There are orchids in those woods and a whole lot more...

An ecology expert from SLR Consultants undertook an initial walkover survey of local woodland this week, to gauge what future ecological work would be required in relation to Aggregate Industries' preparations for a planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm. His route took him into ancient woodlands, past swathes of bluebells, small woodland ponds, badger sets and purple orchids.

Bat surveys have already started at Straitgate, and some people will have seen the 'tubes' that have been put up to detect dormice activity. From our own experience there are many bats, and the ecology expert would be surprised if there were not dormice in the area too. There are also a number of small woodland ponds in the locality with ideal conditions for great crested newts, and in time these sites will be surveyed for their presence. All these species are protected and would need to be moved or 'persuaded' to move out of harm's way before any quarrying could commence.

What particularly interested the ecology expert on his walkover were parts of Cadhay Bog. This area is a wetland habitat reliant on water from the Straitgate aquifer. The boggy ground, the plant species and the topography all indicate that Cadhay Bog is not just ancient woodland - i.e. continuously wooded since at least 1600 AD - but very ancient or 'primary' ancient woodland. In other words it may have been woodland for up to 10,000 years - a remnant of the prehistoric woodland or 'wildwood' that colonised Britain after the last Ice Age.

Such areas of woodland are rare. The Woodland Trust says that "only two per cent of Britain remains as ancient woodland today" and the percentage that has uninterrupted physical continuity with the wildwood obviously much less.

Such habitats are protected, and the NPPF says "planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss".

AI may have difficulty in persuading the Environment Agency, Natural England and others that it can quarry Straitgate, and remove unsaturated and saturated parts of the aquifer, without changing the water regime supplying the wetland habitat of this ancient woodland. To do so could cause irreparable harm, and will no doubt be a focus for AI's hydrogeology consultants in the weeks and months ahead.

Hydrogeology consultants take another look at Straitgate and surroundings

Yesterday, hydrogeology consultants from SLR and AMEC again assessed the streams and springs, originating from and around Straitgate Farm that supply the County Wildlife Sites and peoples' drinking water, in order to better understand the hydrogeology of the site. Over a period of time, flow rates of at least two points in each of the four streams will be spot monitored to assist this task.

AMEC has already had discussions with Aggregate Industries over a number of issues. AI has subsequently decided to leave one metre of sand and gravel over any potential quarry floor - equivalent to a loss of 0.5 million tonnes over the 25 hectare area. AI has also decided to avoid any scheme requiring active dewatering - pumping out water from a void below the water table - for risk of derogating nearby water sources. In addition, the eastern slope of any quarry should be left as a virgin restoration slope rather than any sheer face or infill, again reducing the recoverable deposit but allowing water to recharge the aquifer.

All this does, however, ignore the level of the water table. AI is still optimistically expecting to quarry below the water table during the summer months, when the groundwater level is lower. Water would therefore back up against the eastern slope to form water features at other times of the year, in direct conflict with Exeter Airport, who made it clear, for reasons of birdstrike, that it didn't want any water at all. The events at Heathrow today go some way to explaining why.

Furthermore, as quarrying at Thorn Trees Plantation was not permitted beyond one metre above the water table, it is surprising that AI considers it would be able to do so at Straitgate, where water plays such an important role. It's less surprising, perhaps, when one considers that being restricted to quarrying above the water table would reduce the recoverable resource by over a million tonnes, and therefore throw into question the viability of the complete project.

Environment Agency imposes SPZs at Straitgate

Source Protection Zones (SPZs) have been invoked by the Environment Agency at Straitgate to safeguard the groundwater feeding private water supplies at Cadhay Barton. The EA has been made aware of the many water users and receptors around the site, and as a result of the new SPZs additional testing will now be required to model groundwater flows, to make sure that whatever Aggregate Industries does at Straitgate would not derogate or pollute water supplies. To this aim, four more boreholes will be drilled, piezometers installed and groundwater readings taken over 12 months.

Besides the zones indicated, the EA does in any case assume that "all sources intended for human consumption without a bespoke SPZ have at least a default SPZ1 of a 50-metre radius". The EA's Groundwater protection: Principles and practice (GP3) explains their purpose, but essentially "SPZs are an important tool for identifying highly sensitive groundwater areas and for focusing control or advice beyond the general groundwater protection measures applied to aquifers as a whole".

The map below indicates the new SPZs, together with the underlying geology: yellow for the pebble beds, orange for sandstone. AI has confirmed that the eastern part of Straitgate Farm with the overlying sandstone will (for geological, water and economic reasons) be left alone in perpetuity.

Would tourists still catch the bus to Ottery St Mary?

© Denis Chick

Maybe not, if a report this week is anything to go by. An independent study prepared for the National Park Authority, with respect to proposals for a new potash mine in the North York Moors, claims £41 million would be cut in direct tourist expenditure there each year as a result.

How would an Aggregate Industries quarry at Straitgate Farm impact the economy of Ottery St Mary?

As the head of planning at the North York Moors National Park Authority, said: “People might say ‘there’s two big mines in that area, it’s just not a place I want to go to anymore’.” In the same way, people might say "There's that huge quarry right at the entrance to the Otter Valley on the road into Ottery. It was such a beautiful area, but it's just not the same now - we'll go somewhere else."

