Friday, 15 November 2019

Professor Brassington to be awarded the Geological Society’s Whitaker Medal

The Professor of Hydrogeology who said 'ANY quarrying at Straitgate would cause problems' is to be awarded the Whitaker Medal "in recognition of an outstanding contribution to hydrogeology."

The Whitaker Medal is awarded in memory of the distinguished geologist, William Whitaker and was first awarded by the Institution of Water Engineers in 1930 to R.C.S. Walters for his paper on the hydrogeology of the Chalk in England. Since that time, the Institution and its successors awarded the Medal a further fourteen times to a total of 24 individuals. Since 1996, the Medal has been awarded by the Hydrogeological Group in recognition of an outstanding contribution to hydrogeology.
Earlier in the year, Prof Brassington was asked to give his view on what impact Aggregate Industries' proposal to quarry Straitgate Farm would have on Grade I listed Cadhay and local water supplies. Along with the above-mentioned post, we also posted Professor rebuts EA’s response to his report. Has the EA got it all wrong? and EA wants AI to address Professor’s water concerns.

The news of Prof Brassington’s award was retweeted by the Environment Agency's Groundwater & Contaminated Land team. It’s ironic, because a member of this team has decided to dismiss this eminent hydrogeologist's view on the Straitgate proposal – in favour of their own, and that of the consultants working on behalf of a multinational cement conglomerate. There's more about this in the post One person below.
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Another damning response from Professor of Hydrogeology on AI’s Straitgate plans

Part 1:

For the third time, Professor of Hydrogeology Rick Brassington has weighed in against Aggregate Industries’ plans to quarry Straitgate Farm, setting out in no uncertain terms the damaging effects this would have on Grade I Cadhay and local groundwater supplies.

Prof Brassington was responding to a letter from Aggregate Industries’ consultants Wood, that was itself written in response to his earlier report and letter.

The Environment Agency – or rather, the person at the Agency overseeing this proposal – had previously accepted, at face value, the various statements made by Wood, and had advised Devon County Council that the EA was nevertheless maintaining its earlier position – without first giving Prof Brassington the opportunity to respond. What does that say about the EA? More of that in Part 2.

Prof Brassington’s dismissal of Wood’s response is forthright:
There are many aspects of the letter from Wood to Aggregate Industries that I find disturbing because they are inaccurate.
Unfortunately, Wood has a fundamental misunderstanding of how [the Cadhay fishponds] operate.. It is both shocking and disappointing that consultants who have been working on this project for so long have made such a fundamental mistake.
The proposal to quarry the Straitgate Farm area to the MWWT will impact on the Straitgate and Cadhay Springs and cause a significant deterioration in the water quality.
[The removal of most of the unsaturated zone] will inevitably mean a redistribution of the groundwater discharges and lower flows during dry periods that could easily cause water shortages to those using the springs for water supplies.
I find it incredible that Wood has dismissed my suggestion that the local aquifer is of limited extent and is both fragile and unique with the large number of people and businesses depending on the springs it supports for their water supply. The streams that flow from the springs also support local habitats especially Cadhay Wood and Cadhay Bogs. It is my view that this application should be turned down and that no quarrying be permitted as to allow it will threaten these water resources for many years to come.
Clearly, Prof Brassington is in no doubt about the damage this proposal would do, to this aquifer "both fragile and unique". Some of his closing remarks are particularly scathing:
Aggregate Industries has a cavalier attitude to meeting deadlines in agreements that they have signed up to and consequently cannot be trusted.
Wood’s arguments dismissing the water level reading recorded in borehole SG1990/021 have been shown to be untrue… the water level reading in SG1990/021 measured on 12th June 1990 is a true measure of the local water table and should not be dismissed as Wood has done.
Their statements in the hydrogeological report [on the Salston Stream] are in conflict with their present opinion that now show a convenient opposition to the points raised in my report.
The significant removal of most of the unsaturated zone will cause a change in the groundwater chemistry… Wood seems incapable of grasping this simple fact.
On the issue of the Section 106:
I welcome the fact that Aggregate Industries now have “no objection” to including the Cadhay Spring, mediaeval fishponds, and wetland habitats of Cadhay Bog and Cadhay Wood’s ancient woodlands in the Section 106 agreement. However, I am keen to learn from Devon County Council exactly how any damage to these water features could be undone in the event of adverse impacts from quarrying.
On revising the model of the maximum water table, the MWWT, the base of any quarry:
This should be done before planning permission is determined so that the new MWWT surface can be seen by Aggregate Industries, the Environment Agency, Devon County Council and local residents in order that the implications and the need for mitigation measures can be assessed.
To remind readers: It was in May of this year that we posted Professor of Hydrogeology says ‘ANY quarrying at Straitgate would cause problems’; in July, Professor rebuts EA’s response to his report. Has the EA got it all wrong?; and in August, EA wants AI to address Professor’s water concerns. In September, Aggregate Industries' consultants Wood did indeed respond, and on that basis – without first giving Prof Brassington the chance to address Wood’s letter – the EA said:
Having reviewed the further information submitted we maintain our position in respect of this proposal. We have no objections to the proposal only if the conditions we have previously recommended are included on any subsequent planning permission. We are pleased to note that Aggregate Industries have no objection to Cadhay House Spring being included within the Section 106 agreement.
In light of Wood’s dodgy dossier, Prof Brassington says:
I strongly urge the Environment Agency to review the comments that I have made here and revise their views on this application.
Devon County Council also have a duty to protect groundwater, as set out in Policy M21 of the Devon Minerals Plan 2011- 2033. It seems to me that such duties are made more important when many of the springs that represent discharges from the area it is proposed to quarry are used as private drinking water supplies and the proposal threatens their water quality.
Prof Brassington's latest response can be found here.
Posted by
Labels: , , , , ,

