Aggregate Industries provides first Straitgate update

Nearly three months have elapsed since Aggregate Industries was granted planning permission to quarry Straitgate Farm. 

As previously posted, the company must satisfy a number of pre-commencement conditions and obligations before any mineral extraction can start, which is not expected before 2025. 

Last month, we asked Aggregate Industries to provide monthly updates by email "to include what AI has done at or involving Straitgate over the previous month and what AI is planning for the following month and future dates." 

The company agreed, but warned "the next few months may be relatively quiet as we decide the way forward." 

Aggregate Industries' Planning Manager has this week provided the following update for March:

Further to my email of the 20th February I am just getting in touch with an update on where we are. 

As you are aware we met with some of the local PWS owners on the 8 March and we undertook to respond to the matters raised at that meeting. I am currently working on this response and I hope to be in a position to contact all PWS owners with our response in early April, most likely after Easter, but when I have a firm date I will let you know. 

On other matters we have also met with Devon rights of way to discuss the proposed additions to the rights of way network in the application. 

In the meantime if you have any queries by all means get in touch.

Aggregate Industries’ Moorcroft Quarry generates more concerns

Aggregate Industries' Moorcroft Quarry in Plymstock near Plymouth has not only been causing its neighbours concerns about dust and the removal of trees – as we posted here and here – but also about disturbing vibrations. 

A concerned resident wrote to SAG last week about this ongoing issue: 

I am a nearby resident of the quarry and for the last two years have been experiencing vibration in my house, particularly during the early hours which disturbs my sleep, sometimes 4 – 5 times a night. I have contacted the manager and the area supervisor who has passed it on to their consultant at [redacted]. I have been speaking to the consultant for at least a year, providing a diary and descriptions etc. I’m totally disillusioned with him as I feel he is only trying to protect Aggregate Industries and isn’t interested in solving my problem. 

I believe that the stronger vibrations, which I generally feel between 5 & 6 am, emanate from the asphalt plant which is approximately two hundred metres from my house. Whilst other lighter vibrations are maybe caused by a water management system/pump. 

I contacted my local council this year, they investigated but couldn’t detect any actually noise so claim they can’t do anymore. Apparently, vibration is not a statutory nuisance even though the Environmental Protection Act 1990 & Control of Pollution Act 1974 both state; Noise includes vibration. Also, Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 1999 CHAPTER 24 (a) “pollution” includes pollution caused by noise, heat or vibrations or any other kind of release of energy. 

I have lived here for 27 years and it’s only the last few years that I started experiencing the vibrations. I’m feeling so frustrated with the whole situation as it doesn’t seem to be resolvable as things stand... 

King regards, Steven Furse

Hanson’s Town Farm Quarry extension approved

Hanson’s planning application DCC/4326/2022 submitted last November – subject of this post – to extend working at Town Farm Quarry, near Burlescombe, to raise an estimated one million tonnes of sand and gravel from the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds – the same sand and gravel resource that underlies Straitgate Farm – has been approved under delegated powers by officers at Devon County Council. 

In contrast to Aggregate Industries' highly controversial scheme at Straitgate Farm, 11 neighbours were consulted around the Town Farm site, with "no objections received." 

Town Farm material will be processed at the nearby Whiteball Quarry "approximately 2.5km to the north" on the Somerset border – just 4 miles from Hillhead Quarry, where Straitgate material will be processed. Devon County Council officers: 

...considered that maintaining the production of sand and gravel from the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds at Town Farm minimises transportation distances to the main markets within Devon and adjoining areas, and therefore, the proposed variation of condition accords with Objective 1 (Spatial Strategy) of the Devon Minerals Plan 2011 – 2033.

Contrast this with the Straitgate decision, where the Planning Inspectors were of the view: 

The distance between Straitgate Farm and Hillhead Quarry is about 23 miles. It has not been demonstrated that there is any suitable and available location for processing the mineral closer to the site. Because there is no closer processing facility, the requirement to minimise travel distance would be met.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As a major purchaser of such material, Devon County Council – having declared a climate emergency – will no doubt favour material with a lower carbon footprint over material with a gargantuan one.

Aggregate Industries’ Moorcroft Quarry in the news again

In 2021, we posted that Moorcroft Quarry in Plymstock, was yet another AI quarry in Devon failing to control dust emissions. This time it’s a story in the Plymouth Herald, by the paper’s crime reporter: 

Residents have been left furious with the owner of a quarry for hacking down dozens of 'healthy' full grown trees home to a range of wildlife - and claim the landscape has been 'left looking like a battle scene out of Apocalypse Now' https://t.co/tY4ZfdJVHn

— Plymouth Live (@Plymouth_Live) March 3, 2023

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the story, Aggregate Industries has clearly failed to effectively communicate its intentions to the local community. One angry resident told PlymouthLive: 

The trees along the border have been there for decades - they're really tall and lush in summer and create a natural curtain which muffles a lot of the noise from the quarry. There's a big operation just on the other side and they start work early and it can be really noisy sometimes, so the curtain of trees has been a real benefit to the street. 

But when we saw how many trees they were cutting down, we've been utterly appalled. It's an absolute haven for wildlife. At night you can hear owls hooting, I've seen rabbits and foxes and a few years ago I even saw a herd of deer racing along the top. You even see birds of prey on the upper branches. We all know there's a great big quarry on the other side, but for most of the year you can look at it an imagine it's the edge of a vast beautiful forest. 

They didn't even bother to let the residents know and it looks like they've gone berserk with chainsaws, chopping down perfectly healthy trees. Of course, they'll claim they're all sick or something, but if you look at Google Street View's images of it in May 2022 you can see the majority are perfectly healthy and lush. It's just vandalism - plain and simple. It's the absolute arrogance of these big firms to steam in and hack away at nature which is so galling.

The firm must restock the felled area before June 2029. Another angry resident said: 

We'll be watching very closely to see if they do what they've been told to, because they've left it looking like a battle scene out of Apocalypse Now. They've ripped the guts out of the woods and it looks bloody awful. It'll take decades to return to the lush state it was in before the chainsaws came and the wildlife may never return. 

