New borehole readings put base of planned quarry at Straitgate 1M BELOW WATER

Aggregate Industries faces more water trouble at Straitgate Farm, and potentially further delays.

Not only does the Environment Agency want further information from the company - see post below - but new boreholes drilled last year show that AI’s model of the maximum winter water table (MWWT) has failed before any quarrying has even started.

So much for all those assurances. In the latest Hydrogeological Assessment - the one that got whitewashed - AI’s consultants promised that:

Groundwater levels would be lower than this elevation for the vast majority of the time, with this level only being reached in extremely wet conditions. 4.2.17

Monitoring over the exceptionally wet winters of 2013 and 2014 allow this surface to be defined with confidence. 6.2.2


More recently, after the EA’s objection, the same consultants again pushed the idea that the MWWT:

builds in a conservatism 2.2.2

But it does no such thing. We’ve had a relatively dry few months in the South West. The most recent groundwater monitoring data for Straitgate Farm, up to and including 8 February 2018, confirms this:

In their objection last year, the EA advised AI:

The accuracy of the maximum winter water level grid may benefit from additional piezometers

A number of additional boreholes were duly drilled - see the 2017 locations on the map below.

The monitoring data from these boreholes show the groundwater level at PZ2017/02 and PZ2017/03 to have recently reached 134.62m and 138.06m respectively.

However, the MWWT at PZ2017/02 and PZ2017/03 has been modelled to 135m and 137m respectively.

In other words, the estimated - because that’s all it is - MWWT level around these points - the level that AI proposes to quarry down to - fails to even allow for normal rainfall, let alone maximum events.

In fact, the MWWT at PZ2017/03 has been modelled ONE METRE BELOW current levels.

PZ2017/03 is at the location of "Test Hole 4". Last year we posted about "Test Hole 4"; about how AI’s own report talked about "the closeness of the water table to ground level in this area". Borehole levels now confirm this - and expose the flaws in the troubled MWWT model; it was only last year that we posted about problems elsewhere too: that AI’s seasonal working scheme can't work as described.

So, what would these 2017 piezometers be telling us if the rainfall was as high as it was during the winter of 2013/14, which was 182% of the 1981-2010 average? How far below water would the MWWT guesstimate be then?

As the EA warned earlier this month - these events are happening with increasing regularity:

Met Office records show that since 1910 there have been 17 record breaking rainfall months or seasons – with 9 of them since 2000.

We’ve warned about all this numerous times before; click on the groundwater label.

The MWWT 'surface' - the base of the proposed quarry - was modelled from just 6 'maximum' water level points across the site. We’ve argued for a long time that this surface cannot be accurate. AI’s consultants have so far refused to confirm the level of accuracy (in +/- m) for this surface - see post below. This issue is especially important given the number of local people and businesses relying on the area for their drinking water and given that AI’s unorthodox seasonal scheme does not propose to leave a 1m buffer of unquarried material above the maximum water table to protect these supplies - the typical minimum requirement elsewhere where such supplies are at risk.

The base of any quarry as proposed is obviously too low, and allows nothing for a margin of safety.

There’s been a post on the right hand side of this blog for some time: The importance of leaving 1 metre...; it’s as relevant now as when it was written in 2015:

Leaving 1m unquarried above the maximum water table should be a precautionary given; 1m allows for a margin of error and a margin of safety, because the maximum water table is not known with accuracy; faulting across the site is not known with accuracy; excavators would not dig with accuracy; future climate is not known with accuracy; future land use pollutants are not known with accuracy.

EA requests further information – again

If Aggregate Industries thought it had the hydrogeology part of its planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm finally sown up it will be disappointed; the Environment Agency wants more answers.

Last October, the EA requested further information on a number of issues - one of which was:

A description of the tolerance levels and interpolation method used to produce the ‘Maximum Winter Water Table’ grid.

Whilst AI’s consultants were happy to talk about interpolation methods, they refused to tell the EA about tolerance levels. It was the same story two years ago, when we first asked DCC - who in turn asked AI, but never got an answer to - the question:

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?