One person

Part 2:

The impact on water supplies is one of the most contentious aspects of the proposal by Aggregate Industries to quarry Straitgate Farm.

Perhaps the Environment Agency no longer cares whether this planning application is built on truth, or whether people lose their water supplies, or whether heritage features are ruined, or whether wetland habitats in ancient woodlands are destroyed. But if the EA had bothered to wait for the Professor’s advice – advice from an independent expert, author of scientific papers and hydrogeology textbooks, and now winner of the prestigious Whitaker Medal "in recognition of an outstanding contribution to hydrogeology" – rather than rushing to accept the advice of a say-anything cement conglomerate, they would have discovered that Woods’ reply was in fact inaccurate. That’s covered in Part 1 above.

However, a word of warning: It might shock readers to learn that the Environment Agency’s technical position on this application – and therefore Devon County Council’s position, because it blindly follows – for the whole groundwater environment: the private water supplies to businesses and 100 people, the wetland habitats in ancient woodlands, the listed fishponds – is based on the views of just one person at the Agency. Yep, JUST ONE.

Even when concerns have been sent through legal channels to the Area Director for Devon, Cornwall & Isles of Scilly, a Freedom of Information request has now revealed that it has been this one person who has provided all the arguments for the response, who has dismissed the views of a Professor in Hydrogeology, who has sided with the incorrect views of Aggregate Industries’ consultants. When Prof Brassington says "the EA has not recognized that the hydrogeology and groundwater resources of this area are very sensitive and fragile", it is this one person at the Agency who is both judge and jury.

Concerned? We should be. What checks and balances are made on the views of this one person? Why is this one person so entrenched in their position? Why has this one person dismissed all of the ever-increasing catalogue of contradictory evidence put before them? Why, given all the higher water levels, does this one person not want Aggregate Industries to recalculate the MWWT, the base of any quarry, before determination? Why are a number of the Environment Agency’s views beginning to look perverse?

Is it because they rushed to make a decision on this proposal before fully thinking things through? Is it because they naively trusted everything delivered to them by Aggregate Industries and its consultants – wild fantasy stuff, some with errors the height of houses? Is it because they are inexperienced at dealing with this sort of proposal? Is it because changing direction now would be embarrassing? Is it because no ladder could ever be big enough to climb down?

Answers on a postcard.
Posted by
Labels:

Tuesday, 12 November 2019

“Real, measured improvements, not conjectural.” Really??

In September, we posted Climate emergency? Not at Aggregate Industries. CO2 emissions increase again. Over the last 20 years, Aggregate Industries' annual CO2 emissions have increased five-fold – from 228,267 tonnes in 1999, to nearly 1.3 million tonnes now. This from the company committed to tackling #climatechange.


The Mineral Products Association – the trade body that represents Aggregate Industries and friends – has recently called for its industry’s contribution towards carbon efficiency and biodiversity to be recognised, claiming "our industry is as committed to the environment as anyone else."


At a recent address – transcribed in "Uniquely placed for Net Zero and Net Gain" – Nigel Jackson, the chief executive of the MPA, told attendees at another back-slapping minerals function that the industry is doing something about climate change, making "Real, measured improvements, not conjectural", being "practitioners not preachers".

Bravo – if that's the case at other companies, but at Aggregate Industries? Of course not. Emissions per tonne have been flatlining for years, indicating a company unresponsive to the climate crisis. 

Here are bits of Mr Jackson's speech, interspersed with the track record of one of its biggest members:
These are serious times for far too many species, habitats and our planet. I know that, MPA knows that, that is why we have not been wasting the last 30 years doing nothing. We have focused on delivering action rather than just adding to too much hot air.


Some say ‘industry is doing nothing about climate change’ or more accurately global warming, or biodiversity loss, our twin and linked challenges, Net Zero and Net Gain.

We are.

In 2007 we produced our first ‘carbon advice card’ setting out the measures members could take to reduce their carbon footprint...

Unlike many industries, we have reduced our production carbon emissions from cement by 51% since 1990, far better than the UK overall. Real, measured improvements, not conjectural.

