What’s the scale of Aggregate Industries’ ponding problem at Hillhead?

If Aggregate Industries is to quarry Straitgate Farm, it must do so without creating any water bodies – for aircraft safeguarding reasons – as we have previously posted. 

Is that possible? Of course not. 

How can we be so sure? You only have to look at Aggregate Industries’ Houndaller quarry at Hillhead, near Uffculme. It has the same type of sand and gravel that exists at Straitgate Farm. We recently posted that Aggregate Industries has ponding problems at Houndaller, and that the company has now been forced to apply for permission to change the surface water management plan for the site. 

Last December, Devon County Council’s Monitoring Report for the site reported: 

4.15 Since the previous monitoring visit, Phase 6 has now been worked out and is awaiting grading and topsoiling… It is understood water is ponding in this Phase and the operator would like to direct this water to Houndaller Pond, north of the farmhouse in order to complete restoration.

 And the scale of the problem? The Monitoring Report helpfully provides this photo:

AI’s archeological analysis & report for Hillhead more than THREE YEARS LATE

Aggregate Industries finds it difficult to stick to planning conditions – as we have previously posted here, here, here, here, here, here and here. 

Condition 12 for Aggregate Industries’ Houndaller quarry at Hillhead near Uffculme in Devon states: 

RECORDING OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC FEATURES 

No topsoil stripping shall be undertaken in Working Phases 6, 7 and 8, as shown on drawings nos. 2285/ROMP/3C and 2285/ROMP/73D, until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in strict accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. 

Reason: To ensure that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development in accordance with the Development Plan specifically Devon Minerals Plan Policy M19.

Why is this condition important? 

In 2016, Devon County Council’s Senior Historic Environment Officer wrote: 

…the [geophysical] survey did identify anomalies that have the appearance of land divisions and may be associated with former prehistoric or Romano-British field systems. The expansion of the quarry into these areas will destroy these heritage assets. … 

Based on the results of this initial stage of works the requirement and scope of any further archaeological mitigation can be determined and implemented either in advance of or during construction works. This archaeological mitigation work may take the form of full area excavation in advance of groundworks or the monitoring and recording of groundworks associated with the construction of the proposed development to allow for the identification, investigation and recording of any exposed archaeological or artefactual deposits. The results of the fieldwork and any postexcavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report.

The initial archaeological fieldwork was completed in 2019, so where’s the analysis and report? How do we know what’s been destroyed? Devon County Council’s latest monitoring report for the site says the report should have been "completed within 3 months following the completion of fieldwork": 

Comments/ Course of Action: 

Written Scheme of Investigation entitled ‘Western Extension of Houndaller (Hillhead) Quarry, Phases 6, 7 and 8, Uffculme, Devon - Project specification for an archaeological excavation’ dated 18th April 2019 - approved on 14 May 2019. Soil stripping on Phase 6 commenced on 12 August 2019 and archaeological investigation was complete. The archaeological investigation for Phase 7 is complete, however, post-excavation analysis, reporting and archive is yet to be completed. The agreed Written Scheme of Investigation states that this will be completed within 3 months following the completion of fieldwork. The operator has confirmed that this is anticipated to be completed within 3-4 months. Therefore, this should be completed within 4 months, by 13 July 2023.

As of last week, MORE THAN THREE YEARS LATE, Aggregate Industries has still not done the work, with the Council’s Senior Historic Environment Officer, writing: 

the post-excavation assessment, analysis, reporting and archive creation and disposition has yet to be undertaken. 

What hope, therefore, for the plethora of conditions for Straitgate Farm?

Aggregate Industries tries to wriggle out of Straitgate PWS monitoring obligations

It’s started already. Aggregate Industries is trying to wriggle out of its obligations.

If Aggregate Industries is to quarry Straitgate Farm, it has a legal obligation – as detailed in its Unilateral Undertaking – to monitor the numerous Private Water Supplies that surround the site, with agreements from the various owners, for the lifetime of the development. 

Condition 27 of the appeal decision says: 

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

The obligation to monitor surrounding PWS is irrespective of whether the owners of those supplies also have the use of a mains supply. The UU states: 

"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 [Aggregate Industries] pursuant to paragraph 1.1.3 of Schedule 1 to this Deed; 

OWNER'S OBLIGATIONS 

The Owner [Aggregate Industries] hereby covenants with the Council as follows... 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 for the duration set out within the approved Post Restoration Water Supply Monitoring Scheme... 

It has, however, come to our attention that various properties with PWS were not in fact sent the company’s latest offer letter in April – referenced here – contrary to what the company tried to assure us. 