Why is this question important? In the same post we wrote:

The MWWT is the surface that AI wants to quarry down to at Straitgate Farm. It would be the floor to any quarry. As AI does not intend to leave 1m unquarried above the MWWT to protect drinking water supplies - the typical requirement elsewhere - it is quite appropriate to ask what level of confidence AI or its consultants Amec have in this surface, and how this tolerance level has been derived. When essentially only 6 data points have been used to model this surface across almost 60 acres, the MWWT obviously cannot be exact. So, is it +/-1m, +/-2m or more? It's important to know because it could have a dramatic bearing on any working method employed.

It’s obviously not a question that AI or its consultants want to answer. But you only have to read the post above to see how inaccurate the MWWT model is already proving.

Last week the EA requested the information again, writing to DCC:

Straitgate Action Group has highlighted to us the incompleteness of the response provided by Aggregate Industries (via AMEC) to our letter of [9 October 2017] with regard to them providing a ‘description of tolerance levels’.

Section 2.1 of AMEC’s response makes no reference to tolerance levels, the relevance of tolerance levels, or the level of accuracy in the interpolated maximum winter water table (MWWT).

We recommend that a description of tolerance levels is therefore requested again from the applicant to support the planning application and to provide clarity in advance of the Planning Committee.

The EA also used the opportunity to raise this point:

We would also like to seek additional clarification on the infiltration tests carried out on the proposed backfill material. The report, ‘Aggregate Industries UK Ltd, Straitgate Farm hydrogeological assessment’ – AFW, December 2016, states that infiltration trials have shown the disturbed, proposed backfill material to have a similar infiltration capacity to the in-situ BSPB. However, the report, ‘Aggregate Industries UK Ltd, Straitgate Farm hydrogeology/drainage – Regulation 22 responses’, AFW, July 2017, Table 2.2, shows the disturbed overburden material to have a ‘much enhanced infiltration rate’. The applicant should clarify how the infiltration rate of the proposed backfill material compares to that of the in-situ material, and what effect the change between in-situ and disturbed overburden material might have on groundwater levels beneath the site.

Has Amec (Amec Foster Wheeler, AFW, now Wood) been found out? Telling one story to one party and a different story to a different party? The answer in 2016 was provided to satisfy concerns of the EA (4.1.3); the one in 2017 to satisfy concerns of the Lead Local Flood Authority after its objection (2.10).

AI’s unorthodox scheme proposes that the quarry base would be:

backfilled with at least a minimum of 1m of material derived from the upper uneconomic BSPB, in order to create an infiltration layer 4.1.3

Anyone worried that the future hydrological landscape for drinking water, wetland habitats in ancient woodland, or flooding in this part of the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds would be irreparably changed - as a result of undisturbed in-situ BSPB being replaced with backfilled and disturbed overburden material - is unlikely to find comfort in Table 2.2, the table referred to by the EA in the point above.

Because much enhanced infiltration rates might not only affect groundwater levels, as alluded to by the EA, but also the speed at which future pollutants - from farming or whatever - would reach drinking water supplies. As Dr Rutter's report made clear:

the restored soil (and possibly overburden) will not have the same structure as the original, and will have less capacity to attenuate any contaminants infiltrating from the surface

Plainly AI and its consultants have some explaining to do.

SW homeowners warned ‘intense bouts of flooding to become more frequent’

Ottery St Mary has a long history of flood events. Straitgate Farm sits on a hill above the town; four watercourses emanate from it. Removing a million tonnes of sand and gravel from this hilltop site is bound to affect the hydrology and surrounding flood risk. Local people have warned DCC, and so have we; click on the flooding label.

Aggregate Industries’ consultants have previously made their own warnings too:

In removing a proportion of the unsaturated zone including the soil layer there will be a reduction in the storage capacity/buffering and so recharge may move more quickly through the unsaturated zone. The extent to which this makes the groundwater hydrograph more "flashier" would be difficult to quantify with a high degree of certainty… Within the proposed development the establishment of a 1m freeboard over and above the highest known water level provides for this eventuality. 3

Unfortunately, and as we wrote last year:

AI’s unorthodox seasonal working scheme does NOT propose to leave "a 1m freeboard over and above the highest known water level". Obviously we can now assume, by inference, that a flashier groundwater hydrograph has NOT been provided for.