If we can get to net zero before 2050, we will. But we will not join those who arbitrarily nominate unrealistic and opportunist target dates for short term PR gain. This is not a time for empty gestures and virtue signalling.
Quite right. This is not the time for empty gestures and virtue signalling. Virtue signalling?:
public, empty gestures intended to convey socially approved attitudes without any associated risk or sacrifice
Surely no member of the MPA would do such a thing, make themselves look virtuous on climate change when their record indicates inaction and apathy – would they?




But yes. The boss of the MPA is correct. This is not the time for empty gestures. This is not the time for flatlining emissions per tonne. This is not the time to be plotting 2.5 million mile CO2 intensive climate-busting haulage schemes in Devon.
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Monday, 11 November 2019

Hugo Swire is no longer MP for East Devon

Over the years, concerned constituents have made various representations to Hugo Swire on the subject of Aggregate Industries' proposal to quarry Straitgate Farm.

The latest representation was in late summer of 2018, on the subject of hydrogeology, and highways and site access concerns. The MP subsequently met with a representative from Aggregate Industries and Horizon, the company's traffic consultant. It was apparently a "good meeting":


Read into that what you will. Others also wanted to know what he meant:



We have written to Hugo Swire three times since that meeting, asking him to shed light on what was achieved. We've received no reply.

Having now had sight of the latest Transport Assessment, readers may not be surprised to learn that, if it was a "good meeting", it had no bearing on the site access or the concerns that were raised.
Posted by
Labels:

Wednesday, 6 November 2019

Transport Assessments & HGVs: How consultants create an alternative reality

We’ve previously posted about how parts of Aggregate Industries' application to quarry Straitgate Farm have been a catalogue of fiction. We said:
It all makes this multinational and its consultants look like a bunch of cowboys, willing to say whatever it takes. It begs another question: If AI can’t act honestly before winning any keys to dig, what hope would there be afterwards?
Amazingly, Aggregate Industries is on its third Transport Assessment to support this proposal – and its third set of traffic consultants. The first Transport Assessment was from SLR in 2015, when the plan was to haul material to Blackhill. The second was from David Mason Associates in 2016. The third – the current one – is by Horizon Consulting Engineers. This last one, written in 2018 and still being updated this year, is (at least with the copy we have) already at Revision E.

These documents are supposed to be "thorough assessments of the transport implications of development", and yet each one from Aggregate Industries has played with the truth – the latest being no exception.


David Mason, produced more fiction – and was later ditched by the company. His traffic numbers for the B3174 bore no relation to reality. Highways England counts two months earlier showed almost 60% more traffic – numbers subsequently borne out by Horizon.

You won’t find the third Transport Assessment on Devon County Council’s planning website. It has only been sent to us after we made a Freedom of Information request.

How much better will this one be? First indications don’t bode well. On the matter of highway safety, Horizon claims for the "three year period" until the end of 2016:
6.3.1 Three accidents have occurred within the study period of which only one occurred at the junction which is the subject of improvement works. None of the accidents involved an HGV…
It's not true. This accident happened on Monday 4 April 2016 – within a stone’s throw of Straitgate – on the relevant stretch of the B3174 Exeter Road that Aggregate Industries propose to use:


Fortunately no-one was injured, but police closed the road for the best part of a day.

If Horizon can overlook this sort of accident, what else can it overlook?

Perhaps, in an effort to be thorough, and given that this application will not now be determined before 2020, we should look at these accidents too – both involving an HGV, both in 2019, both involving police, and both a matter of yards from Straitgate Farm.



Another lorry in the ditch outside Straitgate


As these photos evidence, the B3174 Exeter Road is not as safe as Horizon makes out.

Devon County Council is aware of the accidents on this stretch. Earlier this year, in connection to the Straitgate proposal, the Council’s Neighbourhood Highways Officer advised of "HGVs going into unlined ditches" between Daisymount and Birdcage Lane.

And what – with plans to put another 200 HGV movements a day on this road – was the advice to the case officer responsible for the Straitgate application from the Council's highways planning department?
I really don’t know if this changes anything or not !
Why are so many trucks coming off this road? It's quite simple – but again it's not something that's been discussed in the Transport Assessment.

Consider that HGVs are 3.0m wide or more, including wing mirrors.


According to Horizon itself, the B3174 Exeter Road is as little as 5.3m wide. In other words, in places, the road is too narrow by as much as 70cm for two HGVs to pass each other with no room to spare. Consider also, with the speed limit of the B3174 Exeter Road at 60mph, how little margin for error there is, with vehicles approaching each other at speeds of up to 120mph.

You might have thought this would have rung warnings bells – given that the Straitgate proposal could generate in addition as many as "216 HGV trips per day" – but no. Firmly in alternative reality mode, Horizon says "the proposed development complies with policy M22: Transportation and Access of the Devon Minerals Plan 2011 - 2033", or in other words this the proposal "would not have a significant effect on: (a) road safety".

But Horizon’s grasp of M22 is tenuous, and not just on the safety front.