If it was just Straitgate, Ottery might bounce back. But in time, having exhausted Straitgate, AI has already confirmed that it would be looking to exploit further mineral rights held nearby. There has been quarrying at Blackhill on Woodbury Common since before the 1930s, but it's due to end in 2016. If AI were to secure a foothold at Straitgate, it could be here for generations too: Ottery St Mary - once famous as the birthplace of Samuel Taylor Coleridge - now an AI base for sand and gravel quarrying, associated works and inert landfill operations? Doesn't sound helpful to Ottery's tourist economy.

Could a quarry help Ottery's prospects? Well, let's see -

Come off at Daisymount, direction Ottery. Pass AI's quarry on your left. Would that help Ottery?

A crater on the landscape damaging views from East Hill Strips AONB. Would that help Ottery?

HGV quarry traffic. Would that help Ottery?

Removing groundwater storage on a hill above a town prone to flooding. Would that help Ottery?

Risking water sources to private supplies and medieval fishponds at Cadhay. Would that help Ottery?

Industrial development in the quarry void. Would that help Ottery?

As the British Geological Survey Planning for Minerals Guide admits:

..the use of this land for aggregates production can physically displace or negatively effect existing or alternative economic activities such as tourism or agriculture that may be more economically sustainable and beneficial to the community in the longer term.

Aggregate Industries' gain would be Ottery St Mary's loss.

Net positive - what's AI going to give back?

There's an argument that companies just out to maximise profit are seen "as built for another time", and that the debate has moved from businesses being "less bad, less rubbish, less evil" to becoming net positive contributors to society:

Today, businesses that pursue commercial interests without giving due consideration to the communities they're involved with are not competitively advantaged; ... and are well on their way to becoming socially irrelevant to customers… Brands such as BT, Coca Cola, Kingfisher, IKEA and Rio Tinto are seeking to go one step further than simply doing well by doing good. They are pioneering a new breed of sustainability strategy that doesn't just create shared value for society, but means they give back more than they take… Kingfisher and IKEA aim to create more forest than they use in product; Coca Cola aims to return as much water to nature as it uses in its products and their production; BT wants to help consumers cut carbon by at least three times the full carbon impact of its business by offering greener products.

We all know what Aggregate Industries takes - from the ground and from local communities - and how environmentally disrupting and polluting its business is, but what could it give back?

If AI thinks that giving back is screening a quarry with a few trees, hoping for the best when it comes to dust, noise and flooding, and then, if it cannot win permission for something more lucrative - or sell the void to someone who can, repair the damage in 10 maybe 50 years later, it needs to think again.

Quarries are seen as bad neighbours. In fact the worst neighbour, "beating casinos and power stations as most hated form of development". Why is this?

Could it be that quarry operators are seen as just taking and giving nothing back, and then reneging on promises they make about restoration? People might be prepared to accept a few years of aggravation, noise, dust and loss of amenity if they could believe the land would be restored - improved even - rather than ending up with incinerators, composting, landfill or the rest.

Until its demise, the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund provided a modicum of benefit to local communities affected by quarrying. Now there's nothing. So what could AI as a company give back? Is there anything at all?

Well it could commit to year-on-year increases in the use of secondary and recycled over primary aggregate. It could work through the mountains of china clay waste aggregates littered across South West England, before despoiling any more greenfield sites. It could keep restoration promises, and leave land measurably and demonstrably better than when it arrived. It could include the amount of land restored as an environmental business metric - alongside carbon, energy, water, etc. It could give land over for community use - land that has been restored or is no longer viable for quarrying. It could value that land, and record it as a donation in its annual report; call it compensation for what a community next to a quarry has had to endure.

Does any of that make business sense? Perhaps not, if the only metric by which a company is judged is profitability. But customers increasingly measure a company by its social and environmental footprint, as the moves by BT, IKEA and Rio Tinto demonstrate. 

AI will have heard these arguments many times before. At its 'Materiality Event' - a day encompassing "a series of workshops designed to identify and prioritise material issues for [AI]" - in London 2012 (with AI's CEO, managers and a variety of stakeholders present) AI was warned that it "needs to balance what it takes out of the environment and society by putting something back".

How much does AI currently put back? In the UK for 2011: 2 open days, 1474 hours recorded as community activities, and about £164k in donations. More than some companies, less than others, and nowhere near enough for its size or for a company that causes as much environmental damage. The donations amount to less than 0.02% of AI's UK turnover; that's less than 2p out of every £100 of sales or less than 5% of Holcim's CEO's "compensation" for 2012. Who needs compensating more - local communities affected by cement works and quarries, or the Gnomes of Zurich?

Activity at Hillhead again

DCC has finally received a planning application for Aggregate Industries' bagging plant at the block works near Uffculme - "a direct replacement for the Company’s former aggregate bagging plant, located at Bishops Court Quarry in Exeter". AI had been running a bagged aggregates distribution operation out of the mothballed Hillhead Quarry without permission. Even after DCC had served AI notice to clear the site, there were local reports that AI continued to deliver bagged aggregates to Hillhead. DCC said:

We are keeping the situation under review and the company has been served notice requiring them to provide us with information on land ownership should the need to take formal action arise.

