On the surface it looks like another ‘conservation versus industry’ planning controversy, with the odds predictably stacked against nature and wildlife. A multinational quarrying company wants to expand its operations in Devon, which will mean destroying a large forest. As the company prepares its application for planning permission, a group of local residents are fighting back with a campaign called ‘Save Our Trees’.
The applicant, Belgian-owned Sibelco, intends to expand its ball clay quarrying operations in the Bovey Basin. The area is designated under the Devon Minerals Plan for the extraction of ball clay, which is used in products including bathroom fittings and tiles. Sibelco already operates a quarry near Kingsteignton and wants to extend it, restarting extraction in its nearby Zitherixon quarry which has been disused since 1995. The plan is to redevelop this site and extract about five million tonnes of ball clay over a 50-year period.
The site is currently a huge area of mature oak woodland and flood plain, including former quarry pits which are now tree-lined, wildlife-rich fishing lakes. Aerial photos and videos clearly show that this is the last remaining patch of green countryside in a mainly developed area, with houses and two schools near the proposed quarrying works.
We know how these matters usually pan out. We share the objectors’ dismay at the potential destruction of mature woodland and the loss of wildlife habitats. We understand that most people, given the choice, would prefer to live near a forest than on the edge of a quarrying site. But planning applications are determined according to a set of policies and procedures which generally favour quantifiable gains, such as economic growth and the provision of housing. The losses – in terms of bulldozed countryside, the destruction of nature habitats and the harm to wildlife – have always been difficult to present in a comparable way.
But times have changed. Mineral extraction rights granted in the 1960s don’t automatically apply today – new permissions have to be sought from the local planning authority, in this case, Devon County Council. This involves a full review and updated conditions.
As the Save Our Trees website states:
“Yesterday’s rights do not trump today’s protections for residents, nature and the river.”
Among these protections is the new legal requirement for all developments – including mineral extractions – to deliver a ‘biodiversity net gain’ of 10 per cent. This unlovely jargon actually denotes a game changer – it converts the value and importance of nature, wildlife and ecosystems into a language and currency the planning system can work with.
Under the law, which came into force in February 2024, a strict set of criteria is used to assess a site’s existing plant and animal life, and to identify the measures that would be needed to create or restore equivalent ecosystems. The biological value of each habitat is calculated in units, which may seem coldly analytical, but does provide quantifiable targets for developers.
Holland Risley, co-ordinator of the Save Our Trees campaign, has thoroughly researched the biodiversity net gain requirements in relation to Sibelco’s proposed expansion, and posted a dossier on the campaign website.
The report concludes:
“On the facts of this site the arithmetic and delivery tests make compliance unlikely. The prudent course is to require full evidence now, not after works begin.”
The legal requirement sets a high bar. It puts the onus on Sibelco to ensure that its development delivers measurable improvements to the existing habitats provided by the site’s mature woodland, hedgerows and the River Teign watercourse. In planning policy-speak:
“Mature broadleaf woodland carries high distinctiveness and high condition. Removing a large area creates a very large unit deficit that cannot be made up with lower value habitats …. New woodland takes decades to reach target condition and the statutory metric reduces credited units when delivery is delayed.”
In other words, Sibelco can’t just promise to plant hundreds of new trees to replace the felled forest and embark on nature restoration projects as the extraction progresses, phase by phase. A detailed plan for providing rich woodland, hedgerow and river ecosystems must be approved before any work can start on the site, and habitats that ‘count’ towards the gain must be secured for a minimum of 30 years.
As the planning authority, Devon County Council is responsible for ensuring that Sibelco’s application includes a realistic plan for a minimum 10% biodiversity gain. If the council grants permission, it’s responsible for monitoring the delivery of the promised improvements.
