AI responds to DCC requests for extra information - and another consultation begins

Aggregate Industries has now responded to DCC’s list of 82 points requiring further information - 61 for Straitgate and 21 for Blackhill; these Regulation 22 responses can be found towards the bottom of the respective planning application pages [DCC/3774/2015] for Straitgate and [DCC/3775/2015] for Blackhill.

There’s another mass of documents, another 21 days to respond, and another collection of errors, omissions and inaccuracies. Does anyone at SLR or AI actually check what’s being written, or is there serious intent to mislead?

If anybody had checked, they might have realised that AI's claim that 25,912,000 tonnes of CO2e would be emitted over the lifetime of its Straitgate to Blackhill haulage operation - an amazing "21.72 t CO2e per miles" [sic] 8.34 - was more than 100x AI’s total UK process emissions of 254,495 tCO2e in 2013.

It’s more than a simple typo, and plainly whoever wrote it didn't understand what they were talking about, because AI goes on to make the claim that "The CO2 saving of processing at Blackhill over Hillhead is, therefore, 47,241,000 tonnes of CO2e." 8.35 and that therefore:

Processing at Hillhead may be feasible, but would generate a massively greater quantity of CO2 emissions from the additional mileage required to be travelled... the benefit of CO2 savings from processing at Blackhill rather than Hillhead outweigh any potential harm from HGVs continuing to use roads which pass through the European Protected Sites in the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths. 8.48

If anybody had checked the facts, they might have realised that the statement "The proposed section of permissive path along Birdcage Lane in the north east of the site has been amended following discussion with the landowner" 2.104 was a complete fabrication; the landowner hasn't ever been approached on the matter.

If anybody had checked, they might have realised that in the statement "In visual terms, the slight contrast in colour between exposed mineral and undisturbed green pasture land can result in adverse effects..." 4.3 EMMP the word slight was frankly ridiculous.

Nothing in AI’s planning applications can necessarily be relied upon or taken at face value.

If anyone has any comments on these new documents, they can be sent either by email to planning@devon.gov.uk or to Devon County Council, Development Management, Room AB2, Lucombe House, County Hall, Exeter EX2 4QD. Respondents should give their name and address, and quote the planning application reference. 

MCAs - When legal advice was issued on this matter back in 2002…

...an eminent barrister advised:

And yet DCC wants to splash Mineral Consultation Areas widely across the county, 'safeguarding' all sorts of uneconomic, unrecoverable, unviable deposits, potentially blighting the homes of thousands of people. Most of those affected wouldn't find out - (DCC says "notifying every property within such areas would be disproportionate and not a justified use of our resources") - until they tried to sell their house, when the purchaser’s local search would reveal whether the property is within (not adjacent or nearby to) a MCA. A property encumbered with such a designation and with open land nearby is likely to ring alarm bells for most purchasers, or at least give reason to secure a sizeable discount.

As we said before: Across the county, the Minerals Plan could wipe millions of pounds from the value of Devon’s homes.

Hugo Swire MP holds meeting with Aggregate Industries

Useful meeting with @AggregateUK. Opportunity to stress concerns that constituents have about #Straitgate development pic.twitter.com/QOzall1psY

— Hugo Swire (@HugoSwire) September 23, 2015

'If planning is eventually granted then I do feel that DCC should explore alternative entry and exit points to mitigate the disruption that this development will cause.'

Is this really the best way to safeguard minerals?

DCC’s new draft Minerals Plan intends to safeguard huge swathes of minerals across the county - outlined on its interactive map as Mineral Consultation Areas. Since the risk of future quarry working, however remote, would be enough to put off most home buyers, thousands of homes could be needlessly blighted. Needlessly blighted, because most areas safeguarded would have little prospect of ever being worked.

DCC says it aims to conserve Devon’s minerals by:

the safeguarding of economic mineral resources from sterilisation by other development 3.31

To ensure a robust approach that ensures the protection of those resources currently or potentially of economic value, reflects Devon’s local characteristics and strikes a realistic balance that avoids protecting large areas of mineral resource with no prospect of future working, Devon County Council... has undertaken a detailed review of potential resources. 3.3.5 [our emphasis]

DCC states:

The inclusion of land within a Mineral Safeguarding Area carries no presumption that mineral development would be acceptable or that planning permission would be forthcoming for extraction of the underlying mineral resource... 3.3.8

But, since DCC says it has avoided protecting "large areas of mineral resource with no prospect of future working", the corollary is that the Council has only protected those areas that could be worked. Let’s list some of those areas that could be worked:

Woodbury Common & Castle, East Devon Golf Club, Bicton College & Gardens & Arena, Woodbury Park Hotel Golf & Country Club, Bystock Pools Nature Reserve, Aylesbeare Common Nature Reserve, South West Coast Path, Budleigh Salterton to Exmouth cycle path, Squabmoor Reservoir, East Devon Way. Look at the map for yourself and see how many other nonsensical areas have been 'safeguarded'.