Aggregate Industries once bragged about its community engagement around Moorcroft Quarry: 

No other quarry of our 87 across the UK needs to have active and effective community engagement more than Moorcroft.  

In our situation we wouldn’t be here if we didn’t listen to our neighbours. Community engagement is a long process of talking, listening and presenting a known face. Even if it’s bad news, we tell them because, if we don’t, they’ll just make up their own stories. 

Hollow words.

EDIT 13.3.23

 

Yet more trees being hacked down by @AggregateUK team at Moorcroft quarry... They obviously missed Attenborough last night saying we need businesses to help save nature... pic.twitter.com/twp9NLaJHY

— Carl Eve (@CarlEveCrime) March 13, 2023

Aggregate Industries’ ‘unilateral ultimatum’

Local private water users are understandably unhappy about Aggregate Industries’ threadbare legal obligation – the company’s Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking, or, as many have called it, ultimatum. 

This legal document, approved by the Planning Inspectors following the Public Inquiry last October, details what Aggregate Industries is obligated to do in the event that any private water supply in the surrounding area is harmed as a result of the company digging into the aquifer at Straitgate Farm. 

Various concerns have been raised with Devon County Council as the Mineral Planning Authority. Many of these concerns, and other ones too, were raised by SAG at the Inquiry. Aggregate Industries' legal representatives dismissed them out of hand – as shown here (with our legal team’s annotated responses) – claiming the UU "fully addresses even the fanciful scenarios that the [SAG] Note proposes": 

the Appellant notes that no Private Water Supplies Interest has raised any concerns with the terms of the licence, including the Rule 6 Party. The terms of the Offer Letter, including the licence have also been agreed with the Council. There is therefore no evidence of any issue with the licence in any event. 

This is plainly not true. Cadhay had been raising concerns for years. These concerns were again raised at the Inquiry by SAG as the Rule 6 party. If other private water users had not raised concerns, it was because Aggregate Industries had not talked to them to find out their specific needs. 

The Planning Inspectors accepted that: 

52. The measures provided in the UU to mitigate loss of flow or water quality have been subject to criticism both by the MPA and by SAG. 

but nevertheless decided: 

55. The UU is provided as a precautionary measure in respect of water supplies and is only necessary on this basis. We find that the UU would be an effective mechanism to provide alternative water supplies. 

In response to the concerns since raised by local people, Devon County Council, who is not a signatory to the agreement, said: 

We have referred your concerns and those of others to the County Council’s legal department and it is their view that we cannot offer legal advice to third parties on this matter and that you would need to take your own legal advice to decide how to proceed. 

Clearly, local people are now on their own in the event of any dispute if their water supplies become harmed – up against the deep pockets of a global cement giant.  

The barrister representing SAG, said in his closing statement: 

The Appellant has given little attention to the practical details of the mitigation necessary to protect the 120 people, businesses, three farms and the Cadhay House Estate who rely on private water supplies. It is absolutely no excuse to say that private water supplies might be harmed in a number of different ways. The multiple types of problem which might occur underscore the need for proper solutions to be worked up. In that regard it is important to bear in mind the inequality of arms between the Appellant and the many individuals whose private water supplies the development plan requires to be protected. 

What Devon County Council does have some say over going forward is Water Protection and Monitoring, as detailed in Condition 27: 

Prior to the commencement of development, a water supply monitoring scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The scheme shall secure the ongoing monitoring, management and maintenance of water supplies and shall specify: 

(a) the monitoring arrangements (including monitoring of pH levels) for private water supplies;

(b) the monitoring arrangements (including monitoring of pH levels) for stream flows at private water supplies; 

(c) the frequency of monitoring at the private water supplies which for the avoidance of doubt shall be a minimum of once per month for the lifetime of the planning permission; 

(d) the continuation of the surface water and groundwater monitoring points including a requirement to maintain a piezometer at each corner of each working sub-phase of the development and to replace any piezometers that become lost through quarry working; 

(e) the maintenance arrangements for the piezometers at the private water supplies; 

(f) the form and content of the annual monitoring report which is to be provided to the Mineral Planning Authority in respect of the private water supplies. 

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved monitoring scheme. 

It is understandable how all this, which for many will be the first formal communication from Aggregate Industries, must all have come as a nasty shock for private water users. No friendly introductions. No apologies for its plans to dig up the neighbourhood and cause untold aggravation. Just a legal ultimatum that will leave a large number of people with 20 or more years of worry and uncertainty. 

Is it any wonder mineral planning applications attract so much opposition?

‘Sustainability is at the heart of our business’, parrots AI – and thousands of others

We welcome the announcement of the new Department for Energy Security and #NetZero. #Sustainability is at the heart of our business and we are delighted to see that the need for more renewable sources and solutions is being recognised. Read our vision: https://t.co/Sa83zelOby 🌎 pic.twitter.com/oxBlPF23Eb

— Aggregate Industries (@AggregateUK) February 7, 2023

"Sustainability is at the heart of our business" is a phrase Aggregate Industries parrots again and again. But it's not the only company to do so. A search for the phrase on Google produces 140,000 results.

As this article remarks: 

Suspiciously similar versions of the same trite slogan inundate press releases, CEO speeches, advertising campaigns, media interviews and sustainability reports the world over.

We know the slogan means nothing to Aggregate Industries – as its plans for Straitgate Farm with processing of as-dug sand and gravel an unprecedented 23 miles away at Hillhead Quarry confirm. 

The article goes on: 

If ever there was a phrase that was so obviously extracted from the bowels of the corporate communications department and inserted into the mouth of an unsuspecting executive, this is it. 

The truth is, if sustainability actually was central to so many business philosophies, the planet would probably not be quite as warm as it is now.

So why are so many brands hiding behind the same slogan when talking about a topic that is now under such intense scrutiny from investors, regulators and consumers? 

"There is a perceived ‘safety in sameness’ – particularly when it comes to sustainability communications," says Suzy Goulding, who leads sustainability for communications company Publicis Groupe in Asia. As long as brands say exactly the same as their peers, no-one will ask awkward questions, appears to be the reasoning, she suggests. 

