Letter from the EA

This letter from the Environment Agency was dated 3 June but only made public today.

It was written in response to Aggregate Industries finally coming clean on how it hopes to win 1.2 million tonnes from Straitgate by assuming "a working base that coincides with... the maximum recorded winter water table".

Readers must be sick and tired of this long-running saga of the resource and the 1m. Prior to AI's resource statement, rushed-out less than two weeks before the Examination, DCC had been ready to concede that there were only 900,000 tonnes at Straitgate to reflect the "retention of a one metre unsaturated zone above the winter water table, as required in Table C.4 of the Plan" previously agreed with the EA, to protect drinking water supplies. It was a different story, however, at the Examination:

DCC argued blindly that the resource should still be identified as "Up to 1.2 million tonnes", even though AI’s resource statement confirmed that this amount could ONLY be achieved by quarrying right down to the maximum winter water table.

The EA has now confirmed, exactly as we had stated at the Examination hearings, that:

It is also notable that the applicant appears to be basing the present resource assessments on the basis of a hydrogeological model (highest water level) that has not been formally agreed.

Furthermore, despite AI having had years to work on groundwater modelling at Straitgate, the EA says:

We are... still waiting for a robust assessment of the risks that would result from this modification to the operation.

Whether DCC continues to push a resource figure inconsistent with the conditions in its own Minerals Plan, siding with AI and its resource of "up to 1.2 million tonnes" - when the EA has agreed to no such thing - remains to be seen.

There will, in any case, be a further consultation on any modifications tabled.

AI operating asphalt plant at Rockbeare without planning permission

Aggregate Industries has submitted a planning application for the "retention of the existing asphalt plant, aggregate store and ancillary stockyard/storage bays and the importation and storage of Recycled Asphalt Planings (RAP) at Rockbeare Quarry".

AI’s supporting statement reads:

3.1 The existing asphalt plant was permitted, in its current location, under planning permission 99/P0568 (see Appendix 1). Under condition 8 of this permission, the asphalt plant was time limited by way of requiring removal of the plant upon cessation of mineral extraction. Condition 8 states:

“Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority, upon completion of the mineral working at the mineral site, the plant hereby approved shall be removed and the area restored in accordance with details to be submitted pursuant to Review of Old Mineral Permission No.7/11/98/P0050.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory restoration in the interests of visual amenity.”

3.3 Mineral extraction ceased at Rockbeare Quarry (Marshbroadmoor) in 2014. The purpose of this planning application is to seek the permanent retention of the asphalt plant, aggregate store and associated facilities.

Indeed, extraction at next door Marshbroadmoor may have ceased in 2014, since which time AI has been operating without permission - in breach of planning conditions, but since none of this mineral was ever processed at Rockbeare that date seems immaterial. What does seem material is, as AI pointed out in its planning application for Straitgate, that "mineral processing was last carried out at Rockbeare in 1994" 5.36, 22 years ago, when "most of the production was used on a daily basis by the on-site asphalt plant and the Charcon Concrete Products Factory (now closed)".

When AI now argues that:

It has been demonstrated that processing at Rockbeare is not physically possible due to a lack of silt space and clean water storage, insufficient stocking and processing area and the presence of great crested newts in existing ponds. 8.37

why should Rockbeare continue to be a suitable and sustainable location for asphalt processing? Why should the community permanently forgo the "satisfactory restoration in the interests of visual amenity"? 

Is this just the sort of thing that would happen at Straitgate? Moving restoration goalposts? Breaches of planning conditions? As usual, AI wants to have its cake, and eat it too. This planning application DCC/3867/2016 was validated on 24 May, but is open for comments until 7 July.

Habitats Regulations Assessment - AI supplies another report on nutrients

As a Natura 2000 site, the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths are protected under the Habitats Directive, transposed in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010; a Habitats Regulations Assessment is required for any proposal that could affect it. Western Power, for example, had to go to the lengths detailed in this report to underground 1600m of power lines across Aylesbeare Common.

