have still postponed its consultation, considered the advice, and had a re-think. But then DCC hadn't waited for the conclusions of the Sustainability Appraisal either, which reported on the "sustainability issues relevant to each of the 21 potential quarry sites". This report was redundant in this respect by the time it was published in June, since 18 of the potential sites had already been rejected by DCC, landowners having been informed on 12 March with a very final "the appraisal work has concluded that the site within your ownership is unsuitable at the present time for mineral working due to one or more environmental constraints, and the County Council will not be considering it for inclusion in the Devon Minerals Plan."

How was DCC so certain that Straitgate, with all its water issues, could be worked dry or restored without water features? Continual pumping into watercourses would be required for the former. Importation of millions of tonnes of inert waste for the latter. DCC convinced attendees at its West Hill exhibition that landfill at Straitgate was not an option. In any case, there may not be the availability of sufficient inert waste with much now recycled, or it may not be economic with recent landfill tax changes, or even environmentally acceptable.

No - it seemed that only one thing mattered - Straitgate was owned by Aggregate Industries, and DCC assumed it was deliverable. People might have hoped that when it came to aircraft safety, the Council would have considered matters more carefully and with less haste.

Bird spotting at Blackhill Quarry

The earlier post on Birdstrike omitted a detail. The body of water pictured at Blackhill Quarry is actually called "Seagull Pond" by quarry staff, for obvious reason. The quarry is also known by local bird-spotters, particularly for breeds of gulls. The gulls in the earlier photograph have now moved - and can be found at another lagoon in the quarry, as shown.

We mention this in case Aggregate Industries or DCC are minded to say at some future point that bodies of water in quarries are cold, nutrient poor, unattractive to bird life, and would present no risk whatsoever to aircraft flying low over Straitgate on their landing approach to Exeter Airport.

Reply from DCC

Letter from Dave Black, Head of Planning and Transportation at DCC, in reply to the Letter to DCC, regarding DCC's Sustainability Appraisal (SA) first referred to in Negative impact on flight safety only "minor"?

The reply from DCC argues that since the site appraisals considered "...social, environmental and economic impacts, it was not considered necessary to undertake SA of the site options prior to identifying the preferred and excluded sites for consultation." Government advice is however that Strategic Environmental Assessment [SEA, a European Directive which forms part of the SA] is most effective when started as early as possible...". In DCC's case the SA report, with its conclusions on the relative environmental impacts of each site, was published some three months after the Consultation started, and did not inform the selection of the Preferred Sites, or the rejection of the alternatives, a point also made by Natural England. It is therefore unclear how DCC will be able to demonstrate that Article 2(b) of directive 2001/42/EC "the taking into account of the Environmental Report... in decision making" has been fulfilled.

DCC does not see a conflict of interest in the same person overseeing preparation of the Minerals Plan and the Sustainability Appraisal. Many local authorities however, Oxfordshire, Somerset and Wiltshire to name three, engage outside consultants to "undertake an independent Sustainability Appraisal" which helps avoid any accusation that the SA is not entirely impartial. Government advice says it is "helpful to involve people... who are not directly concerned in producing the plan or programme and can contribute expertise or a detached and independent view". It is not a "legal requirement" for the SA to be independent, but good practice when working to find the best outcome, not just the most deliverable.

DCC does however welcome any comments from the public on the SA report "... including any inaccuracies or disagreement with judgements made in the report", but otherwise has decided that the SA report "... does not warrant a wider consultation." The SA report on S7 (Straitgate) can be found in S7 and S7 appendix. Click for the Sustainability Appraisal Team contact details. Here is a list of our comments so far.

Why are mineral workers warned of the dangers of RCS but not local residents?

Respirable Crystalline Silica is invisibly fine dust generated when quarrying and processing sand and gravel. Aggregate Industries' staff at Blackhill Quarry are warned of its dangers, as are at-risk workers elsewhere.

Report on Carcinogens by the US Health Department warns "Residents near quarries and sand and gravel operations potentially are exposed to respirable crystalline silica." Another report concludes "In our study, there seems to be a risk also in groups exposed to lower levels [of respirable quartz]. There is no consensus how low an acceptable risk level ought to be."