Using hackneyed slogans like "sustainability is in our DNA" achieves the opposite of shielding a company from scrutiny, Goulding contends. "The first thing I would want to ask a client if this was their opening statement would be: prove it."  

Fossil fuels companies use the "DNA" mantra often, observes Belinda Noble, founder of Comms Declare, a non-profit pushing for public relations firms to stop working for Big Oil.  

"For most companies it is meaningless, self-serving bullsh*t. Either, it is an aspiration from their executive team, or a blatant tactic from the marketing team to capitalise on green consumer sentiment,” she says. 

Brands that have genuinely embedded sustainability into their businesses, like clothing brand Patagonia and confectioner Tony’s Chocolonely, can usually clearly articulate what their purpose is without a generic catch-all phrase, says Darian McBain, the former CSO of the Monetary Authority of Singapore and Thai Union, who recently started a consultancy. 

She says businesses are feeling pressured to insert sustainability somewhere in the language they use, but don’t really understand how or why. “Sustainability is at the heart of our business” means little, isn’t measurable but keeps you firmly in the pack to meet generic stakeholder expectations,” says McBain. 

For some businesses, a more appropriate phrase would be "sustainability is the appendix of our business", McBain suggests: "No real purpose, can be removed surgically without significant interruption to longevity, but has significant implications if it bursts."

With growing pressure on brands to prove that their sustainability claims are real, with serious legal consequences for those that aren’t – just ask Shell, Danone, H&M, Deutsche Bank and others – loose, generalised claims now feel perilously out of date. 

Brands, please stop saying 'sustainability is in our DNA'. If #sustainability really was at the heart of everything businesses did, the planet probably would not be 1.2°C warmer than it should be. It's time to stop using the same meaningless slogan https://t.co/ZeMmePtg2f

— Robin Hicks (@RobinHicks_) February 1, 2023

Holcim targeted by climate activists

Last week, Holcim – parent company of Aggregate Industries, the company who recently won permission to trash Straitgate Farm – was targeted by climate activists. The company’s Zurich HQ was daubed with the German word "Klimazerstörer", or "climate destroyer".

Hazel dormice should be classified as endangered, new research suggests

Hazel dormice should be classified as endangered, new research suggests https://t.co/rUMtNmLPez

— Independent Climate (@indy_climate) February 10, 2023

The first paper from my PhD is out today! 🥳For anyone interested in conservation status and hazel dormice 🐭 https://t.co/wh8Sd5vB9b

— Ellie Scopes (@ScopesEllie) February 10, 2023

HS2 got its nature figures wrong, new report reveals

HS2 – already plagued with issues – has, according to The Wildlife Trusts, underestimated its impact on habitats and wildlife. 

BREAKING! 🚨

Our natural world is being threatened…again! Buckle up for a thread as we take you through the catalogue of errors in @HS2ltd’s nature sums https://t.co/atXTEquuUr 🧵 (1/5) pic.twitter.com/4PhAHaCMeZ

— The Wildlife Trusts (@WildlifeTrusts) February 8, 2023

The charity is urging wildlife lovers to sign this open letter. They claim:

many well established tree-lined and species-rich hedgerows, which provide berries, shelter and nesting places for wildlife, have been given a lower nature value than the new hedgerows that HS2 Ltd is going to plant.

We shouldn’t be surprised. It was the same for Aggregate Industries’ plans for Straitgate Farm, where centuries-old 4m-wide biodiversity-rich hedgerows were valued at 39.92 units, less than their young sapling replacements at 43.19 units. 

Why did this matter at Straitgate? These units formed part of the Planning Inspectors’ decision:  

85. …there would be a 15% net gain in biodiversity… which would further weigh significantly in favour. 

Devon County Council’s ecology witness said it wasn't clear how these figures had been derived:  

5.7 Subsequent to biodiversity metric offsetting calculations provided in the July 2017 Regulation 22 Ecology Response, SLR submitted a recalculation of Biodiversity Net Gain using the Defra Metric 2.0 tool in January 2021 [CD4.51A] and returned an overall 18.07% increase in habitat units and 8.18% increase in hedgerow units. The report states that the scheme provides an overall net gain in biodiversity units of 15% but it is not clear how this figure has been arrived at based on the headline summary figures from the Metric 2.0 (habitats, hedgerows and riverine habitats are calculated separately). 

Maybe it was smoke and mirrors, maybe it was magic. Whatever it was, the approach of biodiversity net gain clearly trades wildlife losses today for uncertain future gains – with a huge number of mitigation commitments from developers failing to be delivered.  

Industrial trials start on zero-carbon cement production

Industrial trials starts on zero-carbon cement https://t.co/KbtWqNpnqJ #constructionnews #construction #businessnews pic.twitter.com/Fr1cW981PL

— Construction Index (@TCIndex) February 8, 2023

The Cement 2 Zero project aims to demonstrate that concrete can be recycled to create a slag forming addition that could, when cooled rapidly, replace Portland cement.  

The two-year industrial trial will test each stage of the production process, bringing together the Materials Processing Institute, the University of Cambridge and industry partners – Atkins, Balfour Beatty, Celsa, Day Aggregates and Tarmac. Eventually the zero carbon cement – known as Cambridge Electric Cement – will be used in a real UK construction project.  

Philippa Horton of the University of Cambridge, who created the project consortium, said: "If Cambridge Electric Cement lives up to the promise it has shown in early laboratory trials, when combined with other innovative technologies, it could be a pivotal point in the journey to a zero-emissions society."

‘Construction mineral products sales drop at fastest pace since 2012’

That's according to the Mineral Products Association: 

As the year closed, sales volumes of primary aggregates (crushed rock and sand & gravel) in Great Britain had fallen by 8.2% on an annual basis in 2022, asphalt fell by 6.5% and ready-mixed concrete by 3.8%, according to the latest quarterly survey by the MPA. Excluding the anomaly due to Covid in 2020, these are the fastest rates of decline recorded since 2012 for aggregates and asphalt, and the second fastest rate of decline for ready-mixed concrete.