Because despite showing a map of the proposed haul route, Horizon fails to assess the distances involved. Horizon fails to say that each load would need to be transported 23 miles for processing. Horizon fails to say that there would be more than 105,000 such movements, and even more if, as Horizon says, we were "to account for the use of HGV’s with a lower load capacity". Horizon fails to say that this would amount to some 2.5 million miles, or perhaps even more with smaller loads.

Clearly, in trying to paint a rose-tinted vision of Aggregate Industries' HGVs criss-crossing Devon, Horizon does not provide "thorough assessments of the transport implications of development", and clearly the proposal does not comply with Minerals Plan policy M22, given that the same policy says:
mineral development should minimise the distance that minerals are transported
Posted by
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, 5 November 2019

AI has lost sand and gravel reserves AGAIN, this time at Hillhead

Only last week, we reminded readers how in 2017 we posted that AI’s last two quarries in East Devon produced significantly less than expected – and there's every chance Straitgate would too. It’s worth repeating some of that post:
We all know that forecasting what a quarry might yield is an inexact business, even if the mineral companies would have us believe otherwise...
Take Straitgate. Once upon a time, it was thought that the site could yield some 20 million tonnes. In 2012, DCC went out to public consultation telling people that there were 3.6 million tonnes. In 2017, Aggregate Industries will struggle to make the case for 1.2 million tonnes.
When AI eventually came clean on exactly how it hoped to win those 1.2 million tonnes - without retaining a 1 metre unquarried buffer to protect water supplies - the company reminded us that "Calculations have been undertaken by Chartered Geologists".
So let’s look at AI’s other two quarries in the area to see how well its chartered geologists did there.
In 2011, AI reassessed its sand and gravel reserves in Devon and found that it had lost 2 million tonnes; equivalent to a couple of Straitgates...
The 2 million tonnes were lost at nearby at Marshbroadmoor and Venn Ottery. Both have similar geology to Straitgate, both yielded considerably less than initially expected.

It's important to know how much resource a site is likely to yield. For Straitgate:
... the size of the mineral benefit must be weighed against the destruction of an East Devon farm, the loss of thousands of metres of hedgerows, trees and dormice habitat, the risk to drinking water supplies to more than a hundred people, the risk of birdstrike by creating water bodies 195m directly beneath an international flight path, and the pollution and carbon emissions from a 2.5 million mile haulage plan.
We also posted in 2017 that Quarrying and processing restarts at Hillhead, that:
Aggregate Industries has 4.23 million tonnes of sand and gravel available at Houndaller – with planning permission – enough to last the company 12 years or more.
Hillhead is the location to which Aggregate Industries has relocated its processing plant; it is the location that had not only 4 million tonnes of permitted reserves but also a further 8 million tonnes of resource nearby; it is the location where Aggregate Industries would transport any winnings from Straitgate – a 46 mile round trip for each load, some 2.5 million miles in all.


Aggregate Industries referred to Houndaller’s "mineral reserve figure of 4.23 million tonnes", not only in this application, but also in the Supporting Statement for the Straitgate Farm application in 2017:
The Hillhead Quarry mineral deposit comprises 4.2 million tonnes of sand rich sand and gravel with planning permission in an area known as Houndaller. 3.6.3

The quantity of material at Houndaller was deemed a relevant fact to be considered when determining the Straitgate application. Likewise, any significant changes to this figure should also be deemed relevant.

Houndaller was referred to in the September 2018 Monitoring Report for Hillhead:
4.9 Houndaller contains an estimated reserve of 4.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel and extraction resumed on this part of the site on 16 September 2016.
However, just 12 months later, in the September 2019 Monitoring Report for Hillhead:

4.10 Houndaller contains an estimated reserve of 2.2 million tonnes of sand and gravel. Extraction resumed on this part of the site on 16 September 2016.
Surely, Aggregate Industries hadn’t lost 2 million tonnes of reserve in just one year? We assumed it must be a typo. However, Devon County Council subsequently advised:
The information presented in the Monitoring Report is provided by the operator. Houndaller has been active for a while and a certain proportion will be due to extraction. Some of the reserves may have initially been overestimated, however you would need to ask the operator for that information.
So, ask the operator we did. Perhaps we touched a nerve. Aggregate Industries has now responded, more so perhaps – given the number of courtesy copies – in reply to Devon County Council than to us:
For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is an accepted principle that individual quarry reserve/sales figures where a Quarry Operator can be identified remains confidential and excluded from Site Monitoring Reports which are published on MPA websites. This principle will be enforced for AIUK sites going forward, notwithstanding that quarry managers may refer to this detail during monitoring visits.
There are however particular circumstances where the company may wish from time to time, at its discretion, to refer to such figures; Quarry Liaison Meetings and Planning Applications being examples.
Turning now to the disclosure of mineral reserves at Houndaller (Hillhead) Quarry; the estimated reserve figure of 4.2 million tonnes quoted in the Monitoring Report following the Monitoring Visit on the 20th September 2018 was a historical figure on the company's mineral reserves schedule that had been quoted since mineral extraction ceased in 2007 to reopening Hillhead in 2017. The 4.2Mt reserves figure was therefore correct, as per our mineral reserves schedule at the time of DCC's September 2018 Monitoring Visit, however, prior to the end of 2018 a re-evaluation of reserves at Houndaller was concluded in the light of recent quarry extraction data and the most recent borehole information. The company's reserves schedule for Houndaller was subsequently revised to 2.9 million tonnes as at 1st January 2019.
The Quarry Manager who hosted the Monitoring Visit on the 19th September 2019 made a topographic error that was recorded in the Monitoring Report; the reserve figure should have read 2.9 million tonnes and not 2.2 million tonnes.
To be quite clear, we will not be entering into any further correspondence with third parties on matters relating to commercially sensitive reserves and sales figures in the future.
So, for future reference: Don’t go writing to Aggregate Industries if you notice a couple of million of tonnes of sand and gravel have gone missing.

