The other side of the coin

"The mineral products industry key facts at a glance" is the MPA's take on why minerals are important to us. It shows some key industry trends too - decline of primary aggregates, rise of secondary and recycled, etc. The MPA says:

The mineral products sector is a key enabling sector of the UK economy which has a broad impact on overall economic activity. As the largest element of the construction supply chain, a supplier of key materials to many other industries, and the largest material flow in the UK economy, a healthy indigenous mineral products industry is essential for the UK.

No-one would dispute any of that. We all accept that minerals are important. According to the MPA, the mineral industry produces 250Mt pa, has an annual turnover of £9bn and employs 70,000 people. We should also all accept, however, that not every site is suitable for mineral extraction, despite what might lie under the ground. With communities, wildlife habitats, businesses, infrastructure and so on already in place, the industry cannot just expect to bulldozer in wherever it chooses.

Whilst we're looking at the other side of the coin, and although there are some communities who are hit by a series of proposals for ex-quarry sites, some old quarries obviously do get restored - eventually. At Meeth, near Hatherleigh, an old china clay quarry, that began its life at the end of World War II, has now opened as a nature reserve. And at Blackhill - quarried since before the 1930s - restoration by Aggregate Industries is now being recognised:

AI is trialling a number of methods to improve drainage at the site and adopt the best restoration options for habitat creation and management, including the use of conservation grazing in the form of several friendly Dartmoor and Exmoor ponies!

Credit where credit is due; some of the Blackhill staff certainly seem to take restoration seriously. Of course, with SPA/SAC/SSSI designations and orders served in 1999 that quarrying would have to cease, a bagging plant - or any industrial proposal - was going to be out of the question. Restoration would have also been a precondition to quarrying, agreed with landowners Clinton Devon Estates.

AI is obviously keen to stress its interest in nature. It has been working with The Wildlife Trusts since 2006, as one of the charity's three national partners. The Wildlife Trusts - the same one that paid Imerys (English China Clays as was) £600k for Meeth Quarry - even have a web page devoted to AI's accomplishments and its "commitment to enhancing biodiversity". For local people that might seem an odd alliance - a nature-loving charity and a heavy building materials business - but charities must raise funds from whoever they can, and, of course, the alliance doesn't harm AI's image either.

But there may be another reason for that web page, and anybody looking to The Wildlife Trusts, or Devon Wildlife Trust, to lend support to a quarry campaign might be disappointed. That's because The Wildlife Trusts' Vice President since 2011 has been AI's very own Chairman, Bill Bolsover.

‘How Green is My Quarry?’

That may sound like an oxymoronic question, but it was actually a paper presented in 2005 by Richard Bate of Green Balance at the Institute of Quarrying’s annual conference. Judging by the various campaigns across the country, the image of quarrying has changed little since, and the paper seems as relevant today. It initially poses the question:

A quarry is not everyone’s favourite neighbour. Why not? Changing the public perception of quarrying requires an answer to this question. Is the activity inherently detrimental to neighbours, or can quarrying be managed in a way that avoids adverse effects? If impact is inevitable, how can this best be addressed? In short, is it the perception that is wrong, or the quarrying, or both?... This paper comments briefly on what more the quarrying industry can do to present itself as ‘part of’ the modern life that people want, not ‘apart from’ that modern life. An essential first requirement is that the industry should strive to operate ‘green quarries’...

The paper deals with a number of important issues; here's an excerpt:

Badly restored sites that can be seen in some places today are not a good advertisement for modern quarrying capabilities. Companies may be able to demonstrate that modern sites can control these problems, but while the historical legacy is still all too plain for people to see they will start their engagement with the public on the back foot. An important message is for the industry as a whole to get to grips with its own inherited messy land. The planning system could do more than it does to force the hand of some businesses, but the central imperative should be voluntarily to improve the industry’s image.