RED FLAG: UK producers of #aggregates, #asphalt and #concrete had a challenging end to 2022. Weakness in the market for these heavy-side materials is a red flag for the wider #construction sector.

Full story:https://t.co/CkboQ4cU56#economy2023 #budget2023 #essentialminerals pic.twitter.com/2uJs38CABc

— Mineral Products Association (@MineralProduct) February 9, 2023

‘No digging at Straitgate before 2025’ – says Aggregate Industries

Oh, the tales Aggregate Industries has told on its way to winning permission to quarry Straitgate Farm.

Would locals have been more sympathetic to the idea of a quarry at Straitgate if they hadn’t been spun so much fiction? Possibly not – but the company will now face a harder job if it wants to build any trust with the local community. 

Last week, Aggregate Industries’ personnel – delivering letters to local people with private water supplies now at risk – said that, because of pre-commencement conditions, work would not start at Straitgate before 2025. 

This is some 15 years after the company put Straitgate forward in a call for aggregate sites and some 57 years since the first planning application was turned down – with permission now granted for an amount just 1/8th or 1/20th of what was hoped for at those respective times. If all mineral planning applications were that successful, the industry would be on its knees. 

But who knows whether 2025 will actually be the year that bulldozers finally rip Straitgate Farm apart? 

Once upon a time, back in 2015, Aggregate Industries said that Straitgate should come on stream quickly to replace exhausted reserves at nearby Venn Ottery Quarry. The company claimed: 

1.15 AI produces sand and gravel at Venn Ottery Quarry, which currently has permitted reserves capable of providing saleable material until early 2016 based on current levels of sales (350,000 tonnes per year). It is therefore necessary to plan for additional reserves being available from early 2016. The sand and gravel reserves at Straitgate Farm are considered to be a direct replacement for reserves at Venn Ottery. 

What was wrong with the millions of tonnes of sand and gravel already with permission at Hillhead – which the company is now using? The company had another tale: 

5.7 AI also has reserves at Hillhead Quarry (the Houndaller Extraction Area) located at Uffculme in East Devon. The extraction of the Houndaller reserves as an alternative to the mineral deposit at Straitgate is not a sustainable solution by virtue of the % ratio of gravel to sand. The Houndaller deposit is made up of 75% sand: 25% gravel. To meet the needs of the county in terms of gravel production would lead to a massive over-production of sand on account of this imbalance. 

Somehow, since 2016, and now apparently not until 2025, Aggregate Industries has managed to meet the needs of the county with the reserves at Hillhead, and without the benefit of Straitgate. If anybody has seen a "massive over-production of sand" littering the Devon landscape, the Mineral Planning Authority at Devon County Council would surely like to know. 

Straitgate material will be taken 23 miles to Hillhead for processing. One assumes Aggregate Industries will have assessed the financial viability of this, but in 2015 the company claimed: 

8.27 If a processing plant were erected at Hillhead to process the Straitgate mineral, it would need to be substantially modified or reduced to be able to process the Hillhead mineral, rendering such a circumstance economically unviable. 

This in contrast with what the company claimed at the Public Inquiry: 

3.13 In contrast, the sand and gravel deposit indigenous to Hillhead Quarry is red in colour and is sand rich, containing circa 20% gravel. The two mineral deposits complement each other well and it is proposed to process the two deposits together to provide the market with the mix of products it demands. 

The "mythical yellow sand of Straitgate" was "debunked" at the Inquiry. Furthermore, the company also once claimed: 

8.36 It should also be noted that the current markets for the Venn Ottery mineral are in Exeter and East Devon. This is anticipated to apply to mineral from Straitgate. In the event of processing at Hillhead, this would result in further additional mileage being incurred to transport mineral product to the markets.

This again is contrary to what was claimed at the Public Inquiry: 

6.96 The calculations in the report show that the appeal proposal for extraction at Straitgate Farm with onward processing at Hillhead Quarry will result in 11% lower GHG emissions than meeting the demand for sand and gravel in proposed markets from existing quarries. This is mainly due to these markets being closer to Hillhead than existing suppliers.

which was in turn contrary to another previous claim: 

8.48 Processing at Hillhead may be feasible, but would generate a massively greater quantity of CO2 emissions from the additional mileage required to be travelled. 

This was a line played back to Aggregate Industries at the Inquiry, a line that – as with so many other things – the Inspectors were happy to disregard. 

So, going forward, people should be forgiven if they don’t trust everything Aggregate Industries tells them.

Aggregate Industries’ water monitoring scheme

Some 120 people and businesses and farms are dependent on the Straitgate aquifer for their drinking water supplies – supplies now at risk from Aggregate Industries’ planning permission. 

Last week, Aggregate Industries personnel delivered invitations to local people reliant on those private water supplies to join the company’s water monitoring scheme. This was not some charitable gesture. It forms part of the company’s legal agreement – necessary to secure permission – which undertook "within one calendar month of the date of the Planning Permission" to:  

send an Offer Letter to Private Water Supplies Interests offering to monitor their water supply in accordance with the Water Supply Monitoring Scheme for the lifetime of the Planning Permission and thereafter in accordance with the Post Restoration Water Supply Monitoring Scheme...;

where:

"Private Water Supply Interests" means those persons who own or occupy the Private Water Supplies as listed in Appendix 7 or as otherwise notified to the Owner pursuant to paragraph 1.1.3 of Schedule 1 to this Deed;

A template of the offer letter can be found here.  

Aggregate Industries will provide "12 months of baseline monitoring (consisting of monthly visits to check water levels and sampling of water quality)." Furthermore, in line with condition 27: 

Prior to the commencement of development, a water supply monitoring scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.

Amongst other things, this shall specify: 

the frequency of monitoring at the private water supplies which for the avoidance of doubt shall be a minimum of once per month for the lifetime of the planning permission

Indonesian islanders file climate lawsuit against Holcim

Residents of an Indonesian island, at risk of losing their livelihoods due to the rise in sea level and flooding, have filed a lawsuit against the parent company of Aggregate Industries seeking damages for its role in climate change. One of the plaintiffs warned: 

Our existence is under threat. We want those responsible to now finally take action. 