With respect to Aggregate Industries' planning application to process material from Hillhead at Blackhill, Natural England wrote in its previous objection to DCC:

...there is currently not enough information to determine whether the likelihood of significant effects can be ruled out. We recommend you obtain the following information or consider the following to help undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment:

1) The potential implications the raised PH levels of the imported material may have on the sensitive habitats of the adjoining designated site. Particularly the impacts of long term leaching from the solid material with a higher PH that is proposed to fill the settlement lagoons.

2) The long term impact of filling the settlement lagoons with imported material with a high phosphorus content and the risk of continued leaching of Phosphorous into the designated site overtime.

As Natural England pointed out (and who by now is surprised by such glaring omissions?):

[AI's Technical Note] makes no reference to the potential long term impact of importing solid material with high Phosphorous levels and leaving it in the ground so close to these sensitive habitats where it will have the potential to leach into the designated site over many years.

AI has just supplied another Technical Note, and Natural England will be consulted again. If enough information has now been provided, a Habitats Regulations Assessment would go something like this:

Note the "Not sure" outcome; note the "If there is any doubt about adverse effects on site integrity, the proposal will fail this test"; note the "Conclusions must be made on the basis of there being no reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of adverse effects".

Where it cannot be demonstrated beyond doubt that there would be no adverse effects, a proposal could only proceed if i) there are no alternative options, and ii) there are "imperative reasons of overriding public interest", and iii) there are ecologically viable compensatory measures "to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected".

AI would have difficulty meeting any of those, let alone all three; it is not an insignificant hurdle that the company now faces to continue processing at Blackhill.

‘We care about the climate’

...claims Aggregate Industries' parent LafargeHolcim.

We are on track to reduce net specific CO2 emissions by 40% in 2030 vs 1990. Learn more about our climate targets: https://t.co/ABUYjZU0BV

— LafargeHolcim (@LafargeHolcim) June 13, 2016

But if LafargeHolcim cared about the climate... why do AI's haulage plans for Devon look like this?

If LafargeHolcim cared about the climate... why does AI propose hauling as-dug material 1.2 million miles for Straitgate and 185,000 miles for Hillhead? If LafargeHolcim cared about the climate... why are AI's CO2 emissions going up not down?

Did you know cement sector emits more CO2 than Japan or Canada? https://t.co/qe5n97E374 #InvestorAction pic.twitter.com/471RoQdoaB

— CDP (@CDP) June 15, 2016

East Devon Pebblebed Heaths - Providing Space for Nature - Biodiversity Audit 2016

The full scale of biodiversity to be found within the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SSSI has been documented for the first time. Over 3,000 species are listed in a new publication from the Pebblebed Heaths Conservation Trust.

The objective of this study was to collate data on the biodiversity of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), in order to increase understanding of the species it supports and their conservation status. The wildlife value of the Heaths has long been recognised, but there is a need to be able to quantify and articulate more precisely what this value is. This is essential in securing support for the Heaths in the long term, and provides the necessary baseline evidence to improve conservation management decisions.

‘Phosphorus is the biggest cause of water quality degradation worldwide’

...causing 'dead zones', toxic algal blooms, a loss of biodiversity and increased health risks for the plants, animals and humans that come in contact with polluted waters. This threatens the loss of economic and social benefits from freshwaters upon which society relies...

warns a recent article on "Cleaning up decades of phosphorus pollution in lakes".

It's why the approved restoration scheme for Aggregate Industries' Blackhill Quarry says:

...all soils will be tested for pH and nutrient content to ensure they are suitable for heathland restoration i.e. phosphorous is less than 10mg/kg and that the pH is between 3 and 5 3.6.1

Phosphorus acts as a plant nutrient. Blackhill abuts a Natura 2000 site, a protected European wildlife area on Woodbury Common. Natural England has already warned AI:

This habitat is more sensitive than any other wetland habitats and is very sensitive to any nutrient change.

After all, the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths, which "represents one of the most important conservation sites in Europe", have been battling against nutrients for years.