Taking millions of tonnes of material out of the ground cannot, of course, be done without having real effects on the environment. Nonetheless, the impact of development can be reduced by design. Steps can be take to ameliorate some of the impact. Environmental compensation can be provided by creating new environmental benefits elsewhere to make up for some of the losses.The quality of what is there at present can be enhanced. Attractive new land uses can be provided in place of the ones that were there beforehand. Alternative benefits can be offered to buy favour with those who are still inevitably affected. But both the quarrying process and the end result are still likely to involve something distinctly different from what was there in the first place. Even with all these good works, the industry will still have to persuade everyone that the changes to what was there beforehand are ‘worth it’ for extracting the mineral which society needs. To achieve that persuasion at least two things must be done. A sound technical case for the proposals will have to be demonstrated, and it must be entirely clear that the operations will definitely be handled in the way they are promised. In other words, the industry (and not just individual companies) must show itself to be trustworthy, to understand what worries people, and to be able to deliver on its promises.

The paper concludes by saying:

The minerals industry has always had to ask the public for a social ‘licence to operate’. That is very different from obtaining planning permissions on the basis of a technically sound case. If the industry does not get on the right side of the public then it will be mired in opposition and distrust. This will wash off on the industry’s social standing, then recruitment, profitability, staff morale and investor confidence. There is no need to take the dead-end route; go for the socially responsible alternative. That way just about everybody wins.

An evenhanded paper that all concerned - proponents and objectors - would do well to read.

Sound plans, and the importance of the Sustainability Appraisal

Now that a number of local plans are being examined by the Planning Inspectorate, it's becoming apparent just how much importance is attached to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA).

The Planning Advisory Service (PAS) explains:

The purpose of the sustainability appraisal process is to appraise the social, environmental and economic effects of a plan from the outset. In doing so it will help ensure that decisions are made that contribute to achieving sustainable development.

The sustainability appraisal is integral to the plan making process. It should perform a key role in providing a sound evidence base for the plan and form an integrated part of the plan preparation process. It should be transparent and open to public participation. The sustainability appraisal should inform the decision making process to facilitate the evaluation of alternatives. It should also help demonstrate that the plan is the most appropriate given the reasonable alternatives.

Last year we pointed out, in an open letter to the Head of Planning and Transportation at DCC, that the Council's SA had not informed the selection of future mineral sites. DCC responded, saying:

As this [site appraisal] methodology ensures consideration of 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. However, value was seen in undertaking SA of the sand and gravel site options to provide an 'audit'...

Which is all very well, but, without the SA input, the outcome could be seen to lack objectivity. According to the PAS advice note:

SA is most useful when applied to alternatives... The [SA] should inform the decision making process to facilitate the evaluation of alternatives. It should also help demonstrate that the plan is the most appropriate given the reasonable alternatives... The assessment of ‘reasonable alternatives’ is also a legal requirement under the ‘SEA Directive'.

The SA did not inform the rejection of the 18 'alternatives'. The Environment Agency also commented:

We advise that this SA should have accompanied the formal consultation in March 2012… In this circumstance it is not clear how the SA has influenced the preferred site options which have been put forward by your Authority. It is apparent from the SA that some of the excluded sites may [be] preferable in environmental terms.

The graph below, first posted last year, showing the number of SA "significant negative events" for the southern alternative sites, alongside the site appraisal "showstoppers", demonstrated as much. The Planning Inspectorate makes clear:

If the strategy chosen is not endorsed by the SA the reasons for the choice of strategy contrary to the SA will need to be fully justified. Failure to do so is likely to result in a finding of unsoundness.

From the SA and the consultation responses received, statutory or otherwise, Straitgate or S7, although owned by a minerals company, was far from the most appropriate strategy.

Recently the Core Strategies of two councils were found to be 'unsound' by the Planning Inspectorate. Waverley Borough Council was advised to withdraw its plan since it required "a significant amount of additional work" including "the proper testing of alternatives through the SA process". Melton Borough Council's plan was also withdrawn after the Inspector said:

In my view the SA process appears to contain serious errors. Critically it is not evident that the sustainability considerations have informed the site selection process. This makes the plan very vulnerable to legal challenge.

It is clear that the SA must be at the heart of the decision-making process for councils to be able to demonstrate a sound plan. That's a legal requirement; not an afterthought, not just an "audit".