Homeowners in the South West are being warned that intense bouts of flooding are set to become more frequent. The Environment Agency launched a Flood Action Campaign last week. EA chief executive Sir James Bevan warned:

Climate change is likely to mean more frequent and intense flooding.

Floods destroy – lives, livelihoods, and property. Our flood defences reduce the risk of flooding, and our flood warnings help keep communities safe when it threatens.

But we can never entirely eliminate the risk of flooding. Checking your flood risk is the first step to protecting yourself, your loved ones and your home.

DCC advised last week that funding is still available to improve a community’s flood resilience.

Last year, DCC, in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority, still objected to AI’s scheme at Straitgate Farm - despite the company having had many years to get its water act together:

At this stage, we object to this planning application because we do not believe that it satisfactorily conforms to Policy MP24 (Flooding) of Devon County Council's Minerals Plan (2011-2031) which states that proposals for mineral development must not lead to an increased risk of fluvial, surface water or groundwater flooding. The applicant will therefore be required to submit additional information in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the proposed surface water drainage management system have been considered.

AI’s consultants responded:

Any catchment is at risk of flooding associated with a rare, high-magnitude event, whether a natural catchment, or a designed drainage system. These rare events exceed local infiltration/storage capacities and result in concentrated downslope runoff. The proposed infiltration areas at the Straitgate Quarry [sic] have been designed to meet national guidance on design events (1 in 100 year with climate change). However, any bunds that may act to retain water also need to be safely designed to safely pass forward flows from these rare, high-magnitude events as would happen if the rare high-magnitude event occurred over the baseline catchment. 2.18.5

Is this enough? The EA's warning last week:

...follows a pattern of severe flooding over the past 10 years linked to an increase in extreme weather events as the country’s climate changes. Met Office records show that since 1910 there have been 17 record breaking rainfall months or seasons – with 9 of them since 2000.

The threat of flooding is real and increasing – as is also demonstrated by its listing as one of the nation’s major threats.

Last year, the Met Office published new innovative research which found that for England and Wales there is a 1 in 3 chance of a new monthly rainfall record in at least one region each winter.

UK bird strikes rise by a third in 5 years, reports CAA

The Jersey Evening Post reports "geese culled to reduce bird-strike risk to planes" and says:

According to a CAA report, between 2012 and 2016 the number of confirmed bird strikes in the UK rose from 1,380 to 1,835. The number of near misses also increased from 157 to 268.

Is it any wonder - if Exeter AIrport’s response to Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm is anything to go by? Exeter Airport has not objected to the ponding and wet grasslands that would attract birds and be left in perpetuity less than 200m directly below its landing approach.

Flybe operates out of Exeter Airport. In 2014, a Flybe plane taking off from Guernsey Airport collided with a bird - and was left to fly on with just one engine. Flybe has been involved in a number of other birdstrike incidents, including an emergency situation at Cardiff Airport in September.

In relation to Straitgate Farm, Matt Roach, Managing Director of Exeter Airport, wrote in December:

We are satisfied that the proposal which includes the site wildlife hazard management plan addresses the habitat for the life of the scheme and in the aftercare period (i.e. back to agricultural land) once the quarrying operation is complete. For the avoidance of doubt, one of our conditions was that the site will not have any new permanent bodies of water and furthermore we have corresponded with DCC in relation to this matter. The responsibility for bird management on the site remains with the site operator (not the airport) who must adhere to any conditions imposed. Having taken specialist advice Exeter Airport has no safeguarding concerns provided that the conditions they have submitted are agreed to and implemented. However, if the planning authority approves the application without including the conditions requested by the airport, then the airport has the right to engage the CAA to request that the application be called-in for determination by the Secretary of State.