In correspondence, DCC says:

Both MSAs and MCAs exclude existing settlements (as defined by settlement boundaries in district councils’ existing and emerging Local Plans), as mineral resources underlying those settlements are effectively already sterilised, and also to avoid a disproportionate level of consultation between district and county councils. [our emphasis]

but that will be no comfort to those with homes in:

Fairmile, Yettington, parts of Budleigh Salterton, Coombelake, Taleford, parts of West Hill & Higher Metcombe, Larkbeare, parts of Feniton, Colestocks, Kerswell, parts of Kentisbeare, Smithincott, Yondercott, Appledore, Hawkerland and Stoneyford.

Many of the deposits in these locations would be completely unworkable - see the Colestocks MCA, for example. Tick 'sand and gravel' to see the ridiculous size of deposit being 'protected' - not in fact economic at all.

And this is just for the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds.

This broad-brush way of safeguarding minerals appears to be a particularly lazy way of doing things, likely to bring distress to many. The majority of homes affected won't even have been informed about what is planned or that there is a current consultation.

B3180 - AI's mining haul road

In mining, the haul roads - from rock face to processing plant - "represent the highest capital expenditure requirement". But not so for Aggregate Industries in East Devon. When AI mines sand and gravel from the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds, it conveniently uses our public B roads - across wildlife conservation areas - causing damage and safety concerns.

[Article] The mine haul road network is a critical component of mining production process http://t.co/PoOnEL48ti pic.twitter.com/BYLAV1m9Pu

— Soil Solutions (@SoilSolutions) September 16, 2015

"The haul road is either the mine’s greatest asset or greatest liability" http://t.co/kX7EVPdRci @CatMining pic.twitter.com/PznIRJ1a19

— Soil Solutions (@SoilSolutions) September 17, 2015

Is Devon's new Minerals Plan sound?

"Effects on people’s health may not be reversible" - That’s what local people can look forward to, according to DCC's Sustainability Appraisal Report (SA), if quarrying were to be permitted at Straitgate - and that’s when the SA assumes "Approximately 100 HGV movements per day", not the 140 average, 200 maximum, that Aggregate Industries wants. It’s another price local people would pay whilst AI profits from destroying an East Devon farm.

SAs are meant to inform the preparation of a Minerals Plan. A SA was meant to inform the selection of preferred sand and gravel sites in East Devon back in 2012; it didn’t:

At the time, the Environment Agency 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.

It’s something to bear in mind when DCC says "In commenting on the Pre-submission Consultation Devon Minerals Plan, you are entitled to make representations on whether the Plan is (a) legally compliant and (b) sound".

Why? Because in the draft Minerals Plan, DCC now misleadingly claims:

Each of these stages [of Preparation of the Devon Minerals Plan] was accompanied by publication of the evidence supporting the emerging Plan, while preparation has also been informed by Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment. 1.4.2

Even on its website, DCC claims:

Following appraisal of options for sand and gravel sites in East and Mid Devon, a Sustainability Appraisal Report was published following consultation with statutory consultees, and has informed subsequent decisions on the choice of sites for inclusion in the Minerals Plan.

A similar claim is made in Minerals Topic Paper 4.1:

To inform future decisions on the identification of sand and gravel sites in East and Mid Devon, the County Council's sustainability appraisal team published a draft Sustainability Appraisal Report on the East and Mid Devon site options in June 2012. 7.1

The SA didn’t inform "the choice of sites for inclusion in the Minerals Plan" in East Devon because in its haste, perhaps worried that the SA would not give the right 'answer', DCC rejected the nine alternative sites to Straitgate for sand and gravel extraction months before the SA was even published.

It’s an important matter. Melton Borough Council's plan was withdrawn after the Inspector said:

...it is not evident that the sustainability considerations have informed the site selection process. This makes the plan very vulnerable to legal challenge.