Hillhead was not cleared by the deadline imposed by DCC, but AI has evidently secured an extension. Is AI's haphazard modus operandi any way for a multinational business to be conducting its affairs, any way to be integrating itself into the community it disrupts?

An AI spokesman claimed that if the bagging plant went ahead around 12 jobs would be created:

Owing to changes in our leases, we have decided to expand operations out of Hillhead Quarry. It's good news and will bring jobs to the area - although until the business is fully permitted we won't be quite sure on numbers…

How a plant that's a "direct replacement" can create 12 jobs, only AI can answer. According to AI's planning statement "4.1 There are 12 full time employees associated with the existing concrete products factory. 4.2 The proposed aggregate bagging plant would employ 12 people...". Good to see AI's PR machine hard at work.

AI's application can be found here. DCC will accept comments until 24 May.

Could this happen at Straitgate Farm?

An investigation is underway following complaints that a north Northumberland quarry operation has affected the water supply of nearby homes.

reports the Northumberland Gazette.

Blaxter Quarry - Les Hull [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

… a Minerals and Waste Site Monitoring Report seen by the Gazette states: "The conclusions provided by the Environment Agency are that the north-eastern area of the quarry has been excavated below the groundwater table, and that this has caused the sediment pollution at the spring."

Of course, the quarry owners deny liability, arguing:

The hydrology report we have suggests that the most likely cause of the problem is increased water-table levels at times of high rainfall. There have been record levels of rainfall in the latter part of last year.

The local councillor is obviously unconvinced:

Our water supply is something very sacred to us all, and what the residents of Blaxter Cottages have had to deal with - pollutants in their water supply - is quite frankly appalling

Around Straitgate, it wouldn't be just two remote moorland properties at risk, but 100 people - all reliant on an aquifer remaining unpolluted.

Landfill, and weasel words

Aggregate Industries has a mothballed quarry for sale in Scotland. Local people have been worried it would be used for landfill. A spokesperson for AI said:

As for the question on potential landfill use, converting sites to landfill use is not Aggregate's policy as a company, and has never been considered.

Does AI take people for fools? Because you have to look no further than Hillhead - where AI has sold worked-out voids to Viridor, the waste management company. Or to the disposal last week of Caird Bardon - a company that operates the Peckfield Landfill Site near Leeds - a company that was 50% owned by AI. Or to Sands Farm Quarry, Calne, referred to in a post here last week, where Viridor is filling AI's earth scar. In fact, in the list of registered landfills, AI has 17 sites. Some may be used for inert waste - for example Blackhill and Rockbeare are listed - rather than household landfill, but a number of Viridor's 35 registered landfill sites were once AI quarries.

So AI may not be in the household landfill business, just as Viridor is not in the business of digging holes. But the two industries go hand-in-hand, and people understand that.

Statements such as the one above make people angry. Angry because, as a company with an invasive business model, AI finds it difficult to be straight and open with people. And to barge into a community with plans for open-cast mining needs trust, honesty, openness, fairness - not spin, deception and weasel words.

postscript: Asbestos quarry refusal to be challenged at appeal

Stop the press - a sand and gravel quarry is to be restored to farmland

Rare as it seems, it can happen - a planning application for a sand and gravel quarry to be restored back to farmland. But why are we writing about it here?

The sand and gravel quarry had been left to become an area of "dereliction" - "the void is in an unrestored status overgrown with weeds". "During the extraction period at Chanceinn Quarry no restoration or reclamation works were carried out. With the purchase of the farm a number of improvement works have been carried out with the view to improving the return from the land."

So the quarry operator profited from the resource, and the landscape was left having paid the price. What will it take to restore now? "Waste soil would be delivered to the site by local haulage contractors operating on nearby groundwork projects", up to 20 lorry movements a day for the next five years. The impact of a quarry on local people does not end when the last bucket of sand is removed.

However, when it comes to Aggregate Industries and modern planning consents, surely there's no worry that it would leave any of its sites derelict? No, AI can be trusted to find something altogether more profitable to do with a hole in the ground - although Hillhead Quarry, at least until locals exposed its illegal bagging operation recently, had given the impression of dereliction ever since operations were mothballed there in 2008.

Twitter

Straitgate Action Group is now on Twitter @straitgateactgp          Follow @straitgateactgp

AMEC reports on surface drainage at Straitgate Farm

Aggregate Industries has now received a copy of AMEC's report on surface drainage at Straitgate Farm, advising on suitable locations for stream gauging, following a walkover survey by an AMEC consultant last month. For such stream gauge monitors to "capture flows from the proposed extraction site with minimal dilution from surrounding catchments" groundworks would be required for "channel manipulation" in order to produce reliable and informative data. AI is keen that the "monitoring is seen in the wider interests of local flooding not just the effect of any proposed development at Straitgate". AMEC's thorough 21-page report concludes that:

There is extensive evidence of natural flooding across the eastern extent of Straitgate Farm. The capacities of roadside ditches and streams have not been adequate to deal with recent levels of rainfall in the area. Flow gauging on Straitgate Farm under current conditions would be problematic… The nature of AI’s development proposals would also need to be considered in deciding upon the need for and type of installation of gauging equipment.