I agree that aviation safety is paramount and Exeter Airport’s requested conditions are intended to minimise the potential impact from birds.

Exeter Airport is clinging on to the expectation that Straitgate would be left with no new permanent bodies of water - but nearby Venn Ottery Quarry was meant to be worked dry too and see how that turned out.

And on the subject of geese, this was AI’s other nearby quarry last year.

What is AI’s bottom line, because it surely can’t be profit?

Not long ago we posted that if Aggregate Industries’ resource at Straitgate Farm was equivalent to cows, it would be left with just 2 - having started with 33. Thank goodness AI leaves the farming to others.

Back in 2015 we wrote Straitgate has already been a disaster for AI. Now, AI is left with just 6% of the figure first estimated in the 1960s, and plans to extract sand and gravel from just 6 fields - but still decimating a successful dairy farm in the process.

Let's see what that shrinkage looks like in visual terms. This was the plan in 1967:

This is how the plans have changed over recent years:

And this is where we stand in 2018:

So, what is AI’s bottom line? Because it surely can’t be profit. Even if AI won planning permission - after extensive application costs - it would still have to stump up further big slugs of money:

Extensive Roman and Iron Age archaeological investigations;
Birdcage Lane 'improvements', including a bus stop for children waiting for school transport, and pedestrian provision;

Fit-for-purpose farm tracks and gates across the site around quarry workings;

Further tree planting;

Moving power lines across the site;

Cost of a 46 mile round trip for each load of as-dug material;

Provisions for mishaps / loss of water supplies to 100 people and businesses / under-recovery or over-estimation of material etc.

And all this over and above the standard outgoings for site access, tarmac haul road, wheel wash, bunding, soil mounds, restoration earth works etc.

Anyone would think AI was prospecting for gold, not sand and gravel. Or is it only concerned with what it could sell the site for afterwards? An industrial estate perhaps - if Blackhill (below) is anything to go by?

Objections mount for CDE’s planning application for Blackhill Quarry

Aggregate Industries’ permission to process material at Blackhill Quarry on Woodbury Common came to an end in 2016, and the plant is now in the process of being taken down to be re-erected at Hillhead Quarry near Uffculme.

It was widely hoped that this area at Blackhill would be restored, but landowner Clinton Devon Estates made an outline planning application late last year for 35,000 sq ft of industrial units - referred to in the post Why does quarrying have such a bad name? Take a look at Blackhill

Objections to this application in the East Devon AONB are mounting up, and the issue has been covered in the local press:

Woodbury business park expansion would be ‘morally and ecologically wrong’

Plans for Blackhill Engineering expansion submitted

DCC raised no objection to the proposal, but interestingly the Devon Stone Federation did:

This planning application has been drawn to my attention by the Minerals Officer of Devon County Council… Devon Stone Federation objects on the basis that the proposal would sterilise an important underlying mineral.

Sterilisation is a rather bizarre reason - given that the mineral operator is now moving away from the site and dismantling its plant, and given that modification orders to restrict further mineral extraction were served back in 1999 when the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths were designated nature conservation areas of European importance.

But hey, an objection is an objection and should be welcomed, particularly considering what had been intended for this area.

The plan agreed with DCC states that for the processing area, Area 12:

It is anticipated that an alternative use for Area 12 will be sought by the landowner, perhaps a recreational or leisure use which will benefit from the existing hardstanding, office building and workshop to alleviate pressure on the SSSI. It is acknowledged that a planning permission for an alternative use will need to be sought from the Local Planning Authority. Should planning permission not be forthcoming then the office building and workshop will be demolished and removed from site. In addition, the existing hardstanding would be dug up and recycled for potential use on estate roads. The area will then be restored in line with the site restoration principals as agreed by the Quarry Restoration Group at the time. 


Only a select few - landowners, mineral companies, county councils or the like - would have imagined that plans for "a recreational or leisure use… to alleviate pressure on the SSSI" could mean an industrial estate. Objections to planning application 17/3022/MOUT can still be made here.