DCC’s site appraisal process for sand and gravel was a forgone conclusion - an entirely artificial exercise designed to make Straitgate look the best option among the southern sites.

Artificial? DCC claims that potential alternative sites excluded "outcrops which are too small to be quarried or have already been built on, and those very distant from the strategic road network" 5.4 MTP 4.1.

This is nonsense. A number of the alternatives were plainly unworkable. The SA recognised that "S9 is too small to be viable... It is therefore not a reasonable option and has thus not been subject to SA". S4 was also clearly too small; S2 and S3 too far from the SRN. From the remaining sites that might have been workable, the SA confirmed Straitgate (S7) to be one of the most constrained. Something to bear in mind when DCC says:

Soundness of the Devon Minerals Plan should be assessed against the following... : Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives...

DCC now makes the point that:

It is important to note that the sustainability appraisal was carried out on the original site boundaries shown in Figures 2 and 3, not those refined in light of the appraisal findings (detailed in Section 5) and published in the ‘Future Quarrying in East and Mid Devon’ local consultation. 7.2

but the SA on Straitgate's revised boundaries still contains a hefty amount of significant negative effects:

Seemingly it doesn’t matter what anybody tells DCC. The Council is set on having Straitgate in its plan - even despite there being no acceptable way (acceptable to both AI and DCC, that is) of actually processing the minerals.

DCC says "The Minerals Plan is not making provision for the processing of material from Straitgate at Blackhill" and "Given the apparent availability of an alternative location for processing at Rockbeare... it may be difficult for the site promoter to demonstrate the ‘exceptional circumstances’ required for development in the AONB" MTP4.1; AI says Rockbeare’s not possible "due to lack of space especially for stockpiles and silt storage; and non-availability of process water" 38. DCC accepts that "While this represents a risk to the deliverability of Straitgate Farm, this is a matter that can be tested through a future planning application and should not preclude allocation of the site in the Minerals Plan" MTP4.1.

It seems utterly perverse for the Minerals Plan to allocate Straitgate Farm as a "Specific Site" - supposedly a designation where "the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms" - when so much risk hangs over its deliverability. Again, something to bear in mind when DCC says:

Soundness of the Devon Minerals Plan should be assessed against the following... : Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period...

AI will no doubt, in any submission it makes in response to the Minerals Plan, make the case for again extending the life of Blackhill - the plant that's 8.2 miles away from Straitgate in an AONB without an adjoining active quarry, that was supposed to close years ago after the EC designated the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths an important area for conservation. It will no doubt make out that up to 200 HGV movements a day - a total of 1.2 million CO2 polluting miles over 5 years - "are insignificant to cause a noticeable impact to road users" 4.3.

However, the new Minerals Plan's Vision is that:

Spatial pattern of new mineral development will minimise its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, while the design and management of quarries, including their use of renewable energy sources, will enhance Devon’s ability to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

and "Wherever possible, the processing of the mineral should take place on-site to minimise transportation distances" 8.8.2.

In fact, both the Climate Change Act p.122 SA and the SEA Directive require that "The Minerals Plan should help achieve the UK Government’s targets for reductions in CO2 and other targeted greenhouse gasses through reducing emissions from minerals operations and transport" Table 3-1 SA, because we should all remember, as indeed the SA points out:

The minerals industry is the third highest energy-consuming industrial sub-sector in the UK.

The extraction, processing and transport of minerals are probably responsible for about 7% of total global energy consumption. This effect is assessed as significant negative due to the global scope of the effects, the reality that global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise despite an urgency to reduce emissions, and the strong likelihood of cumulative effects alongside emissions from other non-minerals development. Emissions will return to predevelopment levels following restoration but the residency time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 200 years and therefore the impacts will continue to affect the climate for an extended period.

The movement of people across the world we are seeing today will be nothing compared with the numbers that future generations will need to deal with if we don’t act on climate change.

Without a climate deal at #COP21, French President @fhollande notes "we'll have millions of refugees in 20-30 yrs." http://t.co/uukDaxcuJl

— Mikell O'Mealy (@mikellomealy) September 10, 2015

To put the importance of Straitgate’s biodiversity into context

"Teign Valley is high spot for rare wildlife species", ran a headline last week.

Wildlife surveys carried out for the Woodland Trust and National Trust have revealed that Fingle Woods contains some of the richest diversity found in woodland in the South West of England.