AI is still in discussion with AMEC about exactly what monitoring to employ and in what locations. This is an important matter. Any quarrying AI pursues at Straitgate Farm would not be permitted to change stream flows to wetland habitats in Ancient Woodland or downstream communities prone to flooding.

Devon's sand and gravel production figures for 2012

Figures provided by DCC show that Devon's sand and gravel demand continued to flatline in 2012, with just 0.49 million tonnes produced - only 50,000 tonnes more than 2011, despite heightened construction activity at Cranbrook and the Exeter Science Park. Last year was the fourth consecutive year where production was less than 0.5Mt - about half the figure required a decade earlier. However, the county's sand and gravel reserves - resource with planning permission for extraction - fell by 0.87Mt to 8.29Mt - a drop of 0.38Mt more than the level of production - as operators reassessed reserve levels at a number of quarries. Whenever reassessments of reserves are undertaken by operators, invariably the net result is down rather than up, as operators over-promise and under-deliver; something local people should be mindful of when revised resource figures are presented by Aggregate Industries for Straitgate Farm.

Despite the reserves reassessment, the 10 year weighted moving average detailed in DCC's Local Aggregate Assessment still gives Devon a sand and gravel landbank of 14.5 years - double that required by the NPPF. That's not something AI cares about. It thinks Devon needs another quarry, and no doubt expects to get its way - fully aware of the helpful guidance in the Government's new Managed Aggregate Supply System, which says that the size of a county's landbank should play no part in deciding a planning permission. Completely the reverse of housing then, where a 5 year supply of ‘deliverable’ housing is certainly - and some would say the only - material consideration in determining planning applications. MASS may stand for managed aggregate supply system but means something altogether more muddled, inconsistent, irrational, and unsustainable. In other words, all the signs of mineral industry lobbying.

AI to rationalise concrete product plants and "concentrate manufacturing at Calne"

Is this the sort of colourful scene that Aggregate Industries has in mind for the Otter Valley in East Devon? Surely not. But it is already on the doorstep of the people in Calne, Wiltshire. It may be screened from view on the ground, but AI's earth scar and Viridor's landfill operation is revealed by Google Earth in all its glory.

It's where AI recently submitted - and then withdrew - planning permission to extend the life of its concrete products plant, left on the image above. Why was it withdrawn? AI thought it could get away without supplying a Transport Assessment with the application - an application proposing over 20,000 HGV movements p.a. passing within yards of two brand new housing developments. Wiltshire Council thought differently - Calne already has issues with air quality from excess traffic. AI says the application will be re-submitted. Not surprisingly, residents are angry.

AI first operated the plant in 1989, with permission to 2014, using sand from its adjacent Sands Farm Quarry and aggregate from elsewhere, and built Sandpit Road for access - the same road which now serves the new housing. However, the plant was mothballed in 2009 (due to poor demand) and the homes were subsequently built. Local people claim the area is now residential not industrial, but AI says it wants to start operations again, with an output of 150,000 tonnes p.a., and last year made an application to extend the plant's lifetime to 2022, claiming:

Since [2009], the demand for building materials has reduced further and the company has experienced a significant downturn in sales. As a consequence, the business is over capacity and the company has sought to rationalise its operations. Of the company’s concrete products factories, Calne is one of the most modern facilities within the company’s ownership. It is therefore proposed to concentrate manufacturing at Calne.

Local people at Calne have been lead to believe that AI will "transfer staff from its other operations in the South West", and with changes to the block works at Hillhead and talk of redundancies at Rockbeare (a request for confirmation from AI went unanswered), they may be right.

It is unclear how much impact any of this will have on Straitgate Farm, or how much less mineral DCC would need to provide for in its emerging Minerals Plan - 50% of the aggregate required for the plant would be limestone from Somerset. What it does show, however, is the pressure that AI is under to 'sweat its assets', by the Holcim high command in Zurich, and the conflict AI's business model continually brings upon people and their everyday lives.

Sand and gravel figures still sliding

The Mineral Products Association, the trade body representing 90% of aggregate production, reports that sand and gravel figures for the first quarter of 2013 were down 12% on the same quarter of 2012, itself down 12% on 2011. Sand and gravel figures for 2012 as a whole were also down 12% on 2011. DCC expects to report Devon's sand and gravel production figures for 2012 shortly.

Workers protest at Holcim’s AGM

Aggregate Industries' Swiss parent Holcim has more troubles. Last week over 200 employees from all over Europe protested outside Holcim's AGM "to send shareholders a strong message that their CHF 1.5 billion profit target for 2014 at the expense of the workforce is unacceptable". A director of the IndustriALL union said:

We have gathered here to tell management to stop insisting to gain extra profits by dismissing people and without proper information and consultation from the responsible bodies

Active bird management - is that the answer?

Ponds? Birds? Risk of birdstrike to overflying aircraft? "No trouble" - Aggregate Industries might say when contemplating the introduction of bodies of water by quarrying for sand and gravel under a safeguarded international flight path landing at Exeter Airport's Runway 26 - "we'll get ourselves a bird management plan". Think again.

According to Dr Allan, Head, Birdstrike Avoidance Team, Central Science Laboratory - now Fera:

Such bird management agreements may seem initially appealing, but they should be carefully considered. They will need to be adopted in perpetuity, or at least as long as both the wetland and the aerodrome continue to exist. They may be expensive and difficult to carry out, especially on large sites where large investments in manpower and equipment may be needed to achieve effective dispersal. They also need to be policed, so that the aerodrome can be satisfied that it is being adequately protected from birdstrike risk.

