Huge new quarry is ‘environmental madness’

from Sunday Herald, 09 August 2009

It will be almost as big as Biggar, extract nearly five million tonnes of gravel and generate over 400,000 extra lorry journeys. And it’s kicking up a storm in South Lanarkshire.

Plans for a massive new quarry on the banks of the Clyde near Lamington, south west of Biggar, are running into fierce opposition. Local people fear that fishing, farming, wildlife and tourism will be ruined in one of Scotland’s forgotten beauty spots.

“It’s environmental madness,” said Arthur Bell, the president of Biggar and District Civic Society. “It will make this landscape of outstanding natural beauty look like that of the Western Front in 1916.”

The landfill and quarrying company, Patersons of Greenoakhill in Glasgow, has applied for planning permission for a 37-hectare sand and gravel quarry at Overburns farm, below Tinto hill. The materials are needed, the company says, for roads, railways, houses, schools and hospitals.

According to the application, 4.6 million tonnes of sand and gravel will be dug out to an average depth of nine metres over 11-15 years. It will be transported along the A702, one of the main routes to and from Edinburgh, causing 112 extra journeys a day by heavy goods vehicles.

Patersons insists that the environmental damage caused by the quarry will be reduced to “acceptable levels” by good design and practice. But the company’s critics point out that its track record is not encouraging.

The Sunday Herald revealed in June that Patersons had been named and shamed for one of the worst pollution performances in Scotland. Its landfill site at Greenoakhill was guilty of “repeated non-compliance with a number of permit conditions”, according to the government’s Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

Caroline Parker, who chairs the Clyde River Action Group, formed to oppose the quarry plans, said: “A truly wonderful site, with a famous river fishing stretch, is put at deadly risk by this application. Many small businesses will suffer and there will certainly be job losses in the hotel sector."

Her husband, Ian Parker, is worried that pollution from the quarry could threaten his organic milk business. He runs the second largest organic dairy farm in central Scotland.

He said: “If a pollution-belching quarry the size of a small town were sited upwind and on the same flood plain of the River Clyde as parts of my organic farm, it would be a disaster waiting to happen.”

That part of the Clyde is renown for some of the best wild trout fishing in Britain, attracting more than 10,000 angling visits a year from all over the world. “Flooding that may result from the quarry could have a huge detrimental effect on the river,” said Maggie Martin, secretary of the Lamington and District Angling Improvement Association.

She was backed up by the river bailiff, George Clark, who has evidence of ten-foot floods over the last ten years. “The possibility of flooding every winter will completely destroy any flood defences Patersons say they will provide,” he said.

Other local residents fear for their health from the dust and dirt kicked up by quarrying. “The villagers of Symington, 600 yards over the river from the quarry site, now face grave health hazards,” claimed Mary McLatchie, who lives in Lamington.

But Kemp Lindsey, estates director for Patersons of Greenoakhill, attacked the objectors for having “closed minds”. Their allegations were “totally unfounded and totally unjustified”, he said.

“If I were to meet them, I don’t think they would listen to me,” he told the Sunday Herald. “They don’t want to hear what we have to say.”

Lindsey accused the angling association of failing to respond to requests for a meeting. The action group had also made misleading accusations on its website, he claimed.

He brushed aside the company’s poor pollution record at Greenoakhill landfill site, pointing out that it was an entirely different operation. “We are looking to remedy the situation,” he said.

A detailed environmental assessment of the proposed quarry had shown that its impact would be “insignificant or non-existent”, Lindsey maintained. It wouldn’t be visible from many places, it wouldn’t damage wildlife or farming and it would have “no detrimental impact whatsoever” on the Clyde and its fish.

The increase in lorry trips would only add two per cent to the traffic on the A702 and so would be “acceptable”, he argued. And the quarry would be restored as it was worked, with the aim of making it more attractive to wildlife.

“It is a very scenic area but we have had to take that into account,” Lindsey said. “We are determined that the effect of this development will be nowhere near as bad as people have been led to believe.”

Comments

[Frank]

Because dust is a major issue around construction sites, health risks become a big concern. Midwest Industrial Supply specializes in removing and subsiding the dust in that area.

http://tinyurl.com/y8lmvl8

[Someone who cares]

...there will certainly be job losses in the hotel sector." Caroline Parker.

While I totally agree with attempting to save the Clyde and surrounding areas I do suggest that saying the above in any publication is, for want of a better word, stupid, if you cannot substantiate it. If it is unsubstantiated it will be used against you by Patersons - do you want to help their cause? No, didn't think so.

If you have had an economic impact study done and can substantiate you claims please accept my apologies, however I think it is wise to point out that you cannot make claims you cannot back up with fact.

[arthur bell]

South Lanarkshire Council has decreed that the time limit for objection to this endangered site is the 1st of September. So it's critical people act now, they have only three weeks, or less, to prevent an environmental crime. If you love the Clyde and its wonderful valley, have respect for peace and quiet, or just don't want to see a rape of a Scottish Treasure, you should act NOW.
Only a huge publicly expressed disgust at the Overburns Quarry proposal will save the site. Please help.

[Ian Parker]

Hi, Ian Parker here.
You quote Kemp Lyndsay as saying it will not damage farming. How does he know! Has he ever seen the Clyde in flood! It will completely wash away his flood prevention measures. Does he know that it is illegal to alter the course of a river to the detriment of neighbouring land owners. Has he done an impact assesment on how the loss of organic land through flooding or heaven forbid ,an air or water pollution incident could impact on the organic milk supply chain! I dont think so ! If he has then lets see what his "experts" have said !

[arthur bell]

Thanks to Rob Edwards and the Sunday Herald for so clearly exposing the dangers to the upper Clyde, and its environment. If our readers could quickly write in to South Lanarkshire Council at Almada Street, Hamilton ML3 and say "I object strongly to this Patersons application", it would help us save this rare site with 84 different species of birds.