Not our problem, says Swiss cement giant Holcim: 

We do not believe that court cases focused on single companies are an effective mechanism to tackle the global complexity of climate action.

Well they wouldn’t, would they? This the company that claims climate change is a "top priority", but whose cost to society in 2021 was 156 million tons of CO2 emissions – up from 146 million tons in 2020.

Holcim is one of the 50 largest emitters of CO2 out of all companies worldwide. After a fruitless conciliation hearing, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the company on behalf of the entire island, the existence of which is under threat, at the Cantonal Court of Zug 🇨🇭. pic.twitter.com/LKjhtYxTru

— ECCHR (@ECCHRBerlin) February 1, 2023

A decade ago lawsuits like this were nearly impossible to prove

Now climate science can directly attribute a company’s culpability. In this case .42% of damages

Hard to overstate the brave new world of financial liability this creates. Investors beware😳 https://t.co/bm6lkZ6X5f

— Justin Guay (@Guay_JG) February 1, 2023

Secondary aggregate sales in Devon continue to rise – whilst sand & gravel flatlines

In 2021, sales of secondary aggregates in Devon exceeded sales of sand and gravel – according to Devon County Council’s 11th Local Aggregate Assessment, published last week.

This is not a one-off – as previous LAAs confirm. It has been the case for the last 4 years. Indeed, sales have been growing for some time. Back in 2012, sales of secondary aggregates were 24% lower than sales of sand and gravel; in 2021, they were 30% higher. 

Devon County Council commented: 

the three years sales averages for... sand and gravel remain below the ten years sales averages for the second consecutive year [whilst] sales of secondary aggregates have increased by 14% in 2021 from the previous year 

With hundreds of millions of tonnes of this waste product blighting the landscape in Devon and Cornwall, secondary aggregates are a sustainable alternative to primary virgin aggregates – the sort that will be dug up with untold damage at Straitgate Farm. 

In the LAA, the Council explains: 

3.3.1 The major source of secondary aggregates in Devon is the by-products derived from the extraction and processing of china clay in the Lee Moor area of Devon, which in 2021 accounted for 79% of the county’s production of secondary aggregates (a reduction of approximately 20% from 2020). For each tonne of saleable china clay, up to nine tonnes of other materials are produced, with two main elements capable of use as secondary aggregate:  stent (rock), which can be used as general fill or, after crushing and screening, for other aggregate purposes; and  tip sand (washed material comprising quartz, unaltered feldspar and mica) which, with grading and washing, can be used for a variety of aggregate purposes including concrete and building sand. 

3.3.5 Two new sources of secondary aggregates are included in this year’s figures, one of which is Hemerdon Mine, near Plymouth, where the current operator, Tungsten West, has expressed a clear intention to re-start the winning of tungsten and tin, and commenced commercial secondary aggregates production in February 2021 through a new company called Aggregates West. At the time of publication of this report, Aggregates West were also seeking to vary a condition on the mining consent which currently restricts the export of secondary aggregates to 50 HGVs per day. The second new site is the incinerator bottom ash (IBA) recycling facility at Hill Barton Business Park, Exeter, which was granted permission in November 2019 and became operational in February 2020. Whilst the upturn in secondary aggregates sales figures for 2021 can be partially attributed to these two new sites, it is considered that the significance of Hemerdon as a source of secondary aggregate could increase in the future if the current planning application is approved. 

Since this was written, and as we posted, Tungsten West’s plans to increase HGV movements of secondary aggregates from the Hemerdon Mine from 50 to 200 per day have been put on hold, after its planning application DCC/4314/2022 – which attracted hundreds of objections – was withdrawn. 

Meanwhile, and as we record here, the new LAA charts the fall in Devon's sand and gravel landbank from 7.6 years in 2020 to 6.5 years in 2021. This is less than the 7 years suggested by the NPPF, which allowed the Planning Inspectors to boldly claim "a shortage of sand and gravel in Devon" and thereby "great weight in favour" of permitting mineral extraction of the 1 million tonnes – a relatively minor 2 years' worth of additional landbank – at Straitgate Farm. 

Inexplicably, the Inspectors chose to ignore the 23 million tonne resource at Penslade, sitting next door to Aggregate Industries’ processing plant at Hillhead, which will provide Devon with nearly 50 years' worth of the very same material.

Protesters hold ‘funeral’ for site of Holcim quarry extension

Holcim’s capacity to wreak environmental destruction is not limited to East Devon. Last month, the parent company of Aggregate Industries won another quarry battle, this time on its home turf.

We had previously posted about the site in 2021, when police cleared protesters using tear gas and rubber bullets. 

Last month, campaigners finally lost their battle and held a ‘funeral’ for the site.

The Federal Court has ruled that cement group Holcim can extend its quarry at the sensitive natural site, but must fill the crater in after it has been exploited. https://t.co/ZP5DJomLie

— swissinfo.ch (@swissinfo_en) January 21, 2023

Starting from the village of La Sarraz, the protesters went up to the Birette plateau at the Mormont site, stopping in front of the pit already dug by Holcim and throwing in a symbolic funeral wreath. Speakers included Swiss Nobel prize-winner for chemistry Jacques Dubochet.   

Alain Chanson, president of the Association to Save the Mormont, said environmental activists had been defending the site for ten years “against the voracity of Holcim”, but that the Federal Court had just “condemned it to death". 

The protest follows a decision this month by the Federal Court on appeals by three associations against the extension of the Mormont quarry. The court ruled that while Holcim could exploit the new site known as Birette, it must restore damage to the landscape afterwards. Chanson said that "the fight goes on" to preserve what remains of the Mormont, whose environmental richness was recognized by the court. 

Activists occupied the site in October 2020 in an attempt to stop the quarry extension. However, they were forcibly evacuated by police in March 2021.

AI’s plans for Straitgate incompatible with Inspectors’ planning conditions

The Planning Inspectorate has granted Aggregate Industries permission to extract sand and gravel at Straitgate Farm – despite the fact that the company’s approved plans cannot be implemented without one of the imposed conditions being broken.