How much has Aggregate Industries actually lost in this case? Let’s be generous and say the company has been getting through about 300k tonnes pa.; historically, sales at Blackhill were at this sort of level. Over the two years of 2017 and 2018 this might have amounted to 600k tonnes, thereby reducing reserves from 4.2 to 3.6 million tonnes. Aggregate Industries now reports that at the end of 2018, Houndaller actually had 2.9 million tonnes, which would indicate that the company, in its "re-evaluation of reserves", has lost in the region of 700k tonnes. This equates to more than two years' supply, and nearly the amount available at Straitgate Farm. How careless.

So, given Aggregate Industries' record of over-estimating mineral resources – at three local quarries now – how on earth can Aggregate Industries be sure that there’s even a million tonnes at Straitgate, particularly given that its consultants – before reports were whitewashed – considered that for this site "there is also likely to be other unmapped local faulting"?
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Monday, 4 November 2019

‘Margin pressure intensifies as construction output falls again’

... reads the headline for this article. One commentator said:
Contractors are being pummelled on three fronts. Just as their order books get thinner and erode their confidence, they are being forced to bid low for the shallow pool of new work available – while at the same time input costs go up and slice into their margins.
Posted by
Labels:

Fracking halt announcement: bad news for the UK minerals industry

We have previously posted about fracking, how it's deeply unpopular and has no social licence. 

This didn’t stop Aggregate Industries, however, from being one of the first to jump on the bandwagon, profiting from our country's attempt to uncover yet another source of fossil fuels, and having one of its quarries targeted by protesters in the process.


The government – in preparing the ground for the election – has now called for a temporary halt to shale gas extraction, to be imposed "until and unless" extraction is proved safe.

The government had previously been in favour of covering our country with fracking rigs. Boris Johnson had referred to fracking as "glorious news for humanity" and that we should "leave no stone unturned, or unfracked" in pursuit of such riches.

Whilst this suspension is great news for communities under threat from fracking – and the associated earthquakes, groundwater pollution, HGVs etc – it is less great news for the UK minerals industry, salivating at the thought of delivering load after load of aggregates, particularly frac sand:
Each fracking site would require over 7,500 tons of frac sand (from Cheshire and/or Norfolk)
That source of revenue – to Aggregate Industries and friends – now looks a good deal less certain.
Posted by
Labels:

Thursday, 31 October 2019

Could mineral deposits interfere with plans for a new primary school in Ottery?

A new £7.2 million primary school is planned for Thorne Farm, Ottery St Mary; land next to the school site has been earmarked for 150 homes to help fund the cost. A Devon County Council consultation on the proposal runs until 18 November. This Sidmouth Herald article has more details.


We posted on plans for the new primary school – which would be just 1000m downhill and downwind of any dust, PM10, PM2.5, from a proposed quarry at Straitgate Farm – earlier in the year, in Preparing for climate change – a local example in Ottery St Mary. We also posted about the 50th anniversary of the devastating floods in East Devon including in Tipton St John, the village whose primary school is set to be relocated.

Planners will need cognisance of the flooding implications for the Thorne Farm site too. More than 50 properties in the Thorne Farm area suffered flooding in 2008 when the Cadhay Bog stream, which originates at Straitgate, became a raging torrent. The Environment Agency subsequently built a flood relief scheme, but conceded:
... the scheme for Thorne Farm does not take account of any increased surface water flows that may occur as a result of quarrying upstream of that site.
The proposed site of the new primary school is in a Mineral Consultation Area. In 2017, we posted about how the new Devon Minerals Plan had plastered Mineral Consultation and Safeguarding Areas all across Devon where few existed before. Objective 2 of the Minerals Plan now aims to:
Safeguard from other forms of development Devon’s current or potential economic mineral resources, together with the infrastructure needed for their processing and sustainable transportation and the capacity required for the tipping of mineral waste, to ensure their continued availability to meet the needs of future generations.
Policy M2 of the Minerals Plan says:
Mineral resources and infrastructure within the Mineral Safeguarding Areas defined on the Policies Map will be protected from sterilisation or constraint by non-mineral development within or close to those Areas by permitting such development if:
(a) it can be demonstrated through a Mineral Resource Assessment and in consultation with the relevant mineral operators that the mineral resource or infrastructure concerned is not of current or potential economic or heritage value; or... 

