Stoney Mountain Quarry Officer Assessment

aggregate landbank. If permission for Stoney Mountain is granted then the landbank need for the Island would be met for many years to come. This would have the effect of blocking any commercial application for development of an extension to an existing, or new, hard rock quarry. The majority of applications for mineral extraction will, as a result of their location in the countryside, be required to demonstrate need for the mineral. Technically this need will already have been met through the permission at Stoney Mountain. Stoney Mountain does not provide aggregate solely for its own use in infrastructure projects. In 2010 it sold cira 50% of its mineral to the commercial sector. There are no restrictions on the sale of material by DOI Quarries to the commercial sector, or the intensification of extraction each year to the maximum permitted 120,000 tonnes for sale to the commercial sector. There is currently only one other mineral operator producing a similar product, and this is a one quarry owner/operator. Intensification of the rate of extraction at Stoney Mountain and increase in the supply of mineral (theoretically up to 120,000 tpa) to the commercial sector, particularly if this is at lower than market prices, is likely to de-stabilise the quarrying industry on the Isle of Man. This could result in a monopoly in hard rock aggregate provision from Stoney Mountain, a particular risk to the local economy were the quarry subsequently to be sold to a commercial operator with the benefit of the proposed permission. ### 120,00 tpa and alternative Source of Mineral The application and letter report indicates that up to 120,000 tpa permission is required to allow for emergency aggregate supplies for infrastructure works etc. The average rate of extraction in previous years, as indicated, is less than half of this amount. The need for the emergency or contingent aggregate does not take account of alternative sources for aggregate which are available either from non psv Poortown, other commercial quarries, or by using recycled aggregate. Given the current emphasis on sustainable use of minerals, as well as the waste hierarchy, an independent inspector may query the argument presented by DOI for over 100% contingency annual extraction capacity, without any consideration for the use of alternative aggregate supplies. ## Stoney Mountain Application 09/0955 ### Unresolved Matters for Resolution In 2009 the DOI submitted an application for extension of its igneous quarry at Stoney Mountain, near Foxdale. The Planning and Building Division raised number of concerns over the application with DOI quarries which were discussed at a meeting in October 2010 relating to the following: i. Duration of working ii. Impact on Ecology iii. Visual impact/Impact on the landscape iv. Restoration and aftercare Following discussion with DEFA and MNH the DOI Quarries has now submitted a letter report as its response to the issues discussed in October. This letter report: a. fixes a timescale for the permission, now for a 20 years period rather than an open ended duration, stating that ‘any decision in relation to a further planning application to work beyond the proposed twenty years permission duration period, whether within the current application area or beyond this area will only (be) determined by the actual extraction rate over this period at the quarry, and by the future strategic need to continue supply of aggregates from the quarry’ b. maintains the area and extent of working, as 3.6 Ha, estimated 2.33 million tonnes; c. maintains the maximum permitted rate of extraction as 120,000 tpa, whilst acknowledging this as a ‘worst case scenario’ to allow for emergency provision of aggregate. Recent average rates of extraction have been less than half this amount; d. maintains that the minerals from Stoney Mountain are needed to ‘ensure that DOI Quarries have the security of a steady supply of aggregates into the future to both meet the demands of government infrastructure projects and to protect the valuable high PSV stone reserves at Poortown Quarry’. e. modifies the restoration plan to provide for improved mitigation of the visual impact of the quarry workings, and its impact on the landscape. However due to uncertainty regarding rate of extraction there is no timescale associated with the restoration proposals. A letter submitted as part of this letter report from the DOI Quarries acknowledges that ‘At this time, no certain conclusion can be determined as to what will be necessary in twenty years time...it maybe decided that there is no longer a need to operate the quarry and that all is required is the submission of a revised restoration plans for approval.’ Despite this clarification the Planning and Building Division has identified several matters that may be raised as issues of significance by an Independent Inspector appointed to consider the application. These matters are brought to the Department for consideration. ## Securing restoration of the quarry Any planning permission for mineral extraction should include conditions and or an agreement to secure restoration of the site to the best practicable standards, and in accordance with an agreed scheme. This is particularly important where the restoration scheme includes provision of substitute or replacement nature conservation /wildlife habitats. Given the uncertainty regarding the rate of mineral extraction, the lack of a time-phased programme for restoration and the actual detail of restoration, any planning permission will not be able to secure restoration of the quarry. Although some of the restoration is natural re-vegetation, other areas require operational development, translocation of existing cover vegetation, or planting all of which is dependent upon completion of quarry working. During the twenty years of working the DOI Planning would have no powers to ensure a phased programme of restoration. Were quarrying to cease after 20 years, the need for submission of a restoration scheme (as existing or revised) could be required under condition. However the need to ensure funding available to complete this cannot be secured under a Section 13 agreement. At any point in time the quarry could be sold to a private quarry operator. ## Need for the Mineral It is acknowledged that any extension to the quarry will have a detrimental impact on the landscape throughout the life of the quarry, and on the nature conservation value of the area. In accordance with Strategic Plan Policy Min 1 the application will therefore have to demonstrate a need for the mineral which overrides these detrimental impacts. The current landbank for hard rock is below 10 years (this being the UK accepted landbank period for hard rock), which in the absence of any other policy timescale would indicate a national need for additional permitted reserves for hard rock. The application states that the quarry is needed 'for security of a steady supply of aggregates into the future to both meet the demands of government infrastructure projects and to protect the valuable high PSV stone reserves at Poortown Quarry'. Government has identified (COMIN) Poortown PSV mineral as being of national importance. In planning policy terms this effectively affords the PSV reserve at Poortown protection as a strategic resource, in practice excluding it from the calculation of landbank for hard rock. However Poortown quarry also produces up to 1/3 non psv minerals, as part of its operations to remove PSV material. Although variable in amount depending on the location of quarrying, this non psv aggregate contributes to the overall tonnage of non psv hard rock is available for use on the Island, either by DOI quarries or for sale to the commercial sector. This is not acknowledged by DOI. Stoney Mountain has not been identified Government as a quarry of national importance. This means its aggregate reserve does contribute to the Islands aggregate landbank. If permission for Stoney Mountain is granted then the landbank need for the Island would be met for many years to come. This would have the effect of blocking any commercial application for development of an extension to an existing, or new, hard rock quarry. The majority of applications for mineral extraction will, as a result of their location in the countryside, be required to demonstrate need for the mineral. Technically this need will already have been met through the permission at Stoney Mountain. Stoney Mountain does not provide aggregate solely for its own use in infrastructure projects. In 2010 it sold cira 50% of its mineral to the commercial sector. There are no restrictions on the sale of material by DOI Quarries to the commercial sector, or the intensification of extraction each year to the maximum permitted 120,000 tonnes for sale to the commercial sector. There is currently only one other mineral operator producing a similar product, and this is a one quarry owner/operator. Intensification of the rate of extraction at Stoney Mountain and increase in the supply of mineral (theoretically up to 120,000 tpa) to the commercial sector, particularly if this is at lower than market prices, is likely to de-stabilise the quarrying industry on the Isle of Man. This could result in a monopoly in hard rock aggregate provision from Stoney Mountain, a particular risk to the local economy were the quarry subsequently to be sold to a commercial operator with the benefit of the proposed permission. ### 120,00 tpa and alternative Source of Mineral The application and letter report indicates that up to 120,000 tpa permission is required to allow for emergency aggregate supplies for infrastructure works etc. The average rate of extraction in previous years, as indicated, is less than half of this amount. The need for the emergency or contingent aggregate does not take account of alternative sources for aggregate which are available either from non psv Poortown, other commercial quarries, or by using recycled aggregate. Given the current emphasis on sustainable use of minerals, as well as the waste hierarchy, an independent inspector may query the argument presented by DOI for over 100% contingency annual extraction capacity, without any consideration for the use of alternative aggregate supplies.