And yet, despite material from Houndaller having phosphorous levels up to 17x the level required, amazingly AI has still not given up on its madcap planning application to process Hillhead material at Blackhill - each round trip 52.8 miles - according to last week's Extension of Time letter:

It is hoped this will allow sufficient time for Natural England to be consulted on the additional information to be provided.

Quite what additional information AI can concoct to persuade Natural England that environmentally it’s a good idea to import tens of thousands of tonnes of material from agricultural land at Houndaller - potentially hundreds of thousands from Straitgate - (land that's nutrient-rich, high-yielding, good for growing grass for dairy farming) to "a heathland area which requires negligible or preferably no nutrients" (when these nutrients can leach into groundwater for decades) remains to be seen.

But it’s not rocket science:

Even modest increases in #groundwater pollution can cause extermination of some species- @iahgroundwater https://t.co/8tLf2kTOjX

— Securing Water (@securingwater) June 9, 2016

So, since we're persistently being told how much @AggregateUK cares for wildlife and the environment, it's about time the company walked the walk - right out of Blackhill.

Blackhill Quarry tour for @RSPBSouthWest #heathweek reveals a flourishing habitat for #wildlife pic.twitter.com/5vBpTkNHzJ

— Aggregate Industries (@AggregateUK) July 31, 2015

Remember the years of delays

...in the preparation of the Minerals Plan, whilst DCC waited subserviently for Aggregate Industries to prove it could quarry Straitgate Farm without wrecking drinking water supplies for more than 100 people? This is how DCC summed it up for the Examination, in document CS06:

1.6 The County Council subsequently undertook extensive discussions with the mineral operator, the Environment Agency and Natural England to address the potential impacts of the working of the western part of Straitgate Farm on groundwater and surface water and consequent effects on water-sensitive habitats and water supplies. The key outputs of this dialogue are provided in PD61, leading to the Environment Agency’s statement that they "are now satisfied with the information submitted with regard to the allocation of this site and have no objections to the inclusion of the Straitgate site from the minerals plan". A key outcome of these discussions was clarification that sand and gravel extraction within the site would be through dry working only with retention of an unsaturated layer of one metre above the maximum water table, resulting in further reduction of the potential reserve to 1.2 million tonnes.

However, AI confirmed in its planning application that "...excavating to a level 1m above the highest winter water table level would reduce the saleable tonnage by approximately 300,000 tonnes" 8.77; in other words, leaving only 900,000 tonnes.

Nevertheless, at the Examination hearings, DCC argued blindly that the resource should still be identified as "Up to 1.2 million tonnes", even though AI’s resource statement confirmed that this amount could ONLY be achieved by quarrying right down to the maximum winter water table.

In so doing, the Council has plainly ignored the key outcome identified above, the one that allowed the EA to say that they have no objections to the inclusion of the Straitgate site from the minerals plan.

For those concerned about their drinking water, the Inspector has since recognised the issue:

I agree that there is a potential anomaly in the wording of the Plan. I shall be asking the County Council if they intend to address this point when the main modifications are formally published for consultation.

Another month passes

...and still no sign of Aggregate Industries' revised planning applications for Straitgate and Blackhill, the ones to replace those withdrawn 3 months ago, the ones due at the end of March "for essentially the same development".

Why the delay? Is it the Natural England response to the Blackhill/Houndaller application? Is it the safety audit and DCC Highways' comments on AI's new access proposals at Straitgate? Is it a reality-check after the Minerals Plan Examination Hearing? Is it that the project, as it stands, makes no sense at all for less than 900,000 tonnes?

Who knows? What we do know is that nothing is likely to come in front of the Development Management Committee before the autumn.

And what about that planning application to transport material from Houndaller (Hillhead) to Blackhill, the one Natural England objected to, the one AI said "We intend to provide a response to NE with a view to making June’s Planning Committee following reconsultation"?

Well, that application looks to have slipped again too.

‘Cadhay's house and gardens are a Devon destination’

Listed by Country Life as ‘one of the top ten manor houses in the country’, Cadhay is a splendid manor built in 1550...

The mediaeval fish ponds at Grade I Cadhay form part of the setting of the house, and are listed in their own right. For many hundreds of years, they have relied on ONE water source - originating at Straitgate.