Along with birds, butterflies and invertebrates, the woods contain a rich diversity of wildlife, including:

Dormice found in five locations. Nine species of bats were recorded in Fingle Woods, over half the species in the entire UK bat fauna, making Fingle Woods significantly important.

Such an article serves to put Straitgate’s wildlife into context, where ecologists found 25 dormouse nests and eight dormice out of 100 survey tubes, and at least eleven bat species.

Aggregate Industries should feel proud that its tenant farmer has so successfully combined dairy farming with rare and protected species all on one site!

Gravel at Hillhead

If anybody gets to the small print of Devon's new draft Minerals Plan, they will find the statement:

Information provided by the operator since 2011 indicates that the proportion of crushable gravel… within the BSPB decreases from south to north. While the proportion of crushable gravel in the Ottery St Mary area is not significantly lower than at the existing Blackhill and Venn Ottery quarries, the resource around Uffculme is much less gravel-rich. This further supports the need to consider future sand and gravel supply from both the northern and southern options. [our emphases] Minerals Topic Paper 4.1

As we’ve seen with Aggregate Industries’ planning application for Straitgate Farm, "information provided by the operator" is not always a good guide - if the figures on resource, overburden, silt and need are anything to go by.

However, if there is any shortage of gravel around Uffculme then it didn’t stop Hillhead Quarry operating for decades:

Sand and gravel working has been taking place at Hillhead since before the Second World War

If there is any shortage of gravel from south to north then it doesn’t stop Hanson working Town Farm Quarry near Burlescombe, north of Uffculme.

If there is any shortage of gravel around Uffculme then it won't stop AI from applying to quarry Penslade if its application for Straitgate founders.

If there is any shortage of gravel then why did AI’s Estates Manager, in a relation to a query about Penslade's resource, say that there was a "similar quality at Straitgate as at Uffculme"?

If there is any shortage of gravel then it hasn't stopped DCC from relying on Penslade to cover the sand and gravel shortfall indicated in its Minerals Plan.

Nevertheless, it suits DCC to buy in to AI’s argument. It suits its misguided reasoning that:

Retention of working within the northern and southern areas was considered to be the most sustainable option as it would minimise the distances that sand and gravel will need to be transported to major markets such as Exeter and Taunton. Pursuit of this option was also considered to provide greater flexibility to respond to future changes in demand 4.15

But the illogic of that statement is quickly exposed in the Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal Report:

Note: It is not the intention of the Devon Minerals Plan for simultaneous sand and gravel extraction to occur at West of Penslade Cross and Straitgate Farm…

In which case, it’s not clear how maintaining northern and southern areas would minimise any transport distances, particularly when Straitgate, the southern area, entails - as it stands - a processing proposal of 1.2 million miles, and the northern area - capable of supporting on-site processing - zero miles.

Miscellaneous

1. AI would be restricted to quarrying down to 1m above the maximum water table...

But in New Zealand, there were fears that thousands of Christchurch residents could have contaminated drinking water when a quarry was served an abatement notice "after it breached a consent condition requiring it to stay at least one metre above the highest known level of the water table".

The quarry company claims, of course, that its operations have remained above groundwater levels at all times, but locals disagree saying 'quarrying into the aquifers would have gone unnoticed had residents not laid a complaint with the regional council'.

...this water is precious to the whole city of Christchurch and we're in disbelief

2. Another case of quarried land not going back to farmland...

Hundreds of people have signed a petition in a bid to stop an Oxfordshire quarry site being redeveloped into a business park.

It was due to be returned to farmland but Faringdon Town Council's neighbourhood plan has earmarked the area for industrial use.

3. Aggregate Industries’ boss jumps ship

Devon’s new Minerals Plan could blight thousands of homes across the county

After years in the making, years of waiting while Aggregate Industries assessed the viability of quarrying Straitgate Farm, Devon’s new Minerals Plan is finally out for consultation in pre-submission form. After various consultations dating back to 2007, the public can now see just how many of their views have been ignored. Now people are being asked to respond again:

Devon County Council wishes to encourage as many people as possible to respond to this Minerals Plan to ensure that, when adopted, it represents the views of Devon’s communities and businesses.

In commenting on the Pre-submission Consultation Devon Minerals Plan, you are entitled to make representations on whether the Plan is (a) legally compliant and (b) sound.