CEMEX turns 50 disused quarries into wildlife habitats

Whilst plans are afoot to renege upon the restoration promises at Aggregate Industries' Blackhill Quarry, CEMEX in conjunction with the RSPB has some better news:

A conservation project to turn 50 quarries into nature reserves by 2020 has been completed two years early and is already saving endangered species, like the turtle dove.

In 2010 the RSPB and CEMEX set an ambitious goal of restoring 1,000 hectares of land over a decade and in less than eight years we have met that target.

Working in partnership with CEMEX we have shown how land can be transformed from being an active quarry into a vibrant home for wildlife and we hope that our experience inspires others to play their part in restoring nature.

AI pins hopes on AI

Earlier this month we posted about artificial intelligence, how "AI has been all over the news recently".

Imagine our surprise when just a few days later Aggregate Industries launched its "2018 Innovation Strategy, with key focusses including robotics and artificial intelligence amongst others."

Uncanny.

AI delays yet again

Aggregate Industries just can’t get its act together at Straitgate Farm.

In November, we warned that there were More delays to come and last week AI duly agreed with DCC "to an extension of the determination date from 31st January 2018 to 30th April 2018."

What’s the chance of AI’s planning application being determined by then? AI claims:

at present [10 January] we are confident of meeting your timetable for the April committee

But AI has no idea; it’s just wishful thinking. Ever since AI first applied to quarry Straitgate Farm in June 2015 there has been one delay after another. As things stand, AI’s scheme is still undeliverable - for the reasons previously outlined on this blog. No weight can therefore be assigned to AI’s latest claim.

How long is DCC going to keep entertaining this charade? Because:

for the overall credibility of the planning system, extensions of time should really be the exception

- not, as in AI’s case, the norm.

Why does quarrying have such a bad name? Take a look at Blackhill

Quarrying is temporary, we’re told; land taken for quarrying will be restored back to nature or farmland, we’re told.

But how many times does that happen?

Look at what’s going on at nearby Blackhill Quarry. Surrounding communities have put up with quarrying for the best part of 80 years or more, with HGVs trundling back and forth through their villages, looking forward to the day when this industrial blot within the East Devon AONB might be restored.

Communities have fought tooth and nail to stop any further quarry development - including processing any material that might be won from Straitgate Farm.

But as soon as quarrying at Blackhill has finished, what do we find? Landowners Clinton Devon Estates submitting a planning application to EDDC just before Christmas for 35,000 sq ft of industrial units; AI’s traffic would be replaced by "around 134 two-way vehicular trips... across the day."

In the mind of the applicant, the prior industrial use has paved the way for more of the same:

The site currently benefits from an existing access road onto the B3180. As a result of the existing quarrying operations and also the adjacent industrial use, the access is able to accommodate HGV traffic. 2.4

Clinton Devon Estates makes reference to relevant planning policies in its documents, but conveniently overlooks point 116 of the NPPF which states:

Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances

Anybody who objects to the continued industrialisation of the AONB should make their feelings known to EDDC as soon as possible. The application can be accessed through this link, ref. 17/3022/MOUT.

EDIT 18.1.18 DCC as Mineral Planning Authority has now responded to the above application. You might have hoped that DCC would have objected, given that the site is within the AONB and adjacent to the SAC, given that AI’s plant area at Blackhill was "the subject of a legal agreement under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act which required the operator and landowners to implement a wider restoration and after care scheme...". But no. Legal agreement or otherwise, DCC says:

To clarify, Devon County Council as Mineral Planning Authority would not wish to raise any objection to the proposal so long as adequate compensatory habitat to replace the lost area of heathland is provided elsewhere and that this is secured by condition or legal agreement. In such a scenario it would not then be reasonable for the County Council to seek to enforce the provisions of the legal agreement insofar as they relate to this small parcel of land.

AI has been all over the news recently

In the past we’ve detailed the catalogue of fiction that AI has generated in relation to the planning application for Straitgate Farm.

We use the abbreviation AI hoping that readers know what we mean.