It has long been recognised that mineral extraction at Straitgate could introduce bodies of water directly below the flight path of Exeter Airport, thereby increasing the risk of birdstrike. In 2012, Exeter Airport wrote to Devon County Council with its concerns: 

As you are aware, the risk of a bird strike on an aircraft can be catastrophic, and as a result all aviation stakeholders do all possible to mitigate against this happening. 

Under the Air Navigation Law, it is a criminal offence to endanger an aircraft or its occupants by any means. 

The creation of any body of water, particularly on a long term basis, has the potential to create a suitable habitat which encourages an increase in bird activity for nesting, feeding and migration. 

Due to the location of the proposed quarry, it is felt that there is a real risk to aircraft if there is an increase in this area.

In light of these concerns – documented as a constraint in the Devon Minerals Plan – conditions relating to Airport Safeguarding were recommended in the Officer’s Report in 2021. 

However, based on comments made on the last day of the Public Inquiry, the condition relating to Airport Safeguarding and the creation of water bodies was strengthened by the Inspectors. It now reads: 

25. No water body shall be created within the site other than the approved weigh bridge lagoon.  

This condition, which Aggregate Industries must comply with if it is to quarry Straitgate Farm, is clear and unambiguous. It is not limited by the size or duration of any water body – large or small, permanent or temporary. 

What exactly is a water body? Wikipedia says "The term most often refers to oceans, seas, and lakes, but it includes smaller pools of water such as ponds, wetlands, or more rarely, puddles." LawInsider goes further. This helpful graphic also explains. 

How easy would it be to create a water body at Straitgate? Fortunately, we know. Aggregate Industries’ archeological investigations were held up in October 2014 because water in the archaeological trenches would not drain away. 

We also know that Aggregate Industries has form in creating water bodies that attract birds elsewhere at their sites in Devon – just click on the labels airport safeguarding or birdstrike, or these posts here, here, here, here, here and here. Below is a photo of a water body left by the company at Hillhead:

But let’s put all that to one side for a moment. 

One of Aggregate Industries’ approved plans – listed in the Planning Inspectors’ report as Restoration Scheme SF/6 rev E – actually encourages water bodies: 

EPHEMERAL WATER BODIES AND SPECIES-RICH WET GRASSLAND TO BE ENCOURAGED IN LOW-LYING INFILTRATION AREAS (IN THE BASE OF THE DEPRESSIONS)

As low points in the quarried landform, water bodies might be expected to form in these areas. But Aggregate Industries says they are needed for surface water management reasons too: 

The features are part of site restoration to ensure the site is restored to baseline conditions with some betterment. The features allow the restored site to mimic natural conditions, but ensure a greater proportion of rainfall passes to ground to provide flow support to the watercourses, rather than passing off-site as overland flow. 2.18.7 

In addition to that, the creation of infiltration areas on the eastern boundary of the site is an integral part of the company’s flood mitigation scheme. At the Public Inquiry the Inspectors were told by Aggregate Industries’ hydrogeology witness that standing water will remain in these areas for up to 15 days in the summer and 24 days in the winter. Of course, if it rains again in the meantime – as it often does – the duration will be extended. 

So – there is a contradiction. Aggregate Industries’ plans rely on the creation of water bodies, which the Planning Inspectors’ conditions prohibit. 

In other words, Aggregate Industries’ plans cannot be implemented without the conditions being broken. 

One might ask why the Planning Inspectors granted permission for a scheme that was incompatible with their conditions. Whatever the reason, it would appear there was more concern with approving Aggregate Industries’ scheme than there was in seeing whether it could actually work.

Can anything be done now?

That was the very question Ottery Town Council asked Devon County Council last week:

Ottery St Mary Town Council held their January meeting on Monday and have requested that I write to you to voice their extreme disappointment at the judgement from the Planning Inspectorate in relation to the Straitgate Farm Planning Appeal Inquiry.  The Council has never supported the plans for the creation of a quarry and are very concerned about the extremely negative impact the development will have on our parish.  The Council would like to ask whether there is any further action that Devon County Council can take to prevent the quarry from being built?

Devon County Council responded: 

Like the Town Council, Devon County Council is disappointed that the robust defence of the reasons for refusal put forward by its expert witnesses (together with those acting on behalf of Straitgate Action Group) has not been reflected in a favourable appeal decision. The only means for the County Council or another aggrieved party with sufficient standing to challenge the Planning Inspectorate’s decision is through judicial review of the lawfulness of the decision – this would not involve any reconsideration of the merits or otherwise of the development proposals, but would be a challenge to the way in which that decision was made on grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.

So what can be done? 

Now that Aggregate Industries has been granted permission to quarry Straitgate Farm, attention turns to the planning conditions and legal obligations – shown below – that have been imposed by the Government Planning Inspectors. It is only by the imposition of these conditions and obligations that the Inspectors consider the company’s application to be acceptable. 

 

Links to the the planning conditions and S106 legal obligations have been put on the side of this blog for future reference, and the What to do page has been re-written accordingly. 

Devon County Council as the Minerals Planning Authority has the unenviable responsibility for enforcing the multitude of conditions and obligations. The Council encourages members of the public to report any suspected breaches. The Council’s Monitoring and Enforcement Plan says:  

3.2.1  Local planning authorities such as DCC have a duty to investigate alleged breaches of planning control, and anyone reporting an alleged breach to the Council is entitled to expect that the matter will be investigated in a timely and professional manner and the outcome communicated to them. 

4.1.1  DCC encourages the reporting of suspected breaches of planning control by members of the public or representative bodies such as town and parish councils and County Councillors. As development can gain immunity from enforcement action over time, it is important that any suspected breaches are reported as soon as possible in order that harmful development can be removed or minimised. 

4.3.10 A significant proportion of complaints received by DCC concern existing mineral or waste sites where it is alleged that the operator is failing to comply with the approved documents or with the conditions attached to the site’s planning permissions. Common examples include working outside approved hours, failure to control levels of noise or dust, and failure to carry out necessary habitat management or restoration work. While such breaches can become apparent through the Council’s site monitoring, reports are welcomed from local residents to ensure that adverse impacts can be investigated as early as possible. 