(d) there is an overriding strategic need for the non-mineral development…
Point 3.3.14 says:
For Devon’s industrial minerals and some aggregate minerals, non-mineral development will normally be opposed where it would sterilise resources of economic value.

At the time, we posted Devon’s new Minerals Plan could blight thousands of homes across the county and Is this really the best way to 'safeguard' minerals? Shortly after that, in Does Devon's new Minerals Plan stand for anything?, we pointed to the problems Sibelco had with mineral safeguarding when planning permission was granted by Devon County Council for improvements to the A382. Sibelco was concerned the scheme would sterilise significant reserves, and lodged an application for a judicial review of that decision.

A primary school and 150 new homes are certainly enough to sterilise nearby mineral deposits, deposits the nature of which one operator in particular considers important enough to necessitate a 2.5 million mile haulage plan.

Inset Plan 3 from the Devon Minerals Plan shows the proximity of such mineral resources and safeguarding areas to the land in question. The resource north of Cadhay Bog (S8 in this document) was assessed by Devon County Council in 2012. The Council considered that "the potential yield [of S8] is unknown, but a crude calculation assuming 15 metres depth gives an estimate of 12.2 million tonnes". However, despite then safeguarding the minerals five years later, and throwing in a 250m 'buffer' for good measure, the Council also concluded in 2012 that S8 was unsuitable for mineral extraction due to "significant harm to biodiversity and water environment".

Nevertheless – given that plans to relocate Tipton St John Primary School to the land at Thorne Farm owned by Devon County Council have been in the pipeline for some time, and that according to Devon County Council, "no other suitable sites are available that can produce a development income to pay for the school" – it will surprise some to learn that the question of sterilised mineral resources has yet to be broached.

Posted by
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, 29 October 2019

AI’s planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm will now enter a new decade

Surprise, surprise. Aggregate Industries has yet again failed to meet an agreed extension of the determination date for its planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm.

On 18 June, Devon County Council and Aggregate Industries agreed that the period for determination would be extended "from 28th June 2019 to 31st December 2019". It was the 8th such extension granted for this application. This latest extension – like the others – has now been missed, given that the submission of any further information would require at least 30 days of public consultation before the Council’s last DMC meeting of 2019 on 27 November.

Aggregate Industries’ planning application will now enter 2020. That’s worth thinking about.



Aggregate Industries launched its application to quarry Straitgate Farm back in 2015, having started site investigations in earnest in 2011. This of course ignores the planning application and public inquiry in the 1960s.

Some local people have been involved with this affair as far back as 2000; even Brexit is at risk of being done quicker than that.

Aggregate Industries has taken the best part of a decade (half a century, if we don’t ignore the 1960s) to work out how it can get its hands on less than a million tonnes of saleable material. And remember, that’s sand and gravel, not diamonds – no wonder Aggregate Industries is having problems with profitability. If all aggregate producers took that long with their planning applications, there would be no aggregates industry.

Why less than a million saleable tonnes? Because that’s what would be left after processing, and once the base of the proposed quarry has been raised to take account of the elevated groundwater levels recorded in 2018.

You might think there would come a point – after all these years – when someone would say enough is enough. The amount remaining is hardly viable. And remember, AI’s last two quarries in East Devon produced significantly less than expected – and there's every chance Straitgate would too. At nearby Marshbroadmoor:
The original planning application gave a figure of 1.1 million tonnes, but, due to geological faulting, nothing like that amount ever came out... an application was [later] made in 2010 for the bulk of the reserve, some 176,000 tonnes, to be processed at Blackhill.
And given all the delays, the site at Straitgate Farm is clearly not suitable, and with Aggregate Industries’ sand and gravel processing operations now 23 miles away up the M5, clearly not sustainable.

Nevertheless, year after year, Devon County Council keeps granting extensions to this multinational, despite the continued anxiety imposed on the community by this invasive and never-ending proposal.

We know what’s driving Aggregate Industries, but what’s driving the Council?
Posted by
Labels: ,

Monday, 21 October 2019

AI’s water consultants are still confused about Cadhay’s mediaeval fishponds –
but now have ‘no objection’ to including them in a Section 106

You would have thought after all these years that Aggregate Industries’ hydrogeology consultants – now going under the name of Wood, previously Amec Foster Wheeler, previously AMEC – would understand the water environment around Straitgate Farm, and in particular how the mediaeval fishponds, that are so important for the setting of Grade I listed Cadhay, derive their water. You would have thought the Environment Agency, having visited Cadhay, would also know.