Perhaps we should be more careful. With so many stories about the creativity of AI one might easily think, at first glance at least, that these recent headlines were referring to Aggregate Industries rather than artificial intelligence.

‘Safety must come first as dangerous lorry driving hits the headlines’

... proclaimed an Aggregate Industries' press release last month.

But if that is the case, that 'safety must come first', it rather begs the question - since AI has been unable to secure a Stage 2 Road Safety Audit for its proposed cattle crossing, which would be a direct result from its proposals: What's going to happen at Straitgate Farm?

But we digress. AI's press release quite rightly points out that "businesses must pay extra diligence to ensuring the safety credentials of their haulier providers."

Throughout the duration of 2017 there has been an influx of headlines around poor lorry driving which has led to structural damage of property and infrastructure, accidents and, most tragically of all, fatalities.

As part of an ongoing crackdown on bad driving etiquette by Highways England, last month (November 2017) saw one UK County conduct secret filming which worryingly captured a number of HGV drivers using their mobile phones, watching YouTube videos and even reading books behind the wheel.

Ben Young, Head of Road Logistics at Aggregate Industries, comments: “The increase in reported dangerous lorry driving in the news this year is shocking and it’s something that all businesses, whether operating their own fleet or using a transport provider, have a duty to address.

“At Aggregate Industries, for example, we operate a robust theory and practical testing process when recruiting a new haulier which includes requiring them to achieve a minimum of FORS Bronze accreditation - which is followed up with regular monitoring and maintenance as part of our safety programme.

So, how well is AI's safety programme going? Seemingly, not well enough:

Just watched the driver of an @AggregateUK hgv launch a half full can of juice out the window onto the m9 motorway. Roads are messy enough without your drivers making it worse. More work for @ELCouncil to clean up 😑

— James Martin photo (@jm_photographic) December 20, 2017

cement lorry runs red light https://t.co/ZCvZ8a32Fz via @YouTube @aggregateUK I think this is one of yours.

— Neil Thompson (@thompsonneil15) December 18, 2017

@AggregateUK just spoke to your john bolas re your loaded truck (32tons?) using PRESTON RD YEOVIL SOMERSET. 15.15 today 7 TON LIMIT!! thanx

— d . (@wendypeg6) August 21, 2017

@AggregateUK @BhamCityCouncil could you please alert your truck drivers NOT to make illegal U-turns here! The road on other side gets green! pic.twitter.com/QH27Qn17vb

— ARK (@KindRandomAct) May 25, 2017

@AggregateUK Do you have a policy about your tipper truck drivers using hndheld mobilephones whilst driving? KY12 KRO

— BMWEnthusiasts (@BMWEnthusiasts) December 16, 2016

@AggregateUK lorry registration T10 ATF changing lanes M25 westbound without signalling/signalling very late several times: dangerous driver

— Duncan Thomas (@duncanjthomas) July 25, 2016

Still no response from @AggregateUK. Here's a photo of their truck crushing someone on a bicycle this morning. pic.twitter.com/OxhgosvJlb

— Lambeth Cycling (@LambethCycling) November 12, 2015

Shocking driving from a @AggregateUK marked HGV in #Durham today, ran another motorist off road due to lane change without looking! #TutTut

— PSV Shaun 60400 🇬🇧 (@ShaunfromDurham) April 24, 2015

Always good when the driver of the Highway Maintenance truck is in the fast line of the M62 (amongst roadworks) on his mobile @AggregateUK

— Chris Allan (@scubadog) September 25, 2012

‘Switching from HGVs to freight trains could cut air pollution by 10%’

... according to new research from the Campaign for Better Transport, which investigated lorry travel across four of Britain’s busiest freight routes.

Philippa Edmunds, manager of Freight on Rail – a partnership between the CBT, unions and the freight industry – said the government should use this research as a catalyst for future policies.

“This research shows that by upgrading the existing rail lines which run parallel to these motorway routes would allow large numbers of lorry loads to be transferred to rail, easing congestion, improving air quality and reducing road collisions,” she commented.