Bird management plans should thus be regarded as an additional measure to give aerodrome managers confidence that no additional risk will result after location and design modification measures have already been used to minimise any additional risk from a wetland development. They are not a means by which otherwise unacceptably hazardous developments can be transformed into acceptable ones.

On the wider issue of birdstrike risk and planning he says:

It is important for the wetland developer to understand that airports have relatively little scope for compromise in safeguarding negotiations… Once an airport has allowed a development to proceed without objection there is no other action that it can take to control a birdstrike risk if it develops at a site. Thus, unless an acceptable compromise can be found airports are left with little option other than to object if they are to remain compliant with their regulatory framework. In the event that an LPA approves an application despite an objection from an aerodrome, the CAA or MOD have the power to have a planning application ‘called in’ for determination by ministers.

So the answer, of course, is to find a "compromise" to minimise the risk. Think again. The starting position should be to assess the risk of development at Straitgate Farm.

Disregarding all other factors, the distance of a proposed wetland development from a safeguarded aerodrome can be used as one factor that will influence the risk that will be generated.

For a development "beneath approach or departure corridors" the "likely level of additional risk" is classified as "high". In any case:

Whatever the actual increase in risk, the key test that an aerodrome manager applies is one that asks the question ‘if there was an accident involving loss of life at my aerodrome could I defend allowing this development to proceed without objection when I believed that it would cause an increase in the birdstrike risk, however small?’ A planning inspector is likely to ask him/herself the same question.

So DCC and AI should think again:

Wetland creation is one of the most problematic development types in terms of birdstrike prevention at aerodromes. Wherever possible developers should seek to keep proposals as far from aerodromes as possible and outside the 13km safeguarded zone of major civil and all military aerodromes.

There once was a pond

Not a very big pond, but it was close to an airport. It was not a very big airport, more an aerodrome used by private aircraft and flying schools. A farmer had built the pond, the trouble was he didn't have planning permission. So he applied for permission, but it was turned down - even though "the pond [helped] contribute to the environment and wildlife in the ward". The planning authority, Bassetlaw District Council, had decided:

The pond may result in the movement of birds within and adjacent to the flight path of the aircraft approaching Gamston Airfield with the resultant danger to those aircrafts.

The applicant appealed. The planning inspector had some sympathy with the farmer, and recognised that "he has deservedly won awards for his efforts to ensure that his farming practices bring ecological benefits to flora and fauna." However the inspector was also aware that "the danger from potential bird strike is a recurring consideration in the minds of the aerodrome operators" and that the pond "sits at a critical point adjacent to the main flight path." Moreover:

I recognise that it is a small wetland feature by comparison with other more extensive areas near the aerodrome. Although visible from the air, it does not have the same visual dominance as the lakes to the south of the facility. It will not attract birds in same large numbers. Nevertheless, because of its critical location so close to the main flight path of the aerodrome at a point where aircraft are on their final approach to the runway, aircraft safety must be paramount. I consider that this development feature which has the potential to attract birds in increasing numbers at this location poses a serious risk to aircraft safety. I find this unacceptable. I conclude that the undoubted ecological benefits of the development cannot outweigh the safety needs of the aerodrome.

The appeal was dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld. The pond was to be refilled.

Could the benefits of a quarry outweigh the safety needs of an international airport and its 700,000 passengers? DCC plainly thought it might, when it proposed Straitgate Farm as a Preferred Site for sand and gravel quarrying; a process that leaves bodies of water; a site directly under the landing approach to Exeter Airport.

Surrey County Council, on the other hand, does take the risk of birdstrike seriously:

Sandwiched between Heathrow and Gatwick Airports, with a further five smaller aerodromes and an adjoining military helicopter base in its area, Surrey County Council's planning department takes the potential for bird strike very seriously.

It recognises that:

It is unlikely that most minerals companies, planning authorities or aerodrome case officers will have the necessary technical knowledge when dealing with such cases, so it is important that expertise is sought out.

More importantly, it makes the point that, as with the farmer's pond and Straitgate Farm:

The exact position of a site within the safeguarding zone is another important factor. If an extraction operation is located directly under the take-off and landing approaches, then this is going to be far more critical than a location 12km out on the runway flanks.

It also makes the point that:

With the move away from infilling sites, those within safeguarding zones worked below the water table and with wet restorations will provide a particular challenge.

So let's face it. Working below the water table on a site directly below Exeter Airport's flightpath is not going to happen, and DCC should therefore accept that the very most Straitgate could yield is 2.3Mt, before very significant deductions for stand-offs and movements in the level of the water table.

And if Aggregate Industries claims, by some miraculous feat, it can quarry Straitgate Farm without the formation of any body of water - its initial drawings show contrary - then how would wetland habitats in Ancient Woodlands be maintained? How would surface water run-off be contained?

