‘My great concern is over quarry’s safety’
FURTHER to John Steele’s letter to the Post & Times of February 10 regarding the proposed development of Money stone Quarry, my great concern is safety – for the person and for the environment.
In its working days the product from the Quarry was silica sand. Does silica sand provide suitable ground conditions on which to build? Is a steep hillside the ideal site for 190 holiday lodges? Who would build on sand dunes, admittedly a different variety of sand but we have seen the effects of land slippage on the coast. Imagine the prospect of a lodge slipping downhill and the domino effect on other lodges? Who would take responsibility in the event of such a disaster?
Another hazard on the site is two quarry holes which exceed 25 metres in depth and contain great depth of water. The sand around these may lack stability. Consider the consequences of a child or an elderly person falling into a very deep pool? (25 metres is over 80 feet in old money). Once a body sinks beneath the surface rescue becomes a huge challenge, even for a seasoned life saver, with limited prospects of success. Where would responsibility lie in the event of such a shocking incident?
Or perhaps the enormous weight of water in a pool may cause the collapse of a downhill bank? A downhill surge of water would have disastrous prospects for the safety of residents and the security of lodges. Is this a risk that can be effectively assessed?
A further aspect of concern is for an integral element of our countryside. Since 2004 the Environment Agency has regularly introduced infant salmon to the River Churnet which is about 1km downhill from the Moneystone site.
£570,000 has been spent on a fish pass at Crumplewood Weir. And what wonder – salmon are returning to the Churnet and may be seen leaping weirs. Other fish species and otters are benefitting from this superb effort in a river once considered by some authorities as the most polluted in Europe. It should also be noted that the Churnet empties into the Dove and the Trent so consequences of a downhill surge of water of dubious purity could be far reaching and write off the progress and expense of the last 17 years. Would such an outcome delight the Environment Agency and its proponents?
Add to these issues the narrow road access which makes major road traffic accident a real prospect, the tricky access for the fire service in the event of a timber lodge besieged by fire and the vehicle emission effects arising from about 600 residents. These are matters to be addressed.
Some weeks ago a correspondent to the Post and Times cautioned readers regarding those who dismiss concerns as scaremongering. I respect their opinions but as the correspondent reminded us residents of Grenfell Tower were accused of scaremongering!
I repeat my statement from my opening sentences, my great concern is safety.
Peter Cowie Foxt