Miscellany

An update on a jumble of matters following discussions with various parties:

1. In all likelihood there will be two more campaigns by Aggregate Industries at Marshbroadmoor for locals to enjoy, this summer and now probably next summer as well, with material processed at Blackhill as before. Quarrying at Venn Ottery will be put on hold whilst these campaigns proceed.

2. The Environment Agency has delineated a Special Protection Zone for the Holly Ball water source, just north of Straitgate, that supplies some of Escot and a number of other houses. This follows the introduction of an SPZ to safeguard Cadhay water supplies, and again shows the importance of groundwater in the area.

3. DCC has again confirmed to us that officers would not support a proposal that involved processing Straitgate material at Blackhill, a site which the council wishes to see restored. Permission currently runs until 2016, and only for the importation of material from Venn Ottery and Marshbroadmoor. Of course, this doesn't stop AI from applying for an extension to process material from Straitgate, should they get permission here - however unsustainable and commercially nonsensical that might seem, but AI has also indicated to us that it too thinks approval for such a plan would be unlikely.

4. Having considered moving from Blackhill to Hillhead five years ago, there is currently no talk of AI siting any fixed processing plant at Hillhead, despite the bagging plant plans. Any working out of the remaining reserves at Hillhead is likely to be on a campaign basis using mobile plant. The bagged aggregate that AI had stored without permission at Hillhead has been moved in the interim to Greendale Barton, near Woodbury Salterton.

5. Devon's Minerals Plan is currently on hold, still awaiting AI to demonstrate that Straitgate can be relied upon as a sound and appropriate Preferred Site - specifically that the water issues are surmountable and a realistic scheme of working possible, notwithstanding objections from statutory consultees. Having missed several deadlines to supply this information to DCC, AI is only now discovering the complexities of the site - a site it's owned since 1965.

It is ironic that it is AI delaying DCC. It is after all the MPA, AI's trade body, that persistently and vociferously complains that "Most mineral plans are out of date - at the end of January 2013, less than 50% [of] mineral planning authorities in England had an adopted Core Strategy and six had not even started the process". If Devon's anything to go by, mineral companies dragging their feet may also be to blame. To ruin an idiom: people who live in quarries shouldn't throw stones.

Traffic, damned traffic, and statistics

That's the trouble with statistics. Take Aggregate Industries' reopening of Hazelbank Quarry in Scotland. Stow and Fountainhall Community Council has "massive concerns":

The majority of the lorries will be turning northwards so will be crossing the carriageway, which is going to be really dangerous as southbound motorists prepare to overtake on the straight. This stretch of the A7 sees a lot of accidents and more large lorries will create frustration with drivers.

AI's Transport Assessment: "an impact of 1.44%" on existing traffic and suggestions that measures to reduce vehicle speeds on the A7 in the vicinity would "more than [offset] any minor effect of the small amount of traffic associated with the proposed development".

It's the same at Uffculme for AI's application for a new aggregates bagging plant, the one that's being built but has yet to obtain permission.

DCC says there are traffic issues. Uffculme Parish Council are concerned about the "total inadequacy of surrounding road network". Mid Devon District Council has called for a consultation on a number of issues including "whether the additional traffic movements are acceptable taking into account the nature of the surrounding road network and whether Houndaller Quarry will be re-opened". The Highway Authority has called for additional information over and above AI's Transport Assessment and have "queried the adequacy of the A38 junction leading from the site".

AI's Transport Assessment: "...the proposed development is concluded to have no material bearing on the performance of the highway network". A 76% predicted increase in traffic at one narrow and complex junction is written off as "remains within the anticipated allowance of day-to-day variation in traffic demand".

Local residents should scrutinise Transport Assessments very closely, because, whether it's 1.44% or 76%, consultants will have a clever answer showing any additional HGV risk to be benign.

Aggregate Industries - a good neighbour?

You would hope so. Part of Swiss-based Holcim, "a global company employing some 80,000 people, with production sites in around 70 countries". Locally, of course, things tend to be different.