DCC claims that:

Examples exist in Devon of quarries enhancing wildlife and public access, both during and, in particular, following their closure and restoration, and we need to build on this good practice so that quarries offset their adverse effects through positive impacts.

DCC doesn’t say where or how many examples; this photograph is of Houndaller at Hillhead, which has a large proportion of Devon’s permitted sand and gravel reserves.

Apart from specific site designations, one of the most controversial parts of the new Plan must surely be DCC’s intention to safeguard huge swathes of minerals across the county:

Taking account of national policy and guidance, a more comprehensive approach to mineral safeguarding has been developed that aims to protect the full extent of Devon’s economic mineral resources, together with associated tipping capacity and the infrastructure required for the processing and sustainable transportation of those minerals. 3.3.4 

DCC assures local people that:

The inclusion of land within a Mineral Safeguarding Area [MSA] carries no presumption that mineral development would be acceptable or that planning permission would be forthcoming for extraction of the underlying mineral resource. 3.3.8 

but proposes that:

Mineral Consultation Areas [MCA] in the DCC Plan Area cover the MSA and for mineral resources, an additional buffer zone as set out in Table 5.3 Minerals Topic Paper 2 7.0.2

For mineral resources, Mineral Consultation Areas are drawn wider than the relevant Mineral Safeguarding Area (at a diameter indicated in Table 3.1) to ensure consideration not only of development directly overlying the resource, but also development that may indirectly constrain future mineral working by introducing new uses that are sensitive to noise, dust and other impacts of mineral working. B.2

Despite local people and communities raising concerns of blight in previous workshops and consultations, thousands of homes in Devon will therefore, if this Plan is found to be sound, find themselves within a MCA. Such a designation would be revealed on a Local Authority Search. Any homeowner within such an area, particularly with open land nearby - even if there is little likelihood of the resource ever being worked, may well find themselves blighted by this broad-brush safeguarding approach; just a whiff of a house being near to a future quarrying site would be enough to put many house buyers off. Across the county, millions of pounds in total could be wiped off the value of Devon’s homes - a consequence of the Council putting the minerals industry first again.

To see if your home would be within a MCA, here’s a link to the Council’s interactive map.

Does this look the sort of road that AI's HGVs should be pounding up and down?

Aggregate Industries thinks it’s fine to put up to 200 of its 44-tonne HGVs on this road each day, saying:

the proposed B3180 is considered to be suitable as the recommended route for the transport of material from Straitgate Farm to Blackhill Quarry 4.2.1

the increased flows along [the B3180] are insignificant to cause a noticeable impact to road users 4.3

Based on the findings of this assessment it can be concluded that the proposed development will have no material adverse impact on the operation or safety of the local road network. 8.0

Local people, on the other hand, will regard such statements as simply dishonest. 

But it’s not just that the B3180 goes through an AONB and SPA/SAC; it’s not just the unsustainable 8.2 miles; it’s not just that it’s too narrow in places for two trucks to pass, or that verges are being broken down and stones scattered into the road. The B3180 is also used by vulnerable road users. Yet, as Charlie Hopkins makes clear, AI’s Environmental Statement "provides no analysis of adverse impacts of high volumes of HGVs on other users of the road network, which is not limited to motorised traffic, but includes pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders".

But then again, what is SLR’s analysis of adverse impacts worth anyway? AI’s consultants say that "there are no sharp bends along this route" 4.2.1, which, as road signs clearly indicate, is yet another fallacy.

Consultation on Devon's new Minerals Plan is due to start on 24th August

This plan will look to provide "a Vision for how mineral development will be undertaken in Devon to 2033" and allocate where future mineral development should take place. 

DCC wants to include Straitgate Farm "as a ‘Specific Site’ in recognition of the degree of evidence available on its potential impacts"; a specific site is "where viable resources are known to exist, landowners are supportive of minerals development and the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms" - which to local people might look as though DCC has already made its mind up about Aggregate Industries' planning application.

Whilst DCC looks to earmark sites with many millions of tonnes of sand and gravel for many years into the future, building techniques are changing and more sustainable construction methods are being employed, more recycled and secondary aggregate is being used and demand for primary aggregate is falling. Locally, even the sources of primary aggregate are changing:

Glendinning is to begin manufacturing sand from limestone at its Ashburton quarry, and hopes in time "to produce manufactured sand that is the equal to, if not superior to, naturally occurring sand".