4.1.2  The most convenient means of reporting an unauthorised development or other potential breach is through the online reporting facility on DCC’s planning website at https://www.devon.gov.uk/planning/enforcement. 

Other methods of communication available are: Email: planning@devon.gov.uk 

Post:  Development Management Planning, Transportation & Environment Devon County Council Lucombe House County Hall Exeter EX2 4QD 

Phone: 01392 383000 (ask for Planning) 

Aggregate Industries must satisfy a number of pre-commencement conditions and obligations before any mineral extraction can start. Given, for example, the company’s astonishing failure to date to reliably measure something as fundamental as the site’s rate of infiltration, condition 13, this is no small task.

Cumbrian coal mine legal challenge alleges ‘apparent bias of Planning Inspector’

In December, Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, granted planning permission for a new coal mine in Cumbria following a Public Inquiry in September 2021. 

Last week, South Lakes Action on Climate Change [SLACC] launched a legal challenge against the government’s decision. The legal team acting for SLACC allege in their Pre-Action letter that: 

8. Unfortunately, the [Inspector’s Report], and thus the [Secretary of State’s decision letter], are shot through with errors and with examples of the Inspector (and hence the Secretary of State) either ignoring or cherry-picking evidence. 

Eight proposed grounds for challenge have been advanced, one of which is: 

Ground 7: Procedural impropriety - Apparent bias of the Inspector 

63. As was reported in local media in August 2022, by the BBC in August 2022 and in national news after the instant decision was announced, the Report published and the Secretary of State’s statement to Parliament, emphasising his reliance on the Report of the “independent planning Inspector”, immediately prior to closing the Inquiry in respect of the Hownsgill Appeal, the Inspector made the following remarks: 

“I’m from a mining background. I’m from a pit village. I still live in a pit village. I worked 10 years down the pit. I’m the only inspector ever to work down the pit” 

“The anguish you felt when the steel works closed, I’ve been part of it so I know what you went through because I went through it.” 

64. SLACC is concerned that the Inspector’s comments would cause a fair-minded and informed observer who has considered the facts to consider that there was a real possibility that he was biased in favour of the applicant’s case. His comments arguably go beyond demonstrating that he had appropriate mining experience relevant to the inquiry and raised questions whether and to what extent the Inspector’s experience and views were taken into account when he was appointed.   

 

SLACC are starting a legal challenge against the government's suicidal decision to allow a new coal mine. Good on SLACC. You can support them https://t.co/93iIevl9HW https://t.co/pbap69SKN2

— Coal Action Network (@CoalActionUK) January 9, 2023

‘The Kalashnikov that killed my son was bought with Lafarge's money’

Holcim – previously LafargeHolcim, the parent company of Aggregate Industries, which was formed after a "merger of equals" in 2015 between Swiss-based Holcim and French-based Lafarge – will be the ultimate beneficiary of the quarry at Straitgate Farm.

 

The company changed its name in 2021, no doubt because of a number of controversies. One controversy – Lafarge’s previous support for terrorists in Syria – refuses to go away.

 

"🇫🇷 intelligence was paying DAESH via LaFarge. This money may have been used in the Paris attacks. The Kalashnikov that killed the French was bought with LaFarge's money."

We are no strangers to the French collaborating with terrorist organizations. Now the PKK?
#LaCorseLibre pic.twitter.com/mCUSP87PDj

— hermes (@hermes_z) January 5, 2023

This sits separate from the French prosecution for complicity in crimes against humanity & any claim to remedies from victims.

What the (otherwise great) article by @rebeccadobrien & @GlennThrush doesn't explain is that these fines will not go to the victims but to @USTreasury

— Tara Van Ho: mastodon: @taravanho@bhre.social (@TaraVanHo) October 18, 2022

So where did it all go wrong?

Were the seven reasons Devon County Council gave for refusing Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm, together with the multitude of arguments advanced by Straitgate Action Group, presented at the Public Inquiry in October by two leading barristers and numerous experts, all so very flimsy that they could be written off in a sentence or two?

Seemingly so. 

We have now read the report by the Planning Inspectors, who last week granted Aggregate Industries permission to quarry Straitgate Farm subject to conditions and legal obligations.  

Local people have commented that the report "reads like an AI press release", that "the report appears as if it was written by [AI’s] KC himself", that "In every matter, the Inspectors chose to accept AI’s dodgy evidence and arguments", etc. 

Isn’t that strange, given the Planning Inspectorate says it will "always operate in a fair, open and impartial way"? Did the Planning Inspectors – one with a background at British Coal – look charitably at Aggregate Industries’ appeal through mineral-tinted spectacles?  

Let’s look at one or two of their comments. 

In relation to one of the main areas of contention – groundwater, and the mechanism for water movement through the unsaturated zone put forward by Prof Rick Brassington, supported by the Council’s expert hydrogeologist, Paul Thomson, and much scientific literature – the Inspectors apparently knew best: 

23. ...we are not persuaded that piston flow is the dominant flow mechanism in the BSPB or at the site... 27. ...we prefer the appellant’s model of rapid infiltration... 

And with that, the potential harm to private water supplies to 120 people, farms and businesses, to Cadhay and its mediaeval fishponds, to wetland habitats in ancient woodlands, instantly fell away. The evidence from the only Professor of Hydrogeology in the room was dismissed by Inspectors, neither of whom are expert in the subject. 

The Inspectors chose to find comfort elsewhere, saying: 

46. Similar monitoring together with rainfall measurements has also been carried out by the EA. The available data is thus comprehensive. We note the MPA’s concern that a pumping test has not been carried out in order to assess hydraulic conductivity and specific yield, but we see no reason to doubt the robustness of the assessment work that has been undertaken by the appellant. 

But no "similar monitoring" has been performed by the Environment Agency at Straitgate Farm. And without a pumping test, the hydraulic conductivity – the ease with which water can move through the ground – is unknown. 

The Inspectors dismissed the distance the as-dug material would need to be hauled for processing: 

134. The distance between Straitgate Farm and Hillhead Quarry is about 23 miles... Because there is no closer processing facility, the requirement to minimise travel distance would be met.  