The deposits of sand and gravel at Straitgate are made of quartzite - a crystalline form of silicon dioxide or silica. Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS) is angular Particulate Matter less than 10μm in size (PM10) that can enter the lungs. The quarrying sector is a major producer of PM10. The Health Protection Agency advises "The distance travelled by dust emissions will depend on the particle size and on the wind speed and turbulence. Smaller dust particles will stay airborne for longer and disperse over a wider area. Strong and turbulent winds will also keep larger particles airborne for longer. Data reported from quarries indicated that the courser dust particles (>30μm) are mainly deposited within 100m of the source, intermediate particles (10-30μm) between 250 and 500m, while fine particles (<10μm) can travel up to 1 km (DoE, 1995a,b). Ultrafine particles (<2.5μm) would be expected to travel considerably further." 

RCS can be generated a number of ways (not just from processing). "Inhaling finely divided crystalline silica dust in very small quantities over time can lead to silicosis, bronchitis, or cancer, as the dust becomes lodged in the lungs and continuously irritates them, reducing lung capacities. (In the body crystalline silica particles do not dissolve over clinically relevant periods of time.) Children, asthmatics of any age, allergy sufferers, and the elderly (all of whom have reduced lung capacity) can be affected in much less time." In its most common form, chronic silicosis "Usually [results] from long-term exposure (10 years or more) to relatively low concentrations of silica dust and usually appearing 10–30 years after first exposure."

The American Lung Association writes "...public concern may be raised about potential health effects from brief exposure to airborne silica or residence in locations where prevailing winds carry silica particles from natural or industrial sites. There is little evidence to suggest that brief or casual exposure [would living near a quarry be "brief or casual"?] to low levels of crystalline silica dust produces clinically significant lung disease or other adverse health effects. Chronic simple silicosis has, however, been described after environmental exposures to silica in regions where soil silica content is high and dust storms are common."

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advises (guidance sheets QY0 and QY2) "All RCS is hazardous". "Tell workers: that very fine quarry dust can cause silicosis, which leads to disablement and early death". The HSE adds, with regard to construction sites, "In 2006, the workplace exposure limit for RCS was reduced to 100μg/m3 and there is pressure to lower it further to 50μg/m3 as epidemiological data suggest there is no known level of exposure at which silicosis does not occur." "Whilst we are able to estimate the exposure to RCS of an individual at work from past data, little is known about the inadvertent exposure of people who are close to but not involved in the work activity". HSE measurements did however "indicate the migration of silica across sites and potentially beyond the site boundaries". As far as recorded cases go, the HSE maintains "No cases of silicosis have been documented among members of the general public in Great Britain, indicating that environmental exposures to silica dust are not sufficiently high to cause this occupational disease". However "It should also be noted that excessive long term exposures to almost any dust, are likely to lead to respiratory (breathing) problems." HSE's American equivalent, the OSHA, warns "If it’s silica, it’s not just dust".

Aggregate Industries warns about RCS, but what warnings has DCC given? Well, no mention at all of RCS. Its Sustainability Appraisal did warn "Due to a changing climate there is the potential for the impact of noise and dust on sensitive receptors to become more intense. Hotter summers will provide conditions that will produce additional dust, and people will spend more time outdoors and leave the windows of dwellings and workplaces open for longer." "There is likely to be a negative impact upon the well-being and health of the residents at Straitgate Farm. This impact, combined with those likely for low to medium sensitive properties in the vicinity, would lead to a significant negative impact during the working of minerals". Its recommendation? "Policy relating to dust could encourage screening measures and dust control/mitigation". In its current Minerals Plan DCC "...will consider the practicality and the cost of methods of environmental control such as the spraying of materials with water at suitable stages in their handling and transport, the watering of areas of the site regularly used by vehicles and the use of dust extractors." Are the phrases "could encourage" and "consider the practicality and the cost" enough? RCS is carcinogenic. Cllr. John Hart, Leader of DCC, reiterated recently "you have to extract minerals from where they were deposited" - but to the detriment of human health? DCC's slogan is, after all, "improving life for all".

How much protection would residents expect from this carcinogenic dust source? Planning4Minerals (P4M) stresses that "Prevention of dust generation is critical [for example by working the mineral wet and damping internal haul roads] - once in the open air ...the operator will have little or no control over where [dust] settling occurs." P4M expects the "use of buffer zones to isolate dust sources from surrounding communities, often incorporated into local planning policy, with distances of 250-500m typically adopted, unless there are unusual or exceptional reasons to permit a variation." However, one study "monitored silica concentrations ...near a sand and gravel facility in Central California" and found "the impact from this source was still evident, even at the furthest downwind monitor - 745 meters away". The Technical Guidance to the NPPF says "A dust assessment study should be undertaken..." and "...additional measures to control PM10 might be necessary if, within a site, the actual source of emission (e.g. the haul roads, crushers, stockpiles etc.) is within 1,000m of any residential property or other sensitive use". Dust monitoring would form part of the planning conditions for any new quarry, but the "definition of standards for dust is a particularly complex issue...there are no agreed standards or guidelines for the nuisance impacts of mineral dusts in the UK." However The Air Quality Regulations 1997 do set a statutory objective for PM10 of 50μg/m3 or less, and the Environment Agency stipulates a maximum RCS level of 0.6μg/m3 around waste sites.