At the last count, Devon had almost 140 million tonnes of crushed rock aggregate reserves and 8 million tonnes of sand and gravel reserves.

It’s not only in Devon that AI has difficulty with planning conditions...

We've seen that Aggregate Industries ignored assurances it gave in 2010 to reduce the visual impact of stockpiles on Woodbury Common. Now, Cambridgeshire County Council is being forced to take legal action against AI and others for failing to comply with planning conditions, some dating back "more than 10 years":

Councillor Bill Hunt said: "We have all had enough. Everyone should support officers to take legal action and do it today, not tomorrow. Prosecute if necessary and do it as soon as possible to get that area back on track."

Quarry operator urged to abandon plans for Perthshire beauty spot...

... after its latest bid was rejected by Scottish ministers.

"This has been a long battle... The local community, Friends of the Ochils, Clackmannanshire Council, all the community councils in the area and others had vigorously objected to the quarry. The moral of this story is that even when confronted by a massive, multinational corporation, its army of highly-paid advisers and local authority planners – all of whom are arguing that permission must be granted – do not give in, it is possible to win."

It’s a good thing AI's Venn Ottery Quarry isn’t directly below Exeter Airport’s landing approach…

… judging by the number of birds photographed there this week - and this, at the highest point of the quarry, where there was no water. Straitgate, on the other hand, is directly below Exeter Airport’s landing approach. Aggregate Industries' plan here is to leave - in perpetuity - areas of "seasonally wet grassland", which, as the CAA warns, would be attractive to birds. AI says that, following cessation of operations:

To ensure that excess runoff is mitigated, it is recommended that some low lying areas are maintained for further attenuation and also to encourage infiltration to the aquifer, protecting the nearby springs and private water supplies. 7.102

But having had years to prepare, years to come up with some sort of detailed scheme that would address one of the central problems of the whole proposal - the seemingly intractable issue of how to reduce surface and groundwater impacts without introducing wetland features and increasing the risk of birdstrike - the best that AI can come up with is:

A detailed drainage scheme would be developed and submitted for approval prior to the commencement of operations. 3.39 The arrangements for the collection and disposal of surface water arising from the restored site would be designed in conjunction with the appointed hydrologist. 3.57

It's no surprise, therefore, that DCC is not satisfied with this and has made it clear to AI that:

The surface water management is inextricably connected to Flood Risk Management/Airport safeguarding and the need to maintain and recharge watercourses. This issue is so important in terms of the likely significant impacts of the proposal the MPA would wish to ensure that a SWM scheme can be designed to meet all of the requirements identified in advance of the determination of this application. 17

And here's another photograph that indicates why these matters are so important - a giant RAF Boeing C17 Globemaster flying low over Straitgate last week.

More inconsistencies…

Do any of Aggregate Industries' numbers stack up? Is there anything we can trust? We have established that AI has been disingenuous with the resource, overburden and need figures, but now it seems that the silt numbers don’t add up either.

Why is this important? Because lack of silt capacity at AI's disused and unrestored Rockbeare Quarry was one of the reasons the company gave to justify the continued use of Blackhill Quarry to process material from Straitgate 8.2 miles away, trucking as-dug sand and gravel through an SPA/SAC/AONB on an unsuitable B road - 1.2 million HGV miles over 5 years:

Rockbeare Quarry was not taken forward as an alternative location for processing due to lack of space especially for stockpiles and silt storage; and non-availability of process water. 38

DCC has now asked AI to quantify the silt, a waste component from processing the as-dug sand and gravel, from Straitgate, and the available capacity for it at Rockbeare, and furthermore to:

... explain in detail the reason for their change of mind about the availability of Rockbeare Quarry for processing given the content of the letter from AI to DCC dated 14 May 2014 (AI Ref: CT/7812/DMP) – “Location for Processing” which states clearly that Beggars Roost has capacity for the silt produced and that Areas D and K would be used for stockpiling and Pond J for water.

And whilst AI ponders on what numbers to give this time, let’s not forget what the company said in 2003, when there was apparently "an inextricable link between Straitgate Farm and the Rockbeare Minerals Working Area":

The processing of at least 20% of the Straitgate Farm mineral reserve at Rockbeare is necessary in order to generate sufficient silt to complete the approved restoration scheme at Rockbeare and Beggars Roost. The current remaining silt capacity within the Rockbeare complex is about 210,000 cubic metres and at Beggars Roost 180,000 cubic metres giving a total of 390,000 cubic metres of silt space.