One PWS owner was forced to write to Aggregate Industries earlier this month: 

Please could you provide us with the most recent letter regarding the monitoring of PWS. We only have the original one dated 2 February 2023.

Aggregate Industries wrote back: 

From checking our files I can confirm that this was not sent to you as we have your property down as already having a mains water supply. If this is not correct and you would like to be part of the monitoring scheme then please let me know and I will update our records and ensure you are included.

But Aggregate Industries’ UU – which was necessary to make acceptable in planning terms, what was otherwise an unacceptable development – makes no mention of excluding properties with PWS from the monitoring scheme that already have a mains water supply. 

Of course, it would undoubtedly be more convenient for Aggregate Industries to exclude from monitoring those properties already with access to a mains supply, to ignore those springs, wells or boreholes that could be trashed by the company’s development; it would undoubtedly be more convenient to overlook the fact that a number of local PWS owners rely on both their mains and private supply, and that others wish to maintain their PWS in a usable state for potential future deployment. 

But, whatever the reason owners might have for protecting their PWS, it’s irrelevant. Aggregate Industries' legal obligations say all PWS interests must be offered monitoring. Simple. 

This doesn’t bode well for the future, that Aggregate Industries at this early stage is already trying to wriggle out of its obligations.

EDIT 18.7.23 

Aggregate Industries has now informed Devon County Council that: 

I can confirm that all PWS owners have been offered the chance to be part of the monitoring scheme and we are not excluding people who are on mains supply.

Oh look, Aggregate Industries suffers ponding problems at Hillhead

After many years of working its Houndaller quarry at Hillhead, near Uffculme, Aggregate Industries now wants to change the surface water management plan for the site – a site with the same type of sand and gravel that exists at Straitgate Farm – as this recent Scoping Opinion request PRE/1659/2023 to Devon County Council reveals: 

The approved restoration contours, Drawing No. 2285/ROMP/4C located within Appendix C, illustrates the site falling west to east, with a low point on the south-western boundary of the site. This is causing surface water to pond within the south-western part of the site (Phase 6). Therefore, Aggregate Industries are proposing to amend the surface water management plan for the site, to include a perimeter surface water drainage ditch running northwards from the south-west corner of Phase 6 along the western edge of the site into Houndaller Plantation Pond. There will be a slight amendment to the alignment of the final land form contours for Phases 6,7 and 8, to enable surface water to be shed to the perimeter surface water drainage ditch. 3.2.3 

Of course, it’s not unusual for surface water to pond at quarries. What quarry doesn’t have water? 

Even for Straitgate Farm, Aggregate Industries’ plans positively encourage water bodies – for its surface water management and restoration plans: 

ephemeral water bodies and species-rich wet grassland to be encouraged in low-lying infiltration areas (in the base of the depressions)

In fact, the creation of infiltration areas on the eastern boundary of the Straitgate site forms 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.

However, and as we have previously posted, the Planning Inspectors stipulated – for aircraft safeguarding reasons – that: 

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

Bizarrely, therefore, Aggregate Industries’ plans for Straitgate cannot be implemented without breaking one of the planning conditions. 

As we remarked: 

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. 

The company's inability to control surface water at Houndaller, highlights the problem: How will Aggregate Industries be able to comply with condition 25 at Straitgate ?

In other news

The company which wants to reopen Plymouth’s tungsten mine is to axe nearly half its workforce https://t.co/ewHKikzEHp

— Plymouth Live (@Plymouth_Live) June 7, 2023

For those unfamiliar with this long-running saga, the article reminds us that:

Tungsten West bought the mine out of receivership for £2.8m in 2019 when previous owner Wolf Minerals went into liquidation. Wolf sunk more than £170m into the project but suffered major problems with the plant and went into administration in late 2018 after just three years in production.

Aggregate Industries’ Straitgate update for April & May

As we first posted here, Aggregate Industries has pledged to provide monthly updates of the work it has carried out, or plans to carry out, in relation to Straitgate Farm, as it tries to satisfy the pre-commencement conditions and obligations that are required before mineral extraction can begin. 

Aggregate Industries' Planning Manager has this week provided the first update in two months of what the company has apparently undertaken in April and May: 

As you are aware we wrote to all the owners of the private water supplies in April setting out further commitments and asked that owners who wanted to be part of the monitoring scheme to let us know by the 31 May. 

Also in May we have responded to the Tree Preservation Order proposed by East Devon DC on land at Straitgate Farm. 