So, what are the benefits for a community newly saddled with this risk of airborne carcinogenic dust? DCC says "Mineral working at an individual site may take place over a number of decades and, while this timescale may seem a burden on local communities, it does offer the opportunity to develop strong working relationships between community and mineral operator [wow, thanks!] (as well as providing a source of local employment)." Blackhill Quarry currently employs nine. What about "the Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund for projects in communities that are affected by aggregates extraction"? Scrapped in 2011.

Has DCC properly assessed the impact of quarrying on the historic environment?

Not according to "Heritage in local plans: how to create a sound plan under the NPPF" released last week by English Heritage.

Quarrying at Straitgate Farm would not only impact the Grade II listed Devon longhouse and its setting, but also the source of water for the mediaeval fish ponds that are of central importance to the gardens at Cadhay, the Grade I listed Tudor manor house. A pre-historic track also runs through Straitgate, and a number of archaeological finds were made in the area during the construction of the A30.

Water from Straitgate at Cadhay

The historic environment did not concern DCC in the Site Appraisal of S7 (Straitgate), with the impact on Cadhay rated "Medium/Low", and bizarrely even the impact on Straitgate, of removing the agricultural setting of a 16th century farmhouse, only rated "Medium". The Sustainability Appraisal also failed to appreciate these assets, assessing only a "Minor negative impact" on the historic environment of quarrying S7.

English Heritage however say "The NPPF expects heritage assets to be conserved and enhanced for generations to come."

English Heritage advise "Sound local plans will be based on adequate up-to-date evidence about the historic environment." "This is not just an exercise in listing known sites, but of understanding their value to society (their significance), how they and the area have developed through history, their physical conservation status and needs, the contribution of their settings, scope for enhancement and their potential to contribute to the delivery of other sustainable development objectives." 

We now know that DCC's Sustainability Appraisal did not inform, as it should have, the earlier Site Appraisals, but English Heritage are clear that "The evidence base will also be of relevance to the Sustainability Appraisal which accompanies the Local Plan, helping to populate the baseline data and informing the appraisal process itself." "Where the evidence base is weak, local planning authorities may find it useful to commission research from appropriately qualified and competent experts to supplement existing information." 

English Heritage consider that "One of the core dimensions of sustainable development is the protection and enhancement of the historic environment." DCC must not be blinkered in its pursuit for a Preferred Site for sand and gravel quarrying - the County's historic assets need to be taken seriously.

Environment Agency and Natural England respond again to Straitgate

DCC has received new responses from the Environment Agency and Natural England, this time in connection to the Sustainability Appraisal Report, referred to earlier, 18 July and 26 June.

Both statutory consultees commented on timing, the Environment Agency saying "We advise that this Sustainability Appraisal (SA) should have accompanied the formal consultation in March 2012 which set out your Authority’s preferred sites for future quarrying in East and Mid Devon." The Environment Agency were also of the opinion that "It is apparent from the SA that some of the excluded sites may [be] preferable in environmental terms" confirming the view that DCC focused rather more on "deliverability" - all the preferred sites are owned by Aggregate Industries - and much less on the "constraints". 

Natural England stated that "there are many contradictions and inconsistencies in the report which appears to have been written, not only after preferred options were selected, but also justifying those preferences - sometimes with inaccurate statements. For example, CAA advice for aircraft safety which conflicts with a proposal is usually considered a high not minor risk; travelling unnecessarily 9km though an SAC to process material further away from its final destination is not considered to be a neutral impact." With regard to Straitgate (S7), and the impact on Ancient Woodland and wetland habitats in Cadhay Bog, "If the Airport Authorities require no or maintained ponds as per their guidance on bird strike, we advise that mitigation would be either extremely difficult or not be possible, particularly given other ground water constraints and therefore consider this to be an immitigable impact of high significant negative impact." On the subject of processing at Blackhill, "Natural England has serious concerns regarding potential continued processing at Blackhill Quarry due to its sensitive location within the SAC. Although we have some concern regarding later restoration we are particularly concerned about the importation of waste material (including wet silts and water used to clean waste) with a higher nitrate content than that appropriate for restoration in a heathland area which requires negligible or preferably no nutrients. As Straitgate is intensively dairy-farmed, it would be impossible to prevent nitrates from entering lagoons at Blackhill if material were brought to Blackhill as dug. We advise that off-site processing at Blackhill is therefore an unacceptable high negative impact not highlighted in the SA report which should be noted."