Anyone wanting to know what sort of neighbour AI might be, should read Uffculme Parish Council's response to the application for a bagging plant near Hillhead - a plant yet to secure permission but that has "already progressed to an advanced stage". Uffculme will have had plenty of dealings with AI over the years. Surely there is a good working relationship by now with one of the larger companies in their parish? It doesn't sound like it, reading the first line of the Council's response:

Arrogance of Company; no local consultation; contempt for local community...

As you can imagine, there's a number of other things they're not happy about as well, "inaccuracies and incorrect information on highways and traffic movements; misleading employment information", and much more. No punches pulled there.

100m - that's a start

People want to know how close any potential quarrying at Straitgate would come to their homes, but this matter would normally be determined at the time of an application, considering factors such as topography, screening, water supplies, prevailing wind, duration and method of working, etc.

What Aggregate Industries has said is that it will be recalculating the resource at Straitgate Farm based on allowing 100 metres from the nearest properties. Whilst this is an improvement on what was initially put forward, it's an opening position. It will be DCC, in consultation with others, that decides what distance is acceptable between any quarry and homes, not AI.

Would 100m be as much as local residents could expect? Well, BGS advice says "In practice, standoff distances are often incorporated into local planning policy, with distances of 250-500m typically adopted, unless there are unusual or exceptional reasons to permit a variation." There are good reasons for this - dust being one:

Large dust particles (greater than 30 µm), which make up the greatest proportion of dust emitted from mineral workings, will largely deposit within 100m of sources. Intermediate-sized particles (10–30 µm) are likely to travel up to 200–500m. Smaller particles (less than 10 µm) which make up a small proportion of the dust emitted from most mineral workings, are only deposited slowly but may travel 1000m or more.

In practice, however, things are not clear cut.

When safeguarding minerals from inappropriate development, Nottinghamshire and Bedfordshire refer to a buffer of 250m. As does Essex County Council, which has just finished consulting on a Pre-Submission Draft of its new Minerals Local Plan, and is ahead of Devon in this respect. Essex extends a Mineral Consultation Area boundary 250 metres beyond Preferred or existing sites to "protect both mineral resources from sterilisation and future residents from unwanted impacts".

South Lanarkshire Council in its old plan was unequivocal, saying "mineral development will not be permitted within 250m of existing occupied dwellings for the extraction of minerals without blasting." Unfortunately its new plan is more typical of others, saying the distance will be "dependent upon the circumstances of the case and the actual environmental effects resulting from extraction".

Where does the NPPF stand on all this? It's no surprise that the Technical Guidance doesn't quote anything as useful as numbers:

As set out in the National Planning Policy Framework minerals planning authorities are expected to ensure that plan proposals do not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the natural or historic environment or human health. Residents living close to mineral workings may be exposed to a number of environmental effects and particular care should be taken in respect of any conditions they attach to a grant of permission for working in proximity to communities.

At the hands of mineral lobbyists, the government is plainly more worried about the economic consequences of the aggregate majors losing 100m of minerals than the health of its citizens living nearby. Even a Private Member's Bill from Andrew Bridgen MP, to introduce a 500m buffer zone between areas of settlement and opencast coal mining in line with Wales and Scotland, didn't advance beyond its 2nd reading.

What government, councils and mineral companies should realise is that if the distance between quarries and people was more clearly defined, could be relied upon, and was a more sensible compromise between minerals and people's health and amenity, there would be less opposition to proposals. This in itself would save the industry money and improve its image; but as far as the short-sighted Aggregate Giants are concerned, more buffer means less mineral means less profit. Work with the community, not against them.

One council has the right idea

Kirklees Council recently considered an application for a sand and gravel quarry at Thornhill Lees, West Yorkshire. Only two people had made objections, and council officers had recommended approval, saying that “whilst this proposal would undoubtedly have an impact on the immediate locality, the effects would be limited and for a temporary period only".

But the members of the planning committee were having none of it, and deferred approval after criticising the applicant for not offering any immediate benefits to the local community. The Chairman said “I think it’s unfair for some of the people who live round there and I think these developers need to put something back into their communities”.