Is it any wonder then that local people are worried by Aggregate Industries' reckless 'seasonal working' scheme, a scheme that would see giant excavators tear right down to the water table - as the company outlined in its recent resource statement, particularly when its hydrogeological specialists can't say with any certainty where the maximum water table lies?

Latest news on the Dorset and East Devon National Park proposal

...can be found here and here.

Aggregate Industries' plans for Straitgate Farm rely on using an area within this proposed National Park boundary - specifically the continued processing of sand and gravel at Blackhill, putting hundreds of polluting HGV movements each day across Woodbury Common, postponing the restoration of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths for another 5 years.

Of course, if the Dorset and East Devon National Park ever happens, the East Devon AONB would be put beyond the clutches of DCC's Minerals Planning, in line with the National Parks of Dartmoor and Exmoor.

Dorset & East Devon National Park Team

Natural England is now blogging

Natural England has launched a new blog to give readers insight into its work. Whether it’s opening up a stretch of the England Coast Path, protecting pollinators, or conducting research on the dormouse, Natural England helps to protect England’s nature and landscapes for people to enjoy...

Natural England's blog can be found here.

In the news

The latest article from the Sidmouth Herald.

What happened at the Examination?

The Examination of the Devon Minerals plan was adjourned today, after four days of hearings. An eight week consultation on modifications will begin in August; the Inspector will consider responses and produce his report by the end of October.

DCC and Aggregate Industries faced a number of difficult questions from the Inspector in relation to Straitgate. The Inspector learnt that despite Straitgate being one of DCC's Preferred Areas for future sand and gravel quarrying, despite the site being championed by the Council since 2012, despite consultations, discussions, reports and planning applications - we still don’t know how the site will be accessed or how the material will be processed. Fundamental unanswered questions. A Preferred Area is meant to be:

areas of known resources where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated

The draft Devon Minerals Plan puts forward two such areas. Even on the first day of the Hearing, in relation to over-provision of resource, the Inspector said:

I suppose the question is, do you need two Preferred Areas?

On the second day, questions started on Straitgate. On access, AI confirmed that it had no rights over the northern part of the site, leaving the only possible access on the southern side. The Inspector read out to AI what the company had previously said in its planning application to quarry Straitgate:

The southern option, onto the B3174, was dismissed early in the process on highway safety grounds. It would have been too close to existing accesses, including the access to Straitgate Farmhouse, and the vertical alignment of the highway at this point would compromise visibility. 5.44

Despite having had six months to sort this out, AI said it was still 're-assessing' this option; the option where the recent safety audit indicated that HGVs could only turn left - not right, where they would need to go; the option where only this week a DCC Highways Officer said "nothing has been resolved nor even tentatively agreed".

The Inspector moved on to processing. Having first ruled out Whiteball in Somerset, the Inspector read out to AI what the company had previously said in its planning application to quarry Straitgate:

It has been demonstrated that processing at Rockbeare is not physically possible due to a lack of silt space and clean water storage, insufficient stocking and processing area and the presence of great crested newts in existing ponds. 8.37

The Inspector wanted to know if AI had ruled out Rockbeare. AI wouldn't go that far, but did confirm that 'a detailed assessment had ruled it out as a viable option'. So, if not Rockbeare, what about Blackhill?

The Inspector read out to AI the objection from Natural England in response to the recent Blackhill/ Houndaller application; an application to process a fraction of the amount of nitrate-rich soils that would come from Straitgate:

At the current time, Natural England does not concur with the applicants view that the importation of the proposed material will not have an adverse effect on the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths SSSI/SAC for the following reasons... The unit of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths adjacent to Blackhill Quarry contains sensitive wetland habitats including areas of M14 - Schoenus nigricans-Narthecium ossifragum mire which is dependent on low nutrient status. This habitat is more sensitive than any other wetland habitats and is very sensitive to any nutrient change...

AI said it was working on a response. DCC said it was not putting Blackhill forward as a processing site in the Minerals Plan, relying on the phrase:

Proposals for the off-site processing of extracted materials should be located outside of the AONB unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.