DCC wanted an "evidence base" before delivering its Mineral Plan. Yet again the Council has been told that Straitgate is an unsuitable site.

Where are AI's priorities?

What impression does a company give when it can't pay its drivers on time, yet can afford membership of the Conservative Party's Leader's Group?

Apparently things have been so bad for Aggregate Industries with “unprecedented difficult operating conditions” that for the last two years in a row it has had to delay payments to drivers, putting some businesses at risk. The Road Haulage Association made representations to Government, and subcontractors were warned about accepting further work.

Yet the company did not delay payment for some things: "In 2011, Aggregate Industries paid the annual subscription of £50,000 for membership of the Conservative Paty [sic] Leader's Group", (Source: AI, GRI Index, Society S06), on top of £100,000 donated to the Conservative Party since 2008. The Conservative Party web site says: "The Leader’s Group is the premier supporter Group of the Conservative Party. Members are invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches." In case the company's views are not heard here, "In 2011, Aggregate Industries joined the Industy [sic] Parliamentary Trust to engage in a fellowship programme with Andrew Bingham MP. The programme is not a lobbying platform, but is designed to promote the work of both our industry and government and has seen Mr Bingham visit several of Aggregate Industries' UK operations and has seen Aggregate Industries employees spend time at Westminster" (Source: AI, GRI Index, Society S05).

The concern must be that companies who buy access to politicians expect a quid pro quo. Regardless of how the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) arrived at its current form, it has become known by many as a "developers' charter", being welcomed by construction firms and trade bodies alike - the Mineral Products Association (MPA, of which AI is a member) for one saying "the [NPPF], which the MPA welcomes, now has to prove it can help to deliver sustainable development quickly".

If Aggregate Industries, with its Swiss-based parent company Holcim capitalised at £11bn and with enough cash to dine at the top table of UK politics, wants to be considered a decent neighbour in our communities whilst exploiting our local countryside for profit, the very least it should do is be open with people, treat them decently.... and pay its bills on time.

Another MP visits Ottery

Following the recent visit by Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman MP, who came to see the flood damage in Ottery St Mary and the newly built flood defence scheme at Thorne Farm Way, Hugo Swire MP also visited Ottery last week to see the affected areas. He too was briefed by the Environment Agency, and felt it important "that we double our efforts" to prevent a repeat.

What does 'sustainable' mean?

Scheme of sustainable development:
at the confluence of three constituent parts.
Source: Wikipedia

The phrase "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" appeared as long ago as 1987, and now 'sustainable' development is the overriding theme running through the National Planning Policy Framework - "Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations", "Sustainable development is about change for the better, and not only in our built environment" and "Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision." 

Quarrying sand and gravel from the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds, a finite resource, by definition can never be described as 'sustainable'. 

'Sustainable' can mean using recycled and secondary aggregates, or using farmland for the generation of food, or using groundwater for drinking water supplies, or using our scenic and historic assets to promote tourism for the support of local businesses.

'Sustainable' does not mean dumping ball clay sand and gravels as waste whilst quarrying for primary aggregates, or polluting local villages by hauling as-dug material to Woodbury Common for processing, or hauling silt or other material back to Straitgate for restoration, or damaging ancient woodland and wetland habitats, or losing groundwater supplies for up to 100 people and 380 acres of grazing land, or increasing flood risk to downstream communities.

Straitgate Farm performs a number of very useful functions, including being a productive dairy farm, holding groundwater for drinking supplies, and moderating water run-off to limit flooding. Quarrying would permanently degrade all these functions for future generations, and therefore would not only be unnecessary, unjustifiable, and unmitigatable, but completely unsustainable.

Aggregate Industries would have us believe they are committed to sustainability, and their web site with all that grass is very 'green'. The statement "As a company we are committed to sustainable construction and reducing the carbon footprint of the products we produce and transport" has been rolled out a number of times - however not in relation to their normal activities, but to the erection of wind turbines in Cornwall, Lancashire and County Durham.

