Quarry plan sparks water contamination fears – BBC

Report on Proposed Redevelopment of Middleton Quarry, Pollington

1.0 Introduction and Planning Context

A planning application has been submitted by Matrix Aggregates Ltd for the redevelopment of the former Middleton Quarry in Pollington, East Yorkshire. The site has a history of environmental contamination, having been used for the illegal disposal of toxic materials, including asbestos, in 2008. The current proposal involves:

• The excavation and removal of approximately 127,000 tonnes of illegally dumped waste.
• Sealing the quarry floor to prevent future contamination.
• Utilising the site for the disposal of “inert” commercial waste.
• Potential future development of housing on the restored land.

This proposal has generated significant local opposition and regulatory scrutiny, primarily concerning its alignment with several key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

2.0 Analysis of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Implications

The proposed development presents direct challenges to the achievement of multiple SDGs, particularly those related to environmental protection, public health, and sustainable communities.

2.1 SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation & SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The primary concern raised by residents and regulatory bodies is the potential threat to the local water supply, which directly impacts SDG 6 and SDG 3.

1. Threat to Groundwater: The local community’s water supply is sourced from the aquifer beneath the quarry. Residents express fears that disturbing the existing contaminated waste could release toxins into the groundwater, posing a significant risk to public health.
2. Regulatory Objection: The Environment Agency has formally objected to the plan, stating that “the risk to groundwater from this proposed activity has not been fully assessed.” This highlights a failure to guarantee the protection of water resources as mandated by SDG 6.
3. Public Health Concerns: Any contamination of the water supply would directly contravene the objectives of SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all.

2.2 SDG 15: Life on Land & SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The project’s impact on the local ecosystem and its long-term vision for land use conflict with the principles of SDG 15 and SDG 11.

• Ecosystem Destruction: Over time, the abandoned quarry has undergone natural regeneration, becoming a habitat for various trees, plants, and wildlife. Local residents describe the area as a “nature reserve.” The proposed excavation and infilling would destroy this terrestrial ecosystem, undermining the goals of SDG 15 to halt biodiversity loss.
• Unsustainable Development: While the proposal includes future housing, its foundation on a waste disposal site with unresolved environmental risks raises questions about its contribution to creating safe, resilient, and sustainable communities under SDG 11. An alternative viewpoint from resident John Bellwood suggests leaving the contaminated waste “in situ” may be a safer, less disruptive approach.

2.3 SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

The proposal addresses the management of waste, a core component of SDG 12, but its methodology is contentious.

• Waste Management Approach: The plan aims to remediate a site of historical pollution. However, the proposed solution involves replacing hazardous waste with a large volume of new “inert” waste. This approach focuses on disposal rather than contributing to a circular economy or waste reduction, key targets within SDG 12.
• Disturbance of Contaminants: The process of excavating toxic materials, including asbestos, presents a risk of releasing pollutants, which is contrary to the goal of achieving environmentally sound management of chemicals and wastes throughout their life cycle.

3.0 Stakeholder Positions

The planning application is contested by key stakeholders:

1. Local Residents: There is “enormous local opposition” due to concerns over water safety, public health, and the loss of a naturalised green space.
2. The Environment Agency: Has objected on technical grounds, citing an inadequate assessment of the risk to groundwater.
3. Matrix Aggregates Ltd: The developer has submitted the application but has declined to provide public comment on the concerns raised.
4. East Riding of Yorkshire Council: The council will serve as the deciding authority on the planning application at a future date and has not commented on the ongoing process.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article highlights residents’ concerns about the potential public health risks from toxins contaminating the water supply.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: The central issue is the threat to the quality of the local water supply and groundwater due to the proposed development on contaminated land.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The article discusses waste management within a community, the environmental impact of a proposed development, and the future use of the land for housing.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The focus on managing illegally dumped toxic waste and the proposal for disposing of new commercial waste directly relate to the environmentally sound management of waste.
• SDG 15: Life on Land: The article mentions that the former quarry is now a “nature reserve” with trees and plants, and the proposed development would destroy this local habitat.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article describes a formal planning process involving a local council, objections from a national body (the Environment Agency), and community opposition, reflecting processes of governance and decision-making.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination. This is relevant because resident Kerry Biddle explicitly states the concern: “If toxins get into that we don’t know what it could do to public health.” The historical dumping of toxic materials like asbestos reinforces this connection.
2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials. The entire conflict revolves around this target. Residents fear the proposal could “threaten the quality of the local water supply,” and the Environment Agency is “concerned that the risk to groundwater from this proposed activity has not been fully assessed.”
   • Target 6.b: Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management. The article demonstrates this target through the “enormous local opposition” and the active involvement of residents like Kerry Biddle and John Bellwood in voicing their concerns about the water supply.
3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management. The proposal to use the quarry to “dispose of ‘inert’ commercial waste” is a waste management issue with a significant potential environmental impact on the local community.
4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment. The article deals with the legacy of illegally dumped toxic waste and a new plan for waste disposal, both of which require environmentally sound management to prevent harm to groundwater and public health.
5. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity… The article states the site “is now filled with trees, plants and bushes and is described by local residents as a ‘nature reserve’.” The development plan would degrade and destroy this habitat.
6. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article illustrates this through the formal planning application process, the official objection submitted by the Environment Agency, and the vocal community opposition, all of which are inputs into the final decision by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Water Quality and Contamination Levels:
   • The article implies the use of this indicator through the Environment Agency’s concern about the “risk to groundwater.” Progress towards Targets 3.9 and 6.3 would be measured by testing the water for toxins and pollutants to ensure it remains safe.
2. Volume of Waste Managed:
   • The article explicitly mentions a quantity of waste: “the removal of 127,000 tonnes of illegally dumped waste.” This figure serves as a direct indicator for measuring the scale of waste management activities related to Targets 11.6 and 12.4.
3. State of Local Habitat/Biodiversity:
   • The description of the site as a “nature reserve” filled with “trees, plants and bushes” implies that the area and health of this habitat could be measured. The preservation or destruction of this area would be an indicator of progress towards Target 15.5.
4. Level of Public and Institutional Participation:
   • The article points to this indicator by mentioning the “enormous local opposition,” the formal objection by the Environment Agency, and the ongoing planning application process. These actions serve as measures of participatory decision-making under Targets 6.b and 16.7.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bbc.co.uk