Which is all well and good, but where does DCC think the material will be processed?

The Inspector also raised questions on the risk of birdstrike, soil storage, B3180, hydrogeology, ancient woodland, archaeology, hedgerows and dormice, heritage, visual impact on AONB, flooding and tourism.

A further question addressed the amount of resource, and this issue was also considered at the hearing today. Earlier on in the proceedings, it was made clear that AI had dropped the 460,000 tonnes of overburden from its plans; an issue we had raised last year.

On the remaining resource, only last month DCC had advised:

Given that Aggregate Industries has stated the quantity by which their original resource figure would be reduced by compliance with the requirements of Table C.4 of the Plan, I consider that it would improve clarity of the Plan if the currently-modified reference to "Up to 1.2 million tonnes" be replaced by "Approximately 0.9 million tonnes".

This was in line with the EA's position:

In addition, although it was our understanding that the minerals development at Straitgate would entail above max water table working, we note that the operator is now proposing an operation that does not conform to the requirements of this policy or the mitigation proposed in Appendix C.

DCC has now backtracked on its statement, relying on the number in AI’s hastily produced resource statement, which "assumes a working base that coincides with… the maximum recorded winter water table" - not 1m above it - and the Council persists with the notion that Straitgate could provide "Up to 1.2 million tonnes"; a ridiculous show of faith when you consider how many times AI has revised that number. The dry working scheme sanctioned by the EA - see post below - could only produce 900,000 tonnes, according to AI’s own Regulation 22 response, and this point was made to the Inspector.

To safeguard private water supplies, the Inspector recommended more consistent wording in the main body of the Plan to reflect the wording in Appendix C.4:

The development of this site will only involve dry working, above the maximum winter (wet) level of groundwater with an unsaturated zone of at least 1m maintained across the site.

In summary, the Inspector was left not knowing how processing of any material from Straitgate would take place nor how access to the site might be safely achieved; a ludicrous situation for a Preferred Area; a ludicrous situation when you consider how long DCC and AI have had to prepare for this.

AI may claim 1.2 million tonnes, but...

With AI claiming a resource of 1.2 million tonnes at Straitgate, the resource that "assumes a working base that coincides with, and never drops below the maximum recorded winter water table", the resource backed up by all those references to PERC, one would have assumed that AI must have had a nod from the Environment Agency - that working down to the maximum recorded winter water table would be acceptable - because the last thing the EA publicly said on the matter was rather different.

It makes a difference, because 1m across an extraction area of 25.6ha equates to 410,000* tonnes net.

It makes a difference, because over 100 people rely on the area for their drinking water.

But guess what? Since the EA said that AI must stop quarrying 1m above the water table, since the 7 suits meeting in November, since AI’s minutes that claimed everybody else was at fault, since Amec's scope of additional work, since the drainage tests in February, no agreement has been either sought or secured by AI from the EA.

In fact, according to the EA, since the 7 suits meeting, there has been no communication with AI of any sort, and certainly no "Technical Note to summarise the whole hydrological position" 4.3. Nothing in fact to allow AI’s PERC-backed resource statement to assume "a working base that coincides with, and never drops below the maximum recorded winter water table"; it's all just wishful thinking.

Some might find the lack of dialogue with the EA strange. It's an issue that is central to the whole proposal, for a company that up until a few months ago was very much in a rush, for a company seemingly without a Plan B, for a company whose planning permission for processing at Blackhill on Woodbury Common expires in little more than 6 months time.

*(25.6ha x 10,000m2 x 1m x 2tonnes/m3 x 80% to exclude waste)

Minerals Plan Examination this week; Straitgate to be discussed 2pm Wednesday

A reminder that the Devon Minerals Plan Examination hearings starts on Tuesday; the Agenda can be found here. As DCC's press release makes clear, all are welcome to attend and observe proceedings:

A government inspector, Mr Andrew Freeman, will conduct the hearings to establish the soundness of the Minerals Plan. Participation in the hearings is limited to people that responded to last year’s consultation and have already requested to take part, although any person can attend to observe the hearings.