Who can argue with that? Quarrying in the UK makes 100s of millions of pounds for the major players, and their Swiss, German and Mexican holding companies, and yet Aggregate Industries, for one, hands back the derisory figure of 2p in every £100 sales to affected communities - communities that ultimately bear the cost through blighted homes, noise, dust and disfigured local landscapes. Is it any wonder that so many people would normally object to quarries? They gain so little and lose so much.

And one 'developer' has the right idea

OK, so it was in relation to plans for an intensive pig farm not a quarry, and there was a concerted campaign by locals, but in the end the Earl of Devon saw reason and put out a statement explaining that he would not progress the venture any further, saying that the Powderham Estate:

values its relationship with the local community and the views of the Parish Councils and residents were taken into account when arriving at this decision.

Now that's a statement that's refreshing to hear.

Quarry wakeboarding

Now that's an idea we haven't heard of before! Aggregate Industries' Kessell Quarry at Mabe closed in 1999 and now, covered with undergrowth and the quarry void full of water, is up for sale. A prospective buyer had sought advice from Cornwall Council about turning it into a wakeboarding centre, however, it now looks as though the site might go for housing instead.

To enable the housing to proceed, it's reported that AI may surrender its planning permission for quarrying, although the sales particulars state that it is not selling the nearby operational ready-mix concrete plant, and intends to retain the rights to work the 7 million tonnes of mineral reserves. Cornwall Council's position is that, if any of the site is retained for quarrying or ready-mix concrete, this would preclude any residential development.

And there lies a paradox: Cornwall says it's unacceptable to site new homes next to a quarry; Devon, that it's acceptable in principle to site a new quarry (at Straitgate Farm) next to homes.

What if the same applied to quarries?

The BBC headline this morning says "Local communities offered more say on wind farms". Let's change some of the words and see how it reads instead:

Local communities are to be given more powers to block [quarries], but also offered greater incentives to accept them, the government says. 

Planning guidance in England will be changed to ensure local opposition can override national [mineral] targets. 

But the measures will see a five-fold rise in the benefits paid by developers to communities hosting [quarries]. 

The subsidies - worth about £100,000 a year from a medium-sized [quarry] - could be used to [support a wide range of local projects]... 

The government said the measures would ensure local communities had a greater stake in the planning process. 

It said it expected the [mineral] industry to improve its community benefit packages by the end of the year... 

[A government minister] said: "It is important that [quarries are] developed in a way that is truly sustainable - economically, environmentally and socially - and today's announcement will ensure that communities see the windfall from hosting developments near to them, not just the [minerals industry]". 

The Department for Communities and Local Government will make sure local people have more say in the planning of [quarries] and that the need for [minerals] does not automatically override the planning concerns of communities.

"We want to give local communities a greater say on planning, to give greater weight to the protection of landscape, heritage and local amenity," said Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles.

Planning approvals for [quarries] in England have dropped in recent years, a situation the government is keen to turn around... 

A Conservative source said the prime minister felt it was important to take local people into account so that if they did not want [quarries] they could stop them...

Could that ever happen? The Mineral Products Association, lobbying hard for the minerals industry, might have something to say first.

Birdstrike - it's a serious matter

We can all smile at this picture, but the subject of birdstrike is a serious one, and one the public is increasingly aware of following the dramatic events in 2009 when US Airways Flight 1549 ditched in the Hudson River. However, it's not just public awareness that has increased. A report from Nicholls & Bell claims that "bird strike risk per movement to UK aviation is increasing as a proportion of total aviation risk, and possibly also in absolute terms". The Aviation Herald records airline incidents across the world as they are reported - here is their list for "bird strike".

Aggregate Industries, on the other hand, doesn't appear to be taking this matter seriously. Why, otherwise, would it contemplate quarrying below the water table at Straitgate Farm, beneath an international flight path? Such a plan may help make its sums stack up, but does nothing to avoid leaving a body of water after it's gone, and does nothing for the flight safety of planes landing nearby at Exeter Airport.

For anyone who missed the photograph of gulls at AI's Blackhill Quarry, here's another photograph of gulls, this time at Hillhead near Uffculme - again on a body of water left after quarrying. Would Exeter Airport want this under its flight path? In perpetuity?

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.