In 2003, the Straitgate Farm resource was still considered to be 8.1 million tonnes, but now that AI’s application is for just 20% of that figure, silt capacity at Rockbeare should obviously be adequate. But let's look at the numbers another way:

AI gives the silt fraction as 15% (3.16) or 17-20% (3.9), but assuming 20% and, for the sake of argument, AI’s exaggerated saleable combined resource figure of 1.66 million tonnes, then there’s an implied gross resource of 2.075 million tonnes, and a silt/waste component of 415,000 tonnes which, at 1.33 tonnes/m3, equates to 312,000m3. In reality, with 1m of resource maintained above the maximum water table, there would be around 263,000 tonnes of silt/waste, or less than 200,000m3.

Clearly, both of these figures are within the capacity the company said was available in 2003; the letter DCC references implies that it was still the case in 2014.

Wherever you look, AI’s applications are riddled with inconsistencies. Local people will no doubt make up their own minds as to whether these were down to lack of care by AI or its consultants SLR, or were just wilful acts aimed to deceive.

DCC asks AI for additional information - this time on Blackhill

Following a review of consultation responses on the Blackhill application, DCC has issued Aggregate Industries with another long list of requests for further information, for example:

Habitats Regulations Assessment 1

It is the view of both NE and the MPA that... insufficient information has been given to enable the MPA to properly screen the proposal for likely significant effects on the adjoining Natura 2000 sites as required by Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations.

AONB Policy 2

The applicant has not provided sufficient information for the MPA to properly assess the likely impacts on the AONB, nor has it demonstrated the “exceptional need” for the development in this location.

Protected Species 9

No information is provided in the ES as to whether there are protected species on the application site and whether these might be affected by the continuation of processing or the delay in the restoration of the site.

Alternatives 16

Rockbeare/Hillhead/Straitgate – The applicant needs to provide a clear assessment of the potential or otherwise for all of these sites (as a single document). Which should include calculations of existing silt capacity against predicted requirements, calculations for storage and availability of clean water, space for plant, costs/viability (taking account of reduced transport costs). This is important given that AI used to transport materials from Rockbeare to Hillhead for processing and that Hillhead could also cater for future development of the resource at Penslade as well as taking into account the applicant’s previous comments in writing on the potential for processing at Rockbeare Quarry. Reason: There is a requirement to demonstrate alternatives to major development in the AONB.

Natural England issues an ‘Objection/Further information required’ for Blackhill

Natural England has expressed concern about the importation of nitrate-rich material into Blackhill, with the effects it could have on the SAC/SPA, and has issued an "objection/further information required":

Natural England first raised this issue in 2012, and DCC also said in its recent Scoping Opinion that:

The potential impacts of importing nitrate rich materials into the environment of Blackhill Quarry to be processed, and the impact on the potential restoration and biodiversity of that site from such movements of material should be assessed 8.0

Other respondents to Aggregate Industries’ Scoping Request raised the matter too, but despite all this, AI chose to completely ignore the issue in its voluminous Environmental Statement. It’s not surprising therefore that Natural England now has this to say:

The proposal to add the silt washed from the ‘as dug’ quarried material from Straitgate into the lagoons at Blackhill requires further detailed investigation and analysis. The designated heathland communities surrounding Blackhill quarry are nutrient poor and an increase in available nitrogen as it leaches from the lagoons could result in a change in the vegetation composition of parts of the site and affect the composition of any regeneration that may happen as the quarry site is restored. We advise that there may be an increase in nitrogen and other soil nutrients due to the land at Straitgate being farmed as a dairy enterprise.

The substrate of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths is a complex mix of pebbles and various sizes of sands and gravels. Such areas are often free draining. Therefore water and any nutrients absorbed in it are likely to be able to move readily through it and into the many minor watercourses that cross the site. The nutrients can then be taken up by the surrounding vegetation. An increase in the nutrients may lead to a decline in those plants that require a nutrient poor environment and result in a change in the vegetation mosaic of the dry heath. Ultimately the watercourses flow into the wet heath and valley mires at the bottom of the valleys and therefore these are also at risk from of the vegetation mosaic changes as a result of the potential increased availability of nutrients. This impact on the wet and dry heathland vegetation could also have an effect on key SAC and SPA species. These potential effects need to be properly assessed and evaluated.