Flood risk and air pollution concerns
There are also questions over the potential flood risk associated with the quarrying expansion. Sibelco must prove that the development doesn’t increase the potential for flooding – despite the removal of the woodland, which acts as a natural defence by absorbing water and slowing run-off. During storms in the winter of 2024, the river Teign burst its banks and flooded parts of Kingsteignton, including Sibelco’s existing quarry pits. Save Our Trees is currently investigating whether Sibelco’s ditches and overflow channels were properly maintained; if not, this would have been a breach of the company’s operating conditions.
Talking of operating conditions, Sibelco will also need to have effective systems in place to minimise air pollution from any new quarrying activities. Ball clay produces microscopic particles of silica dust when it’s dug up, transported or processed. Long-term exposure to the dust can cause silicosis – a progressive, incurable lung disease – or even lung cancer. As part of its planning application Sibelco will need to give full details of its proposed air pollution controls and how these will mitigate the environmental impact.
What does Sibelco say about all this?
It would be helpful at this stage to hear Sibelco’s response to the many concerns being raised about the proposed quarrying, and to receive some indication of its plans to achieve the biodiversity net gain target. But so far, little information has been made available to the public.
A leaflet announcing the planned quarry expansion was distributed to homes in Kingsteignton, near the proposed site, in July. Holland Risley received a copy, but said ‘half the neighbourhood didn’t get it’. Just a week later, Sibelco hosted a public engagement event at Newton Abbot racecourse, with documents and videos that have also been posted online.
This material includes a slick corporate video about Sibelco’s operations at its industrial sites around the world, emphasising its general policies on community engagement, sustainability and environmental restoration.
The video states:
“As we innovate the answers of tomorrow we also do so responsibly, prioritising the health and safety of our people, protecting the planet and engaging with society.”
But there is very little information specific to the proposed quarry extension in Kingsteignton – and, since the planning application hasn’t been submitted yet, there are no publicly available documents to scrutinise.
West Country Voices emailed Sibelco’s press office in early September to ask if the company could provide any details of its plans for achieving biodiversity net gain, in advance of the planning application being submitted. So far there has been no response.
However, BBC Spotlight reported on the proposed expansion and the opposition by Save Our Trees on October 16. Their reporter had also asked Sibelco for an interview or comment – but was told the company was ‘not in a position to be interviewed at this stage’. Sibelco added that it ‘remains committed to engaging with the community through the consultation process’.
The online version of the public engagement event includes a brief feedback form, but it’s difficult to give informed feedback before full details of the scheme have been made available.
As well as the many questions over the environmental credentials of the Kingsteignton project, there are wider issues to explore. It would be good to ask Sibelco why a modern, forward-looking company is so determined to keep extracting finite mineral resources from the earth, rather than exploring new, high-tech alternatives. Save Our Trees points out that innovations such as 3D-printed ceramics and bio-based materials are already being used in design and construction; yet Sibelco is planning to invest enormous sums of money in a 50-year operation to hack ball clay out of the ground.
Maybe Sibelco’s planning application – when it’s submitted – will answer some of these questions. In the meantime, the campaign by Save Our Trees is keeping the public well informed about the scheme – and the fact that planning approval for it is certainly not a ‘done deal’. As well as raising awareness and mobilising opposition, the group is crowdfunding to pay for independent expert reports and specialist legal advice to challenge Sibelco’s application. Crucially, the campaign is also focusing attention on Devon County Council’s responsibilities as the planning authority.
When the biodiversity net gain legislation was introduced it was welcomed by environmental, wildlife and conservation groups – but with serious reservations over how it will play out in practice. The strict rules on assessment, monitoring and enforcement are all very well in theory, but do planning authorities have the resources and powers to fully implement them? The Sibelco quarry proposal will put the whole process to the test. Sadly, the bottom line is that once a mature forest has been bulldozed, a ‘breach of planning’ notice won’t bring it back.
Sibelco may want to bury the full details of its quarrying plans, and the environmental commitments they now entail. But Save Our Trees has laid them open to the public – and is calling for them to be scrutinised, every step of the way.