No major revisions

We were pleased to hear from the Minerals Officer this week that, unlike in some previous years, Devon's sand and gravel reserves showed no major revisions by mineral operators last year, and were confirmed at 9.16 million tonnes (Mt) at 31 December 2011, down from 9.62Mt the previous year and reflecting the production figure of 0.44Mt for 2011. Indications are that 2012 will be lower still, with industry figures showing that nationally, for the first half of 2012, sales of sand and gravel are down 13% on the same period last year. The Mineral Products Association has also forecast "further declines in construction and mineral products markets in 2013". It is now difficult for DCC to continue to make the case, as it did in the February 2011 Mineral Core Strategy, that (4.3.12) "The anticipated economic recovery may see this decline [the decline that started in 1988] level off or, in the medium term, be replaced by increasing demand for aggregates."

The landbank in years, under DCC's current policy MP20, is therefore now 16.7 years, up from 15.5 years, on the basis of a reduced 5 year average of 0.55Mt. With level production, and no reserve revisions by mineral operators, the landbank in 2013 will be (8.26/0.46) 18.0 years, i.e. to the end of the new Minerals Plan in 2031.

Aggregate market investigated by Competition Commission

Is now the time for DCC to be promoting a site belonging to Aggregate Industries when they and others are the subject of a Competition Commission investigation, the result of which will not be known until 2014?

In January 2012 the Office of Fair Trading referred the aggregates, cement and ready-mix concrete [rmx] markets to the Competition Commission (CC) having "concerns regarding structural features of these markets and reasonable grounds for suspecting that these are preventing, restricting or distorting competition." The confidential parts of AI's response have been removed, and whilst acknowledging that what they say to the CC in answer to their concerns might not correspond exactly with what they would say to DCC to justify the need for a brand new sand and gravel site at Straitgate Farm, from what remains there are some interesting snippets.

Firstly AI bemoan their economic situation: "2.22 This is an industry suffering from a substantial fall in demand, increasing costs and significant pressure from customers. These are not the market conditions that favour suppliers seeking to profit to the detriment of consumers."

A couple of relevant themes come out: On the subject of demand:

"1.3 A fundamental change in building techniques and preferences meant that as the UK economy improved during the 1990’s the demand for aggregates did not return to pre-recession levels. More recently a sharp downturn in demand since 2007 has resulted in an unprecedented contraction in house building and infrastructure  expenditure." "2.1 A significant contribution to the lack of recovery in the 1990s was a  change in the design of buildings. Steel, glass and timber, for example, are increasingly used as a replacement for rmx.  Improvements in the design of buildings and houses, as well as better concrete specification, have also significantly reduced the demand for aggregates and concrete." "2.6 Forecasts for the future provide little encouragement for a recovery until at least 2015: (a) the Government’s austerity measures mean that any increase in public spending on infrastructure projects in the near future is highly unlikely."  

On the subject of secondary and recycled aggregates:

"3.10 The increase in the levy on primary aggregates, new recycling technology and changes in product specifications over the last 15 years have supported the growth in sales of recycled aggregates. Whereas primary aggregates suffered a fall in demand post 1989, recycled and secondary aggregates grew throughout the period from 1989 to 2007. Secondary and recycled aggregates have, according to the [Mineral Products Association], grown from constituting 9% of all UK aggregates in 1989 to accounting for 28% in 2010." "3.11 Secondary and recycled aggregates are a substitute for primary aggregates for a significant proportion of the use of aggregates in the UK. For example: (a) secondary and recycled aggregates are entirely substitutable with primary aggregates for general construction purposes and produce a highly similar product with comparable integrity;... (c) some secondary aggregates, china clay by products from Devon and Cornwall, are used as complete substitutes for primary aggregates across all applications;" But AI complain that "6.5 As noted above AI is strongly of the view that aggregates taxes and credits distort efficient production. AI agrees that the landfill tax and latterly the aggregates levy have been a barrier to the expansion of primary aggregates and results in the favouring of secondary and recycled aggregates over primary aggregates" and "6.7 The aggregates levy has given producers of secondary and recycled aggregates, primarily independents, a significant cost advantage....(a) The 2009 BDS report found the “Introduction of the aggregates levy has changed the economics and distorted the market. It is now possible to economically supply china clay sand into the south east, and slate wastes into the midlands. […] Untaxed aggregates have a cost advantage over taxed aggregates. This distorts the market”.

So when AI themselves accept that the economic outlook for aggregates is bleak, and that secondary and recycled continues to displace primary aggregate, it is not the time for DCC to go designating new greenfield sites when there are still over 9 million tonnes and 20 years of reserves in the County.