“In particular the effect on reducing particulates is very important because, whilst the latest euro VI engine technology reduces exhaust particulates, non-exhaust particulates pollution from HGV tyres and brakes remain a serious problem for which there is no current solution, especially for trucks which have large tyres.

“The government should use the findings of this research to feed into its future road and rail investment strategies and in particular to support continued investment in the strategic rail freight network.”

Meanwhile, the government is now considering a "pay-per-mile" scheme for lorries to cover the cost of damage to UK roads.

New research from @CBTransport @FreightonRail shows just 2,000 fewer HGVs on the road would mean 10% reduction in air pollution https://t.co/ZMUMc1VHEM pic.twitter.com/fd1casc2Mx

— Roads to Nowhere (@Roads2Nowhere) December 20, 2017

Did you know that a 44 tonne 16.5 metre truck is 136,000 times more damaging to road surfaces than a Ford Focus. - measured by the Generalized Fourth Power Law used by professionals. https://t.co/zYQiuHYNmm

— FreightonRail (@Freightonrail) December 8, 2017

By maximising innovative smart logistics solutions like #railfreight, we're helping to boost #productivity and minimise HGV movements. Read more on our dedicated page here: https://t.co/7RZxciw7UW pic.twitter.com/HyZJIhRkBC

— Tarmac (@TarmacLtd) December 20, 2017

Legacy

We all want to leave the world a better place for our children and grandchildren.

We all know what needs to be done.

We all know that carbon emissions must be reduced.

We all know that with the planet in the grip of climate change our actions are more urgent than ever.

We all know this because of headlines such as:

Devastating climate change could lead to 1m migrants a year entering EU by 2100

and images such as this:

My entire @Sea_Legacy team was pushing through their tears and emotions while documenting this dying polar bear. It’s a soul-crushing scene that still haunts me, but I know we need to share both the beautiful and the heartbreaking if we are going to break down the walls of apathy. This is what starvation looks like. The muscles atrophy. No energy. It’s a slow, painful death. When scientists say polar bears will be extinct in the next 100 years, I think of the global population of 25,000 bears dying in this manner. There is no band aid solution. There was no saving this individual bear. People think that we can put platforms in the ocean or we can feed the odd starving bear. The simple truth is this—if the Earth continues to warm, we will lose bears and entire polar ecosystems. This large male bear was not old, and he certainly died within hours or days of this moment. But there are solutions. We must reduce our carbon footprint, eat the right food, stop cutting down our forests, and begin putting the Earth—our home—first. Please join us at @sea_legacy as we search for and implement solutions for the oceans and the animals that rely on them—including us humans. Thank you your support in keeping my @sea_legacy team in the field. With @CristinaMittermeier #turningthetide with @Sea_Legacy #bethechange #nature #naturelovers This video is exclusively managed by Caters News. To license or use in a commercial player please contact info@catersnews.com or call +44 121 616 1100 / +1 646 380 1615”

A post shared by Paul Nicklen (@paulnicklen) on Dec 5, 2017 at 8:52am PST

We all know that certain people can have more impact on climate change than the rest of us.

Aggregate Industries says: "We are committed to tackling climate change".

DCC says: "We all contribute to climate change through our use of electricity, heat and vehicle fuels, and there are actions that we can all take – as individuals, as householders, at school and at work – to cut the emissions that contribute to climate change."

What legacy would AI management be leaving if they needlessly put 2.5 million HGV miles on our roads - with the associated CO2 and air pollution - from their Straitgate Farm proposal?

What legacy would DCC planners be leaving if they recommended this proposal?

Could these people look their children and grandchildren in the eye and say I did all I could?

Could these people hold their heads up high and say I was part of the solution?

Because with climate change, as that famous saying goes:

If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.

‘We are committed to tackling climate change’

Remember that tweet from Aggregate Industries?

Reduce emissions! We developed our transport plan to manage the #environmental impact of our transportation activity https://t.co/nRspVr3eTm pic.twitter.com/O5toKlbKTx

— Aggregate Industries (@AggregateUK) May 4, 2017

We all want to Reduce emissions! But how well is AI itself doing? We've posted on AI's record before; here, here and here. AI has recently released its carbon emission figures for 2016 in its Sustainability Report and on its new website; both report and website still trot out the same old claims:

At Aggregate Industries we’ll continue our mission to cut our net CO2 emissions of all products.