In actual fact, it has been brought to our attention that not all of the owners of private water supplies were contacted in April. 

The Planning Manager subsequently informed us that the company: 

...will be contacting PWS owners one further time in June.

Aggregate Industries causes more dust problems

Dust from quarries and construction sites is not only a nuisance – it's a health hazard.

 

Construction workers die every week from lung diseases caused by past exposure to dust. Many more suffer from chronic lung conditions that ruin lives. We have a free download with what you need to know as a busy builder: https://t.co/P56Eap6BMa #Dust #DustKills #Construction pic.twitter.com/CFhnlw7bii

— Health and Safety Executive (@H_S_E) May 19, 2023

 

Aggregate Industries has a history of failing to control dust – as we have previously posted. 

Now the company’s Chelmsford site is in the news:

 

These are two lorries we witnessed when we visited the scene last week - both leaving clouds of dust in their wake. pic.twitter.com/jOqCSSUdAG

— Ellis Whitehouse (@E_Whitehouse293) May 22, 2023

Aggregate Industries claims: 

We have taken a number of proactive measures to help alleviate the problem.

One complainant reported: 

There is just dust all over the place.

We're getting it in our eyes, we're breathing it in, it's going all over the site, everything - it's just phenomenal. 

Chelmsford construction firm promises to address dust problem https://t.co/YCjBz9Vgyy

— BBC Science News (@BBCScienceNews) May 23, 2023

AI U-turns on water charges – but seeks to reduce post-restoration monitoring

In February, Aggregate Industries wrote to local private water supply owners – those people now at risk of losing their drinking water due to the permitted quarry development at Straitgate Farm – with the offer of water monitoring, and remediation in the event of derogation, reminding them: 

For the avoidance of doubt, AIUK shall only be responsible for implementing the proposed solution and not for any subsequent charges, fees or any other costs associated with the solution once implemented.

For years, Aggregate Industries has refused to commit to paying ongoing water charges should surrounding supplies be lost as a result of its works, as we last posted here. 

However, following pressure from PWS owners at a meeting last month, Aggregate Industries has backtracked and now says: 

The company has reviewed its position and, in the unlikely event that properties have to be connected to a mains supply, will now agree to meet any ongoing costs for the supply of mains water to affected properties for the life of the planning permission and the post restoration monitoring period.

Why the company has taken so long to recognise the inequity of its previous stance is anybody’s guess. 

What happens after the post restoration monitoring period? Aggregate Industries says: 

All obligations and liabilities on the company cease. 

Why Aggregate Industries thinks its liability should end at this arbitrary point in time – if the company were to cause the loss of drinking water supplies – is not clear. 

In granting permission for the development, the Planning Inspectors wrote: 

176. The suggested condition for groundwater monitoring would impose a 10-year requirement for post-restoration monitoring, however the section 106 agreement provides for this period to be agreed in writing between the parties. We have accordingly not included reference to the post-restoration period for monitoring in the condition.

However, the company made clear at the above-mentioned meeting that it intends to press Devon County Council for "a break clause", to reduce the period for post-restoration monitoring. 

What’s the problem with that? As Professor Brassington explained at the Inquiry: 

I have shown that currently it takes almost 11 years for the water to reach the Cadhay spring which means that the full effect will not be felt until after the appellant has left the site.

So how much is Aggregate Industries’ U-turn worth? Not very much it would appear.

EDIT 12.7.23 

In correspondence with Devon County Council relating to post-restoration monitoring, it has now been confirmed that "the Company intends to abide by the timescales discussed at the Inquiry."

AI’s livestock crossing - needed before quarrying Straitgate - currently not permitted

Aggregate Industries has mucked up. 

In June 2021, following the submission of planning application 20/2542/FUL, Aggregate Industries secured permission from East Devon District Council for "a new agricultural access onto the B3174 Exeter Road to facilitate an efficient crossing point for the current dairy herd at Straitgate Farm".  

Mineral extraction at Straitgate Farm is dependent upon the implementation of this permission.

The Planning Inspectors, who in January granted permission to quarry Straitgate, wrote: 

109. Material to this appeal proposal is a planning permission granted by East Devon District Council (EDDC) for a new access to the B3174 Exeter Road to provide a livestock crossing incorporating holding pens. At the time of the Inquiry this permission had not been implemented… 

Condition 19 of the Straitgate permission states: 

No soil stripping in Phase 1 of the development hereby approved shall be undertaken unless the cattle crossing permitted by East Devon District Council permission ref. 20/2542/FUL has been fully implemented and brought into operation in accordance with the conditions of that permission. 