Various newspapers are following events; this is how we summed up the Straitgate situation for the Western Morning News article that appeared last week:

Destroying a productive and historic East Devon farm for the sake of 900,000 tonnes of sand and gravel makes no sense at all. There’s less than 3 years’ worth of material, which is trivial for a Minerals Plan that runs until 2033. There’s nowhere to process the material other than Aggregate Industries' existing plant, 8 miles away on Woodbury Common in the East Devon AONB; permission for this plant expires at the end of 2016, and Natural England has already objected to the importation of nitrate-rich agricultural soils to this protected area. What’s more, groundwater from Straitgate supplies wetland habitats in ancient woodland and over 100 people with their drinking water. We've made representations in the hope that, where Devon County Council has been unable to see sense, the Inspector will.

DCC

For all those who knew Brontë...

Our wonderful Leonberger passed away suddenly yesterday and will be sorely missed.

B3180 - one of the most dangerous B roads in Devon

Local people already know about the dangers of the B3180, and why this road should not be used by Aggregate Industries to haul as-dug sand and gravel from Straitgate Farm to Blackhill for processing - up to 200 HGV movements a day for 5 years. There's plenty of photo and video evidence too.

The dangers of the B3180 are also recognised in the DCC 2014 Road Safety Statistics Year End Report, that ranks Devon's B roads from the most to the least dangerous using 5 years of accident data.

AI's claim that "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 is patently absurd when you consider that the stretch southwards from the Halfway Inn is ranked the 4th most dangerous B road in Devon.

The rest of the stretch that AI wants to use is not much better: the B3180 from the Halfway Inn to Daisymount is 32nd most dangerous; the B3174 from Daisymount to Ottery St Mary, now AI’s only route out of Straitgate, and scene of an HGV crash only last month, is ranked 26th most dangerous.

No doubt AI will consider those routes suitable too; AI’s take on reality is different from the rest of us.

Local feelings run high

One of the comments we received in response to last week’s post, Finally, in writing, how AI thinks it can wrestle 1.2 million tonnes from Straitgate, clearly and eloquently sums up what many local people think about Aggregate Industries' reckless scheme:

Who would ever believe an outfit as shabby and slapdash as AI could possibly follow the provisions they say they would in respect of the water table. Good grief I wouldn't trust them to dig my veg patch let alone a hydrologically sensitive part of our local enviroment. Can you imagine it? Unless they plan to excavate using hundreds of people each with a piezometer and a dessert spoon, they stand no chance in a million years of fulfilling this pledge.

PERC

Anyone reading Aggregate Industries’ hurriedly rushed-out resource statement for the Minerals Plan Examination might be forgiven for wondering why so many references to PERC (Pan-European Reserves & Resources Reporting Committee) were needed to back up a simple estimate of sand and gravel buried under an East Devon Farm.

Was it an attempt at assurance, because so many of AI’s facts and figures have fallen down on scrutiny in the past? Was it to impress the Inspector?

Since this acronym has now been thrown into the ring, others might want to learn what PERC is all about:

PERC is the organisation responsible for setting standards for public reporting of exploration results, mineral resources, and mineral reserves by companies listed on markets in Europe.

LafargeHolcim, AI’s parent company, is indeed listed on markets in Europe. The PERC Reporting Standard "sets out minimum standards". As AI has made clear to us before, with regard to the public reporting of mineral resources:

the responsibility of Competent Persons towards the Public overrides all other specific responsibilities including responsibility to professional, sectional, or private interests or to other Competent Persons. p.52

The PERC Reporting Standard provides a checklist of factors that should be taken into account when estimating and reporting on mineral resources, factors such as:

Any potential impediments to mining such as land access, environmental or legal permitting. p.46

In other words, the sort of impediments that AI overlooked in its planning application for an optimistic and impossibly precise "saleable quantity of 1,659,780 tonnes of sand and gravel", the planning application that was later withdrawn because the company had no legal rights for access or soil storage over third party land.