Since we posted Professor of Hydrogeology says ‘ANY quarrying at Straitgate would cause problems’ in May, and Professor rebuts EA’s response to his report. Has the EA got it all wrong? in July, and EA wants AI to address Professor’s water concerns in August, Aggregate Industries' consultants have indeed attempted to address Prof Brassington’s concerns – in this document – and the Environment Agency is seemingly content that all is now well. The fact that the Environment Agency has discounted the advice from a Professor with 50 years' experience of hydrogeology in favour of consultants working on behalf of an aggregates giant set on digging as deep as it can, speaks volumes. The Environment Agency now says:
Having reviewed the further information submitted [from Wood in response to Prof Brassington’s report and correspondence] we maintain our position in respect of this proposal. We have no objections to the proposal only if the conditions we have previously recommended are included on any subsequent planning permission. We are pleased to note that Aggregate Industries have no objection to Cadhay House Spring being included within the Section 106 agreement.
It’s unlikely to be the end of the story, but plainly the Environment Agency didn’t read the entire memo, because Aggregate Industries has promised more.

We have previously posted about the mediaeval fishponds at Cadhay, most recently that the Devon Gardens Trust objects and Historic England gives assurance that “importance of Cadhay” will be recognised. The Devon Gardens Trust wrote:
The water supply to the fishponds comes from a spring located just below the extraction site at Straitgate Farm, a mile to the west of Cadhay. The fishponds have relied on the spring as a source of water for over 500 years. If the proposed extraction disrupts the spring and the water supply, the fishponds which are an essential and important feature of the gardens at Cadhay, will be turned into a quagmire, to the considerable detriment of the historic designed landscape.
Aggregate Industries’ water consultants make great play that the fishponds are 2km from Straitgate, but clearly still don’t understand how they work. They claim:
The ponds are situated in a body of River Terrace Deposits and likely owe their existence mainly to the presence of shallow groundwater, with water levels being mostly maintained by groundwater supply from relatively local recharge to the Otter Sandstone and potentially high storage in the River Terrace Deposits.
They clearly don’t understand that the clay-lined ponds are totally reliant on springs emanating from just below the proposed extraction area at Straitgate Farm. They clearly don’t understand that water to the ponds is fed by this leat:



The Devon Minerals Plan has made clear that:
Any proposal should include provision for alternative supply in the event of derogation of private water supplies resulting from mineral development. 
However, notwithstanding the fact that AI's legal assurances for alternative water supplies are “unfit for purpose”, and notwithstanding the fact that an alternative source may not be available in the event that any quarrying causes problems, and notwithstanding the fact that any proposed remedy could be too late anyway, Aggregate Industries – who previously had been unwilling to include Cadhay (neither its spring, nor its ponds, nor its wetland habitats in ancient woodland) in a Section 106 covering alternative water supplies – has now apparently had a change of heart:
Aggregate Industries have consistently maintained that the potential effects on Cadhay House Spring, the mediaeval fishponds (which are 2km from the proposed extraction area) and the wetland habitats will be negligible. However, Aggregate Industries have no objection to these being included in the Section 106 agreement.
Our emphasis.

Aggregate Industries – just as with some of our politicians – will now seemingly promise anything, deliverable or not, in order to get this planning application over the line.
Posted by
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

‘Quarry dumping contaminates drinking water, costing up to £9 BILLION in clean up’

To underline the importance of protecting drinking water sources from untoward goings-on in quarries – be it from multinational cement conglomerates or others:
A man accused of dumping hazardous waste into a quarry may have caused £9 billion in damage to North Somerset's drinking water supply.

Brendan Moorehouse, prosecuting for the Environment Agency at North Somerset Courthouse on Monday, said: "With the huge harm, the huge cost of clean up and the risk to public health, this is an extremely serious case.
"The minimum cost of clean up is in excess of £50 million, and should the contaminants leach into the Bristol city water supply it could cost up to £9 billion."
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Devon council moves to toughen green policies in face of climate emergency

A Devon council has voted to give "appropriate weight" to climate change policies in its local plan and to develop new policies to strengthen its approach to environmental concerns in the wake of the authority declaring a "climate emergency" and the government's new statutory 2050 zero carbon target.
Teignbridge District Council voted to support the recommendations in this report, the purpose being:
To make clear what the current provisions are within the Local Plan for addressing the climate change challenge and to agree that these are given a weight which reflects fully the council’s declaration of a climate emergency and the new national statutory carbon reduction target. The report also sets out the Council’s direction of travel for a new suite of policies to address the climate change challenges as part of the update to the Local Plan and the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan.
with the justification that:
The Council has a responsibility through its planning functions to ensure that new development supports the transition to a low carbon future. Existing policies of the Local Plan should be implemented as effectively as possible and timely progress on the Local Plan update will enable us prepare new policies which are able to achieve the most positive impact and change. Addressing the energy and climate change challenge not only benefits the environment but has social and economic benefits too, helping to improve energy security, reduce fuel poverty, increase revenue from renewable energy generation and support general health and wellbeing of our population.
Posted by
Labels: ,

Coalition forces torch Lafarge cement plant in Syria

We have previously posted about LafargeHolcim’s involvement in Syria. Executives from the parent company of Aggregate Industries have been accused of financing terrorism. Later this month, the Court of Appeal in Paris will decide whether these charges will be upheld.