However, as it stands, 20/2542/FUL cannot be implemented. 

Aggregate Industries has put the red line planning boundary for application 20/2542/FUL in the wrong location. Facepalm.

   

What is the red line boundary? Government guidance says: 

The application site should be edged clearly with a red line on the location plan. It should include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development… 

The red line boundary drawn by Aggregate Industries for 20/2542/FUL does not incorporate the existing gateway on the south side of the B3174, nor the gap in the trees on the north side of the B3174, as specified in the company’s supporting statement. The red line boundary does not match the detailed drawings that formed part of the application. 

The permission therefore cannot be carried out in accordance with the approved detailed drawings listed in Condition 2. 

East Devon District Council has today confirmed that Aggregate Industries will need to submit another planning application:

I have written to Aggregate Industries drawing their attention to this issue and recommending that they address this issue through a further application.

Local people, councils and statutory bodies will be able to respond to a new application in the normal way. Until that application has been approved, and implemented, no digging can start at Straitgate Farm.

EDDC slaps TPO on Straitgate trees

We posted about the roots of an oak tree earlier in the year. 

What really happens below ground 🌳 pic.twitter.com/R1xM59HDjK

— The English Oak Project (@TheKentAcorn) December 30, 2022

The relevance at Straitgate concerns the modifications required – let’s not call them improvements – to Birdcage Lane to allow up to 200 44-tonne HGV movements a day in and out of the site. Devon County Council recognised: 

It is clear that the size of vehicles involved in the application render a ‘no dig’ solution inappropriate for the depth of road construction that would be required. 

Aggregate Industries’ consultants accepted that: 

Devon County Council Highways have confirmed that they would not accept a “no dig” construction, due to HGV vehicles that will be using the road to access the proposed development... [which] means that the works will potentially interfere with the root protection areas of Trees F, G and H and some of G15A as illustrated by Drawing R22/L/3-3-005 and it is likely they will be damaged by the development and need to be felled. 4.1 

The visual impact that would be caused by the loss of these majestic 200 year-old oaks is clear:

 

The Planning Inspectors, in their report permitting mineral development at Straitgate, wrote: 

91. The proposed site access would be located in between trees F and G. There was some debate over whether trees F and G should be categorised as A or B using BS5837:2012. In our view, both categories A and B would indicate they are worthy of protection and should be retained. 

The Inspectors imposed the following conditions: 

39 All existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows within the site and on its boundaries shall be retained and protected from damage during the process of extraction and subsequent restoration unless they are identified to be removed as part of the current phase or a succeeding phase of mineral working or restoration as set out in the approved plans. 

41 Outside the designated mineral working areas, trees shall not be felled, lopped or topped or have their roots damaged and hedgerows shall not be removed, thinned or cut back without the prior written consent of the Mineral Planning Authority. 

Earlier this week – coincidentally the same week TPOs were slapped on HS2 – East Devon District Council, having recognised the importance and threat to the three oak trees around the proposed site access, imposed Tree Preservation Order 23/0014/TPO stating: 

The trees contribute to the amenity and character of the area and they are considered under threat from development and the impact of heavy machinery and vehicles.

The legislation governing Tree Preservation Orders can be found here. The Woodland Trust says "usually TPOs are placed on a tree or wood that’s deemed to be a local amenity": 

A Tree Preservation Order, or TPO, is usually made by a local planning authority (often the local council) to protect a specific tree or woodland from deliberate damage and destruction. This could include felling, lopping, topping, uprooting or otherwise wilful damage.

Wettest March since 1981 – and Straitgate groundwater levels not monitored

Mineral extraction at Straitgate Farm is permitted to a level down to a guesstimate of the maximum water table – the MWWT. 

It is no surprise to see that the latest version of this model is already out of date. It doesn't reflect the maximum groundwater levels recorded – as detailed in Table A.1 of Aggregate Industries’ Proof of Evidence to the Public Inquiry.

The Planning Inspectors said in their report that "the MWWT grid would be updated as necessary to reflect any higher groundwater readings."

Indeed, Condition 28 of the permission says: 

Prior to the commencement of any soil stripping on any phase of the development, a review of the Maximum Winter Water Table (MWWT) grid (being the hydrogeologically modelled surface of the maximum winter water table based on the highest recorded winter groundwater levels) shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for its approval in writing.

Have groundwater levels at Straitgate Farm exceeded the MWWT this month, given that England has had its wettest March since 1981? 

Nobody knows. 

Groundwater levels across the site are currently not being monitored – and haven't been for over a year.

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.