And given that DCC, the permitting authority, has now - based on AI’s figures - revised the resource down to 900,000 tonnes in its draft Minerals Plan to reflect environmental factors, i.e. the "retention of a one metre unsaturated zone above the winter water table, as required in Table C.4 of the Plan", it’s not quite clear how AI can claim that "during resource calculation the principles of the PERC Standard 2013 were rigorously applied", whilst at the same time claiming that resources "currently amount to 1.2 million saleable tonnes".

Finally, in writing, how AI thinks it can wrestle 1.2 million tonnes from Straitgate

Earlier this month, we wrote how DCC belatedly revised the Straitgate resource figure down to 900,000 tonnes for the Minerals Plan, to reflect the "retention of a one metre unsaturated zone above the winter water table, as required in Table C.4 of the Plan".

Now - almost 12 months since Aggregate Industries first applied for planning permission to quarry Straitgate Farm and less than 2 weeks before the Examination - the company has finally put in writing - for the Minerals Plan - exactly how it hopes to win 1.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel from the site.

People will remember how persistently evasive AI has been on this point. At the time of the application, we said it was clear that AI wants to quarry down to the water table - of the aquifer that supplies 106 people. We wrote to the Environment Agency, and posted Clarification from the EA that said:

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

The same day, in email correspondence with DCC, AI claimed:

a 1metre depth of unsaturated zone will be retained above the winter water table as per AMEC's technical note

the calculation of the 1.2Mt reserve was modelled to a surface 1metre above the highest winter water table

By the end of October, however, matters were still unclear, and DCC warned AI that:

Given the importance of this point, to you as the proposed operator, and evidently to the MPA and the EA who were both of the understanding that you had agreed to this restriction. I am now asking you to clarify in writing whether you are intending to work to the proposed levels set out in the Amec technical Note to the Policy Team and the EA (and on which their recommendation was clearly based) or whether you wish for the MPA to consider your proposal as working to the highest measured level of the winter water table without the 1m standoff. You will understand the importance of this point and the need for absolute clarity in your response as it has serious implications for the further progress of this application.

In December, we revealed what AI’s idea of a 1m standoff really was, and that the amount of sand and gravel the company intended to leave as an unquarried buffer above the maximum water table to safeguard private water supplies was nothing.

Now, 6 months later, AI has finally confirmed as much in writing:

The resource declared assumes a working base that coincides with, and never drops below the maximum recorded winter water table modelled by hydrogeological specialists AMEC Foster Wheeler following extensive monitoring and analysis since January 2013. However these levels will only be progressed during summer months when the water table is at least 1m below the said modelled surface thus maintaining a minimum 1m buffer zone. Prior to winter water table rebound, relevant levels in the quarry floor will be restored using overburden to at least 1m above the said modelled surface, again always maintaining a minimum 1m buffer zone.

It's a particularly reckless idea given the number of people who rely on Straitgate for their drinking water, given that the maximum recorded winter water table modelled by hydrogeological specialists was deduced across an area of some 60 acres from just 6 data points, despite "the acknowledged variations across the site and the concern that there has been no piezometer installed at the centre of the site". In January, we asked DCC:

Since AI now intends to dig right down to the maximum water table, perhaps you could ask Amec to confirm the specific level of accuracy (in +/- m) to which their maximum groundwater contours are mapped?

DCC did indeed ask AI/Amec for an answer. Tellingly, none has been forthcoming.

What’s also telling is that there’s no longer any talk of the 460,000 tonnes of saleable resource that AI claimed could be rescued from the overburden. AI says:

Resources were re-calculated accordingly and currently amount to 1.2 million saleable tonnes. "Resources are classified as Measured Resource according to PERC Standard 2013". Calculations have been undertaken by Chartered Geologists.

Not many months ago, the very same Chartered Geologists gave an altogether different statement:

Miscellaneous

1. Devon village concern over damage to property from blasting at tungsten mine

‘It was surprising,’ he said. ‘They came down to talk to the village, and we thought they’d strike a conciliatory tone. But instead they just turned up with the message, “you’ve bought a home near a mine – now get used to it!”’