Activity at Hillhead Quarry

Culm Waste & Minerals Group have a new website, and can be found on Facebook. In their latest blog they are critical of Aggregate Industries' recent renewed activity at Hillhead Quarry, and have launched a petition with DCC calling for HGVs to be re-routed on safety grounds. They mention AI again not having the required consents in place before starting work*. They also make reference to AI's sale of Bishops Court Quarry in Exeter, used for aggregate distribution and a ready-mixed concrete plant, but now proposed for up to 250 houses - further piecemeal selling of the AI estate.

CWMG point to liaison group minutes where DCC confirms:

With regard to the Minerals Plan, the intention remains to publish the pre-submission draft for consultation in late summer/early autumn. No decision has yet been made on the delivery of further sand and gravel resources as we are awaiting further information from the mineral operator.

A year after the consultation, a year after communities made the effort to say what they thought of DCC's preferred sites for future sand and gravel quarrying, AI has still not told DCC how it proposes to overcome the multitude of issues raised by statutory consultees and local people alike. AI had promised a response in January, but now hopes to deliver it later this month. As CWMG say, AI "does as it pleases and its largest clients in the South West, the Councils, don’t stand in its way".

* postscript: DCC has now taken "action over illegal store" at Hillhead Quarry.

AI sells off Scottish assets

Aggregate Industries has sold more than just its South-West HQ this time. Breedon Aggregates has announced today the purchase of a number of AI's Scottish assets for £34m, namely:

        6 active quarries, 4 asphalt plants, 7 ready-mixed concrete plants & 2 concrete block plants

Breedon chairman and ex-AI boss Peter Tom hopes the deal, which also includes "five inactive quarries" and positions "itself for work on the A9 upgrade and the controversial Aberdeen western by-pass", will allow it "to benefit from any UK economic recovery". AI presumably does not share Breedon's confidence. Either that, or AI's Swiss parent Holcim is asset stripping, seeing more future in the growth prospects of India and the Asia Pacific region.

Lush backs Buckfastleigh fight v industrial waste plant at Whitecleaves Quarry

From today's Plymouth Herald:

Lush, the handmade cosmetics company, has given £5,000 to Buckfastleigh Community Forum to help its legal challenge to stop an incinerator bottom ash plant being sited in the town. Developers Gilpin Demolition and MVV Umwelt want to site the industrial waste plant at Whitecleaves Quarry in Buckfastleigh despite planning permission being rejected by Devon County Council in 2012. The two companies have appealed the decision and a Planning Inquiry is scheduled for June this year.

'Localism' without localism - the result of more lobbying

Within one document, the good Government giveth:

the Government considers that a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals should be delivered by decentralising more power to Mineral Planning Authorities to determine the appropriate level of aggregate extraction, in keeping with its principles for a more localist approach to planning more generally (5)

and then taketh away:

should Mineral Planning Authorities wish to use landbanks [as a development management tool], then each application for minerals extraction must be considered on its own merits, regardless of the length of the landbank... an adequate or excess landbank is not a reason for withholding planning permission... (25,26)

In other words - Councils can determine their appropriate level of aggregate extraction, as long as this level plays no part in any decision to permit aggregate extraction. Brilliant - 'localism' without localism. 

This new guidance on landbanks and the Managed Aggregate Supply System (MASS), October 2012, supplements the NPPF, and rewrites the approach used for over 35 years. It remains to be seen what Councils will make of this guidance, but previously it was clear (MPS1 4.1):

Mineral Planning Authorities should use the length of the landbank in its area as an indicator of when new permissions for aggregates extraction are likely to be needed.

And how did this volte-face come about? As recently as July 2012, the British Aggregates Association was still "concerned that the Localism Bill would effectively put an end to new quarry planning permissions". It needn't have worried - the Mineral Products Association had started lobbying the Government long before. After the election "working draft proposals were submitted to DCLG on a future structure for the [MASS]", and the Association continued to "refine" its position, "in consultation with members and DCLG officials", leading to its proposal that:

The guidance should make it clear that landbanks are an indicator of the adequacy of planning provision, are not to be considered a target or a ceiling and should not be used as an element of development management policy.

Why such a proposal? Localism worries the Mineral Products Association and its members. In March 2012 a policy briefing stated:

Allowing minerals planning authorities to make their own decisions about the level of provision of mineral extraction could seriously threaten the ability of the industry to maintain an adequate and steady supply of materials.

The upshot? Quarry companies can now in theory make multiple planning applications, and stockpile undeveloped sites. So, whatever a County's reserves, "unless there are other planning objections which are not outweighed by planning benefits", forget localism and bring in the earth-movers.

Aggregates Levy frozen after "hard" lobbying by the MPA

EEA/ONS/BERR

The Aggregates Levy was introduced in 2002, as a £1.60/tonne tax on primary aggregates, in recognition of the environmental cost of quarrying - estimated at £380m p.a. - and to encourage the use of secondary and recycled materials. Now the levy is £2.00/tonne - equating to about 20% of the average sale price of aggregates (net of VAT) - and the European Environment Agency claims it has been successful "as a stimulus towards environmental improvements". The graph shows that since 2002 there has been a further fall in primary aggregate sales, despite an increase in construction, where taxed minerals have been replaced by non‐taxed, from waste sources such as china clay and demolition. About 7% of the levy went to the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund, which attempted to compensate communities affected by the "negative externalities from quarry activities". The MPA had wanted "more of the fund (50%) to be allocated to local communities to create the opportunity for communities to say yes to extraction as opposed to just saying no", but the fund was scrapped in 2011.