What this mission is, whether it’s actually going anywhere, or whether it’s any more than hopeful words on a page, is anybody’s guess. But if the graph below is AI’s idea of cutting emissions, we’d be better off without it:

A jump in process emissions may be explained away by AI taking on two cement plants, but look at transport emissions to see the result of the company's effort on climate change. On this front AI claims:

But wanting to reduce CO2 emissions is different from actually doing something about it. Is AI serious about climate change? In the past, AI has said:

2006: climate change… we have a clear message: it’s happening and we have to take action now.

2012: Controlling and reducing carbon emissions is central to a responsible environmental policy. At Aggregate Industries we have understood the impacts of our carbon emissions for some time…

In 2017, AI still claims:

We are committed to tackling climate change

But if that were true, why is AI currently proposing a 2.5 million mile haulage scheme between Straitgate Farm and Uffculme? If that were true, why does AI’s longer term record on CO2 emissions look like this?

François Petry, AI's CEO, says:

Looking ahead, we will continue to look for innovative ways for Aggregate Industries to contribute to solving some of the UK’s sustainability challenges, as we believe we are equipped to effect a real change

Fine words. But 10 years ago another AI CEO said much the same thing - and look what real change has been effected in the meantime. For AI, action on climate change is clearly a task for others.

AI's Sustainability Report says: "We would welcome your comments, suggestions and thoughts on this report by emailing sustainability@aggregate.com". We would encourage any reader so inclined to do so, mentioning of course the multi-million mile CO2 belching scheme planned for this corner of Devon.

AI appoints new head of Aggregates division, again

In what appears like a game of musical chairs, it’s all change again at the top of Aggregate Industries.

Readers may remember that in July last year AI appointed Mike Pearce as managing director of its Aggregates division, only to see him move on to Breedon two months later. In October we posted "Goodness. Another AI director jumps ship".

Yesterday AI announced the appointment of Pablo Libreros as Mike Pearce’s replacement.

Mr Libreros joined AI last June from LafargeHolcim, as the company’s Director of Growth and Innovation, saying:

I'm looking forward to driving the business forward into a new chapter of growth and innovation in the UK.

Six months on, that new chapter is already over and Mr Libreros has now been charged with looking after the Aggregates division, the company’s PR machine claiming his experience:

...will be invaluable in ensuring that sustainability is at the core of the aggregates business and its processes.

If AI’s unsustainable 2.5 million mile plan for Straitgate Farm is any guide to the rest of the aggregates business, that’s a big ask.

Buckfastleigh dissolves its planning committee because ‘authorities don't listen’

Those who feel that their responses to planning applications in Devon - including the ones by Aggregate Industries for Straitgate Farm - are continually ignored, are not alone. Buckfastleigh Town Council feels the same way, and has now dissolved its planning committee 'because the authorities don't listen':

Buckfastleigh said that since the start of this council in May 2015, none of the responses submitted by the council in response to any major planning proposal in the parish had had an appreciable effect on the outcome.

 “It has been made quite clear in recent years that the carefully considered and well-informed responses to planning applications to DNPA, TDC and DCC have been ignored by their planning authorities in reaching decisions. In fact BTC [Buckfastleigh Town Council] has recently lodged a formal complaint with DCC about its inability to enforce planning legislation and its misconduct in issuing planning notices in the case of Whitecleave Quarry.”

“We feel that by maintaining a ‘Planning’ committee, which is clearly impotent, we are misleading the public and misdirecting any concerns they have. We believe it would likely have more impact if all the individual councillors and members of the public made their own representations to planning authorities (although evidence is limited that this has any effect either!) and we don’t want to be duped into inadvertently acting as fodder for those authorities going through the motions of carrying out statutory consultative procedures, unless our opinion is actually given some weight.”