2. The fitness of EU nature laws

It’s not rocket science... the effective conservation of the species and habitats protected by the Nature Directives relies first and foremost on the proper implementation of these laws... that the impacts of proposed developments are properly assessed.

3. Homes consent lost after habitat mitigation ruling

An East Sussex council has won a legal challenge to an inspector's decision to allow 103 homes after the High Court agreed that mitigation measures to reduce the scheme's impact on protected heathland could be inadequate.The site lay in the High Weald AONB and within seven kilometres of the Ashdown Forest special area of conservation (SAC) and special protection area (SPA). The main issue focused on whether it was possible to exclude the risk of likely significant effects on the SAC from nitrogen deposition caused by vehicle emissions from the development and, as the council argued, cumulatively with other development along the A26 road...

4. CEMEX appoints specialist PR consultancy to manage scheme's community engagement

Residents have a right to expect that when recovery of minerals takes place, extraction should seek to be in harmony with infrastructure improvements and development in the area, it should minimise impact on local residents, and it should make enhancements to biodiversity on the land when the recovery is complete. CEMEX is committed to this approach. CEMEX believes residents deserve respect and have appointed SP Broadway to assist with community engagement.

5. Aggregate Industries fined for repeated emission violations in the US... and in the UK

6. Asphalt trial using 50% recycled aggregate 'could transform how UK roads are maintained'

[FM Conway's] efforts have enabled it to reduce the virgin aggregates and bitumen it uses in asphalt production by over 200,000 tonnes per year and divert construction waste from landfill. The initiative was launched to tackle the challenges thrown up by the geological scarcity of high polished stone value (PSV) aggregates.

7. It's not just in Ottery... Tipper truck hits house in Somerset

More changes to the Minerals Plan

With the Examination hearings just two weeks away, modifications are coming out of DCC thick and fast, too many surely for anyone other than the Minerals Officer to keep track of; the Examination Library came out in February and is at Version 7 before the hearing has even started.

Devon’s new Minerals Plan has been in preparation on and off since 2007, the same year that workshops recognised how safeguarding all mineral resources that might have any future value "maximises the area potentially affected by planning blight".

Nevertheless, DCC, in its wisdom, decided to maximise the planning blight in the draft Minerals Plan by 'safeguarding' the full extent of the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds, with exclusions outlined in Minerals Topic Paper 2 5.4.4, "in recognition of the importance of the resource". We have written about 'Mineral Safeguarding' before: How Devon’s new Minerals Plan could blight thousands of homes across the county and Is this really the best way to 'safeguard' minerals?; in our response to the pre-submission consultation we argued that:

The Plan intends to designate Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas widely across the County, 'safeguarding' all sorts of uneconomic, unrecoverable, unviable deposits, blighting the homes of thousands of people

Mineral Safeguarding is one of the latest modifications, MM43 in the Schedule of Potential Main Modifications Third Draft. Following questions from the Inspector, DCC now concedes:

It is apparent from review of the resulting MSAs that there are anomalies and inconsistencies arising from differing approaches to settlement boundary definition, while some of the resource blocks are of an area or outline that would be unfeasible for economic extraction. 3.2

Of course, all this should have been obvious when the MSAs were first drawn up. But whilst a number of small areas have now been removed, Bicton for one and parts of Budleigh Salterton for another, many many anomalies remain. If the MSAs have been refined to remove those areas unfeasible for economic extraction, DCC must clearly think that the areas and settlements remaining are feasible; areas such as Woodbury Common & Castle, East Devon Golf Club, Woodbury Park Hotel Golf & Country Club, Bystock Pools Nature Reserve, Aylesbeare Common Nature Reserve; settlements such as Fairmile, Yettington, Coombelake, Taleford, parts of West Hill & Higher Metcombe, Larkbeare, parts of Feniton, Colestocks, Kerswell, parts of Kentisbeare, Smithincott, Yondercott, Appledore, Hawkerland.

It’s ludicrous just how many nonsensical areas have been 'safeguarded'; take a look at the Revised Draft Policies Map, the Alterations to Mineral Safeguarding Areas, and the online map - yet to be updated.