The 2013 Budget has frozen a planned rise in the levy. "Government is clearly listening" proclaimed the MPA, who was pleased because on this issue it "has lobbied hard". Will it kickstart the economy? Unlikely - aggregates purchases typically "constitute only 2–3 % of construction costs". So who will benefit? Well, the four major aggregate suppliers representing 75% of the UK market: Cemex (Mexico), Lafarge/Tarmac (France/UK), Hanson (Germany) and of course AI (Switzerland) will more than recoup their MPA membership costs. But for everyone else there will be no further incentive towards recycled and secondary aggregates, and a loss of £70m over 5 years in tax receipts.

Landbanks - government guidance says they don't matter any more

At least when it comes to deciding if a new quarry should be permitted. Which is bad news for anybody looking to Devon's 15 year landbank of sand and gravel as a reason for denying Aggregate Industries permission to quarry Straitgate Farm.

The Government published Guidance on the Managed Aggregate Supply System in October 2012, and such advice was apparently considered when DCC prepared its LAA. However, the LAA did not allude to what surely every mineral operator will latch on to, and what was relied upon by AI in its submission to the Competition Commission (CC) released earlier this year, namely:

Moreover, as the CC notes, the new planning guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government states that adequate landbanks should not be used as a reason for declining a planning application. (5.14)

Which goes some way to explaining why AI is merrily proceeding with Straitgate, despite the county having 8 years' supply of sand and gravel over and above what's required by the NPPF, and despite what DCC said as recently as 2011:

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. (5.1.4)

AI plainly couldn't care how DCC's landbank is calculated - weighted ten year average or otherwise. To AI it's irrelevant, since government guidance clearly states:

each application for minerals extraction must be considered on its own merits, regardless of the length of the landbank… an adequate or excess landbank is not a reason for withholding planning permission unless there are other planning objections which are not outweighed by planning benefits. (25,26)

Yes, such advice is but one of a number of material considerations by which a planning application would need to be judged, but government planning policy would tend be relied upon by the legal might of an aggregates giant. Straitgate would therefore have to be assessed on its "own merits" if AI were to advance an application, in which case there are a number of other substantive planning objections, as this blog has attempted to highlight.

DCC's Strategic Flood Risk Assessment - will it protect Ottery St Mary?

DCC has just finalised its Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), as required by the NPPF. This informs mineral planning in relation to flood risk and supersedes the unambiguous advice - "mineral development that would reduce storage capacity in areas functioning as floodplain or increase the risk of flooding of sensitive areas will not be permitted". The NPPF and SFRA do still make it clear that:

Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere

Quarrying activity can increase surface water run-off and therefore flood risk if the area of hard surface is increased, by the compaction of soil, or through the breaching of water and silt storage lagoons. The potential for groundwater flooding may be influenced where mineral extraction impact on local hydro geological characteristics and the interface with the hydrogeological regime, for example through increased transmissivity.

Yet the SFRA says (4.11) that when considering flood risk we must remember that "mineral working is a temporary (albeit often long term) activity that entails the subsequent restoration of the site to a beneficial after-use". Leaving aside the arguments on restoration, mineral working may be temporary but quarrying millions of tonnes of sand and gravel from an aquifer would permanently - not temporarily - change the hydrogeological characteristics on the slopes above a town prone to flooding.

The SFRA acknowledges the history of flooding in Ottery St Mary (6.48), and the ongoing risks it faces as one of Devon's 32 high risk communities. It refers to the flooding in 2008, as resulting in:

an estimated 350 properties flooding from main rivers, ordinary water-courses and surface water, with 25 people requiring assistance from the fire service. The incident is considered to be the worst flood event to have occurred in Devon in the past 25 years.

So why, with an unstable climate, does DCC still consider the removal of millions of tonnes of ground-water storage, exacerbating run-off at the head of streams flowing into Ottery, such a good idea?

And on the subject of groundwater, groundwater flooding may be "considered relatively rare within the Plan Area" (5.31), but despite what the SFRA says, detailed information is available on groundwater flood risk. In fact, such a map has been on this blog since it was set up. Contrary again to the SFRA, there are areas that are considered to have a high susceptibility to groundwater flooding - indeed, some in very close proximity to Straitgate Farm.

The EnviroCheck maps are copyright © 2012 Landmark Information Group drawing from sources which themselves are protected under Crown Copyright (Ordnance Survey, Environment Agency, British Geological Survey, and other public authorities) or under copyrights owned by private enterprises. You are kindly requested to use these maps solely for activities relating to the Straitgate Action Group, as other uses may not fall under the licence granted.

‘Breach of legitimate expectation’

That's how it can be with mineral companies. Planning permission gets turned down for a 2 million tonne sand and gravel quarry, after NHS Fife objected with concerns that "residents living nearby, particularly children, could be harmed by dust emissions...", and the lawyers are wheeled out with claims of "breach of legitimate expectation" and the like.

Wright, Johnston and Mackenzie said their clients were “extremely concerned” to note considerable weight appeared to have been attached to the submissions by NHS Fife… “Their involvement in this application was surprising to say the least”

Surprising? What - that councillors should listen to NHS advice about the risk to public health? Or was WJM not made aware of the dangers of quarry dust? The small matter of which its client, Laird Aggregates, is legally required to advise its workers. Microscopic (<10μm) silica particles can travel up to 1km. Once inhaled into the lungs, the particles are there for life.