Furthermore, on Protected Landscapes, Natural England says:

We believe the [Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment] has not been adequately undertaken and there is a potential for a continuing significant impact on the purposes of the designation of East Devon AONB. We therefore require further information to be provided.

The adverse impacts of the stockpiles have not been taken into account and do not feature in the LVIA viewpoints, which mis-represents the actual situation.

We consider that taking into account para 115 and 116 of the [NPPF], ‘exceptional need’ for this development within the AONB has not been established in the documents provided. The delayed restoration of this site for another 5 years extends the significant adverse impact on the scenic quality and tranquillity of the area.

Natural England responds on Straitgate

Natural England's response with respect to the Straitgate application can be found here; the Blackhill response should follow later this week. 

To highlight just a few paragraphs from the response - on soils:

Although we are generally satisfied that the best and most versatile (BMV) land should be capable of being reclaimed without loss of quality, the submitted soil handling, restoration and aftercare proposals do not meet the requirements for sustainable minerals development, set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and current Minerals Planning Practice Guidance. Please refer to our detailed comments in Annex 1 of this letter.

Additionally to note, as the site is BMV, the same area of BMV land should be restored. If there is no topsoil in an area it cannot be returned to grade 3a. Rather, the restoration should aim to return all areas to 3a and if an area of reduced fertility is desired then this should be achieved by reducing nutrient levels over time, if analysis of the soil shows that this is possible.

and on protected species:

We have not assessed this application and associated documents in detail for impacts on protected species, however, we would wish to bring to your attention that the Great Crested Newt survey (ES Chapter 8 – ecology) has not been completed for all the identified ponds and further information will be required in line with our standing advice (see link below).

We are also aware that tree and hedgerow planting proposed as mitigation for both landscape purposes and replacement habitat for the dormouse population may not yet be in place in the quantity identified throughout the documentation supporting this application, including in ES Chapter 13 – Summary of effects and mitigation. Your Authority will need to be satisfied that the mitigation plan proposed by the Applicant is deliverable in the quantity and to the quality required and within the appropriate timescales to provide the necessary replacement habitat.

Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.

We have covered the lack of a proper great crested newt survey and the lack of appropriate dormouse mitigation in earlier posts.

DCC asks AI for additional information - quite a lot of additional information...

Following a review of consultation responses, DCC, as the Mineral Planning Authority, has issued Aggregate Industries with a request for additional information and clarification in respect of the Straitgate application; a request in respect of the Blackhill application will follow in due course.

It’s a long list, and it will be interesting to see how AI responds to a number of points, particularly:

On highways 2

Cross sections across the site to confirm that the full depth of the excavations would not be lower than the A30... Reason: To safeguard the stability of the Strategic Road network

On the water environment - levels of working 13

The applicant should demonstrate the methodology which will be used on site to ensure no working within the 1m standoff for the highest measured point of the groundwater in the Budleigh Salterton Pebblebeds - given the acknowledged variations across the site and the concern that there has been no piezometer installed at the centre of the site to monitor ground water levels at that location.

On surface water management 17

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

On airport safeguarding 45

Need for clarification – there seems to be a significant potential conflict between the restoration proposals as set out in the wildlife sections of the report and the CAA safeguarding advice. This needs to be resolved before the MPA will be able to assess the likely mitigation measures and restoration proposals.

On alternatives 55

The MPA would also request that the applicant explain in detail the reason for their change of mind about the availability of Rockbeare Quarry for processing given the content of the letter from AI to DCC dated 14 May 2014 (AI Ref: CT/7812/DMP) – “Location for Processing” which states clearly that Beggars Roost has capacity for the silt produced and that Areas D and K would be used for stockpiling and Pond J for water.

On alternatives - reducing transport 56

The applicant should submit a statement explaining how the proposed development and the proposed location of the processing would contribute to the requirements of NPPF... Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised...

On need 57

...the document should set out in policy terms the “exceptional circumstances” the applicant considers that exist [for Blackhill Quarry] to provide for the proposed processing solution for Straitgate Quarry.

On demonstration of resource 59

The applicant is requested to provide a simple, but evidenced assessment of the resource available at that location. The assessment should provide the MPA with the calculations of mineral asset when leaving 1m above the water table set against that of working to the level of the water table and also with and without the estimated asset from the working of the overburden. Reason: To ensure confidence that the figures given in the application documentation as a saleable resource are as correct and clear as possible given that they are being used to justify the environmental consequences of the proposal.