Posted by
Labels: ,

Thursday, 3 October 2019

‘It’s critical we stop extractive industries greenwashing their crimes’

That's the message in the article Towards a just, post-extractive transition by the author of a new report from the London Mining Network and War on Want, supported by Yes to Life, No to Mining.


Let's firstly remind ourselves, as the report itself does, of this CorpWatch definition:
GREENWASH: "The phenomenon of socially and environmentally destructive corporations attempting to preserve and expand their markets by posing as friends of the environment and leaders in the struggle to eradicate poverty."
According to the article, "the report reveals how the mining industry is greenwashing its operations, positioning itself as a deliverer of the minerals and metals critical to the renewable energy transition", when in reality "the majority of projected future demand for 'critical' minerals and metals does not come from the renewable energy sector at all, but rather from heavy industry, consumer electronics and military and other sources." The author of the report claims:
Mining corporations are aggressively and cynically marketing their destructive activity as a solution to the climate emergency.
Aggregate Industries and parent LafargeHolcim wouldn’t stoop to such levels, would they?



The report also talks about another term:
CARBON INTENSITY refers to carbon emissions per unit of production. Given that production is expected to increase, the relative decoupling of carbon emissions from production are cancelled out by the total increase in projected production.
In other words, reductions in CO2 per tonne can be undone by increases in total production.

This wouldn't apply to Aggregate Industries and LafargeHolcim as well, would it?

Clearly not at Aggregate Industries, because there is still no discernible progress on carbon emissions per unit of production – with CO2 emissions per tonne still increasing. So much for all that determination:


What about another measure of carbon intensity – what about carbon emissions per employee? In the year 2000, when Aggregate Industries’ CO2 emissions amounted 212,532 tonnes, the company reported this to be 59 tonnes per employee.

It’s not a ratio that Aggregate Industries mentions anymore. Perhaps that’s because, with annual emissions in the region of 1.3 million tonnes, it now equates to about 325 tonnes per employee per year. That’s quite a jump – a 450% jump – and certainly something to tell the grandchildren when they ask 'what did you do to help the climate crisis'?

But all this doesn’t stop Aggregate Industries pumping out more and more greenwash. Yesterday, in response to the government’s recent 2050 'net-zero' carbon target, the company issued a press release entitled A holistic approach to innovation will be key to realising net zero pledge states Aggregate Industries. The aggregate press regurgitated it as AI committed to 'net zero' carbon emissions:




The press release clearly calls on us to suspend disbelief, when the company that has overseen a five-fold increase in CO2 emissions claims:
as a forerunner in its commitment to the sustainability plight, Aggregate Industries continues to apply an increasingly eco-friendly approach to all business areas
The company’s CEO goes on to claim:
With the government committing to producing 'net zero' greenhouse gases by 2050, the construction industry’s role in safeguarding the future of our planet has never been more prevalent… Yes, it is a huge task but the sector has been working hard in recent years to address these issues - we believe that having more stringent local targets in place will only work to drive the industry to cut emissions further and faster.
Plainly when Guy Edwards talks about "working hard" and "further and faster" he’s forgetting Aggregate Industries’ 2.5 million mile haulage scheme for Straitgate.

You’d laugh about all this bilge, if the matter weren’t so serious.

Meanwhile, parent LafargeHolcim makes claims about carbon intensity too, about reducing carbon emissions per tonne, as we posted in LafargeHolcim has a way with numbers – CO2 emission numbers:
LafargeHolcim focuses on a kg of CO2 per tonne number – in fact, 576 kg CO2/t appears eight times in the [company's 2018 Sustainability Report], written in varying sizes of text, plainly because of that virtuous 1% reduction from the 2017 figure. But the "total cost to society" is not on a per/tonne basis, it is on a total CO2 emissions basis... You’ll find that number [121,000,000 tonnes CO2] only once in the report. It’s easy to miss, being buried on page 65 in very small text.
LafargeHolcim’s net CO2 emissions have in fact increased in 2018 – by 2.5%... All that enthusing about a 1% reduction in kgCO2/t has been swamped by LafargeHolcim selling 3.5% more cement.
And we've been generous: 121 million tonnes relates to the net CO2 emissions released by LafargeHolcim’s cement production in 2018. LafargeHolcim’s overall carbon footprint in 2018 is even higher, with total gross direct CO2 emissions of 135 million tonnes and total indirect CO2 emissions of 30 million tonnes.

Staggering numbers. But despite our climate emergency, LafargeHolcim is not planning to reduce its CO2 emissions per tonne by any more than 1% per year – to reach its target of 520kgCO2/tonne by 2030. So much for being the most ambitious etc etc:


What's even worse though – assuming the 520kgCO2/tonne target were actually achieved – is that if LafargeHolcim continues to sell 3.5% more material each year, total annual cement emissions would actually rise from 121 million tonnes in 2018 to some 160 million tonnes in 2030.

This is plainly not "consistent with the 2-degree scenario". It is however consistent, as this Financial Times analysis makes clear, with acting in a way that would "wipe out most life on the planet".

Posted by
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)