Holcim and human rights

The focus may be on Aggregate Industries, but what of Holcim - AI's parent company and the ultimate owner of Straitgate Farm? What sort of neighbour and employer has the world's second largest cement producer been to communities across the world?

Aargauische Portlandcementfabrik Holderbank-Wildegg originated in 1912. In 2001 it changed its name from Holderbank to Holcim.

Holderbank/Holcim has often been heavily criticised on a variety of issues: because of its links to the apartheid regime in South Africa, because of repeated violations of competition laws, because of its noted unwillingness to work with unions and because of environmental problems caused by its cement factories... The decision to rename the group Holcim was in response to the desire for a fresh start for the cement multinational, whose image had been tarnished by a series of scandals.

And yet in 2012 Holcim was still attracting negative attention. MultiWatch, a Swiss-based coalition of aid agencies, non-governmental organisations, political parties, workers unions, church groups and others, that monitors Swiss multinationals for human rights violations, published a critical book on Holcim. The company responded:

MultiWatch has published a book ("Zementierte Profite, verwässerte Nachhaltigkeit") [Cement profits - Diluted sustainability] about Holcim on the occasion of the company’s centennial. The key focus is the alleged discrepancy between expectations and reality in the work of Holcim in India, Latin America and South Africa. MultiWatch accuses Holcim of unjust wages, violation of trade union rights, and destruction of environment and habitat. Holcim was not given any chance to comment prior to publication. In view of the serious character of some of these allegations, we regret this very much. If such a dialogue had taken place, the half-truths, mistakes and distortions the book contains could have been avoided. Holcim is committed to sustainable development. Holcim has high standards, as demanded in the book, and rightly so we are measured against them. We do not claim never to make mistakes, but we endeavour to give our best and, where necessary, to take corrective measures.

Despite Holcim's assertions, MultiWatch has a Holcim Manifesto and online petition, and claims:

Repeatedly we find violations of Labor and Trade Union rights in Holcim's plants worldwide. We discover various occupational diseases suffered by Holcim’s employees and residents living near Holcim’s plants. We observe ecological devastation, even as the decisions of indigenous populations and other communities affected by Holcim are disregarded... In many parts of the world, there are employees, populations affected by Holcim’s activities, and civil society groups in solidarity with them, who are united in their protest against Holcim’s practices. These protests shall continue until Holcim keeps the promises the management has given.

But the claims are not just by MultiWatch. Last year Holcim was accused of "flouting OECD guidelines" on workers' rights at its plants in India by trade union PCSS. It was backed by Swiss unions UNIA, ICEM, BWI and solidarity organisation Solifonds. Demonstrations were held. BWI claimed "details of the case are shocking and include the worst examples of workers’ rights violations around the world". Earlier this year, five workers died in an accident at one of Holcim's plants in India.

And it's not just India. Holcim in Latin America is a series of damning case studies by Friends of the Earth, who brought "a case against Holcim exposing just how the company violates the human rights and devastates the livelihoods of local communities".

While Holcim floods international forums and the press with propaganda about the virtues of their activities, the inhabitants of Apaxco Atotonilco continue the fight to expose the underlying environmental conflicts and impacts on human and environmental health...

Meanwhile "U.S. plants have been fined repeatedly for environmental violations": A Holcim cement plant "emitted over 2 million pounds of toxic chemicals in 2006". In 2012 Holcim paid a fine for an alleged unauthorised groundwater discharge, only three years after a $2.75 million penalty "the largest ever assessed to a nationwide ready-mix concrete company for storm water violations under the Clean Water Act" at 23 AI facilities in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

And even today, a headline "Revealed: How Holcim Paid For Sri Lanka Shares In Dubai", alleges: 

One of the larger corporate takeover transactions in Sri Lanka was more remarkable for the way in which the foreign company paid significant sums out of Sri Lanka, in contravention of the exchange control rules at the time. The full impunity and extent with which Holcim ignored Sri Lanka’s laws can today be revealed. A source close to the transaction said, “The scale of impunity with which this Swiss company – from the land of independence, cuckoo clocks and banking secrecy – treated our laws beggars belief. Would they do this in their country?”

What's all this got to do with Straitgate? Nobody is suggesting that a sand and gravel quarry would be as environmentally damaging as a cement plant. Or that AI's staff here are treated like Holcim's in India. But it raises questions over the integrity of AI's owner, and any environmental or sustainability claims. Mostly it highlights the fact that any struggle we have here with AI pales into insignificance when compared with the struggle of others in other parts of the world, with other parts of the Holcim machine. However, this passage from Friends of the Earth International, in connection with its campaign in Latin America, could in time resonate with people in East Devon:

When open pit mining of construction material commences near a community, it’s just a matter of time before people begin to feel the consequences of such an activity which generates such high quantities of pollutants. Although not as catastrophic as metallic mining, alluvial mining implies the degradation of landscapes and aquifers, increased air pollution, ground instability and the irreversible loss of diverse environmental values. All these effects have significant impacts on the health and welfare of affected populations.