What clever logic. But, as one astute person pointed out, if the nearest processing plant were Glasgow – would the requirement to minimise travel distance still be met? 

The Inspectors – clearly untroubled by our climate emergency – dismissed the harm this haulage scheme would cause: 

136. There is no other substantive evidence before us of any harm resulting from transportation of the mineral.  

However, any reasonable person would be able to deduce that the resulting 2.5 million HGV miles would have a harmful environmental impact, not only from CO2, but also from brake and tyre particulates, road damage etc. 

On the issue of need, the Inspectors pointed to a shortage of sand and gravel in Devon, and argued there was no immediate prospect of Aggregate Industries’ Penslade – another Preferred Area in the Devon Minerals Plan, with 8 million tonnes of the same resource right next-door to the processing plant – coming forward: 

82. ...the MPA stated that the landbank at the end of 2021 was 6.4 years, less than the 7 years required by the Framework. There is thus a shortage of sand and gravel in Devon. Although development of the allocated site west of Penslade Cross would contribute significantly to supply, there is no immediate prospect of this coming forward, and our decision must be based on the current situation with respect to sand and gravel supply. 

The Inspectors chose to ignore the Council’s evidence and the closing statement from the Council’s barrister, who said: 

217. Moreover, it is not disputed by Mr Gould that the Appellant plans to seek pre-application advice regarding West of Penslade before the end of this year with a view to an application in 2023.

On the cattle crossing issue, the Inspectors remarkably found: 

105. ...no cogent evidence to confirm that there would be an increase in livestock movements. 

However, the Inquiry was provided with clear evidence of this from SAG’s agricultural expert – the only such expert at the Inquiry. Even without his evidence, it is obvious that, with more than 80% of the pasture removed for quarrying, there would be a requirement for additional livestock movements across the Exeter Road to access alternative pasture. The Inspectors instead clung to the notion – without any evidence – that the farmers will sign an agreement to scupper their own business. 

158. It was explained at the Inquiry that it has not been possible for the farm tenant to sign the section 106 agreement because of ongoing negotiations. 

And indeed Aggregate Industries’ KC did claim this, despite there being no ongoing negotiations.

So, well done to Aggregate Industries. Three cheers. After years of trying, the cement giant has finally done it, finally got the better of the local action group, finally won permission to quarry the living daylights out of Straitgate Farm, rip out the ancient hedgerows, fell the veteran trees, displace the protected species, disturb aquifers and water courses, remove the top of a hill for ever more. 

It goes without saying that the company’s presence in the area will not be welcome. The company has no social licence; County, District, Town and Parish councils were all against Aggregate Industries’ scheme. The company has done nothing to endear itself to the local community over the last 10 years. There has been too much falsity and fiction for that. 

Neither will Aggregate Industries find working the site easy. The permission comes with a multitude of onerous conditions and legal obligations – many that need to be satisfied before any excavator shovel hits the ground. 

For example, compliance with the Airport Safeguarding condition: 

25. No water body shall be created within the site other than the approved weigh bridge lagoon. 

will be a challenge, given our variable climate and the high groundwater levels, since no water body shall be created – temporary or permanent, large or otherwise. 

Likewise, the restriction: 

17. There shall be no HGV movements... during the periods 07:45 hours to 08:45 hours and 15:15 hours to 16:45 hours during school terms.  

will also be a constraint. 

Local people – particularly those concerned with preserving their drinking water supplies – will make sure that the company strictly adheres to all these conditions and obligations, knowing how the company has sometimes struggled – here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here – to stick to conditions at its other sites.  

The quarry at Straitgate Farm will surely come under more public scrutiny than any other Aggregate Industries’ operation.

Despite everything – Aggregate Industries wins Straitgate Farm appeal

We are disappointed to report that, despite all the compelling arguments, all the issues, all the risks, all the harms, Aggregate Industries’ appeal against Devon County Council’s decision last year to refuse planning permission for a sand and gravel quarry at Straitgate Farm with haulage of the as-dug material to Hillhead Quarry has been allowed, and planning permission granted.

The Planning Inspectors’ report can be found below. 

We have tried our hardest over the last 20 years to stop this harmful development on the doorstep of Ottery St Mary. Let’s now hope that Aggregate Industries can make a better job of the development than it has of its various planning applications. 

We would like to thank all those who have campaigned with us, and all those who have so generously supported us over the years – we are so sorry that the end result was not the one we had all hoped for.

 

Uffculme housing scheme refused, in part due to mineral safeguarding concerns

A planning application 22/01893/MFUL for 40 dwellings at Chapel Hill, on the northern edge of Uffculme, has been refused by Mid Devon District Council, in part because the development was "contrary to Policy M2 of the Devon Minerals Plan Safeguarding". 

Unpopular 40 homes plan for Devon village refusedhttps://t.co/e5AmmZ7uzL

— Devon Live News (@DevonLiveNews) January 2, 2023

Devon County Council introduced Mineral Safeguarding Areas in 2017 in its adopted Minerals Plan, with the "aim to secure valuable mineral resources from sterilisation by new development, to ensure that they remain available for use by future generations". Policy M2 of that 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 

(b) the mineral resource can be extracted satisfactorily prior to the non-mineral development taking place under the provisions of Policy M3; or 

(c) the non-mineral development is of a temporary nature and can be completed and the site restored to a condition that does not inhibit extraction or operation within the timescale that the mineral resource or infrastructure is likely to be needed; or 

(d) there is an overriding strategic need for the non-mineral development; or 

(e) it constitutes exempt development, as set out in the exemption criteria. 

Having 40 new homes no closer than 200m away from the entrance of Hillhead Quarry – the location proposed to process material from Straitgate Farm, where quarry workings would be less than 100m from local residents – clearly presented too much risk to the peaceful activities of Aggregate Industries, who objected by saying: 

Hillhead is an important sand and gravel quarry, which produces a significant proportion of the County’s sand and gravel aggregate and if the proposed development were to proceed it would present a constraint not just to the future potential extraction of the mineral resource identified in the Devon Minerals Plan, but also to the current extraction at Hillhead Quarry. 

Objections were also raised by Devon County Council and the Devon Stone Federation.