Response to the Inspectors’ report

This is a detailed response to the points raised by the inspectors’ report into whether or not the quarry expansion should go ahead.

For the original points please see Section 9 (pages 73 – 76) of the report which can be found here:

Our responses

9.1 The sheer number of objections and the hundreds of detailed points raised/research done are barely mentioned.

9.4 No report has been carried out into the possibility of a ‘major shift’ in building methods nor whether imports would actually have a substantially different carbon footprint. The possibility of sourcing minerals from France and mainland Europe is dismissed as more expensive with no evidence to support that view.

9.5 States that previous Island Plans were ’not accurate’. This is highly concerning. Who now says that this plan is accurate? (It was done by the same people)!

9.8 Where is the evidence that says importations cost 90 percent more than quarrying on island? We cannot take the short term rushed import of sand as a guide as this was an emergency situation and sand could not be sourced locally elsewhere. It is clear that as imports scale up the cost reduces. Ports can cope with more imports – especially if planned over a long period.

9.9 A significant supply change must be investigated. It will have to be done at some point.

9.12 Potential environmental impacts, some more traffic, not valuable land (paid £1.65M for it!), some mature tress (over 250!) no ecological impacts – it goes without saying this is a HUGE understatement, it’s a green zone mid many other fields.

9.13 Some noise blasting – the Inspector would not accept internal footage of a blast from local residents. No sign of dust – residents homes and cars are covered with dust. Slight vibration – another understatement.

9.13 There is property in the south that is closer to the new quarry than current properties are. In fact the quarry boundary would be less than 100m away from the property if the extension goes ahead. This fact alone should stop this extension.

9.14 Greenhills Hotel ‘potential marketing problems’ WHOLLY INACCURATE UNDERSTATEMENT, not just the marketing but the customer experience, the additional disturbance and dust, traffic noise etc.

9.15 ‘In the longer term different construction methods with reduced carbon footprint ….reduce on island quarrying’ We have to address this now. La Gigoulande has 6-7 years left so there is ample time to think this through carefully. Otherwise we will be in this same position again in 10 years once the new quarry is depleted. How long do we carry on? This is the middle of an area of farming land. They will just want to expand and engulf that too over time!


It’s disappointing but not surprising to see that the inspectors’ report suggests maintaining the status quo and doesn’t suggest taking the time to thoroughly research alternatives. We still consider our original suggestions valid, namely increasing local material recycling, increasing output from Ronez quarry, and conducting further research on importation from France and the European mainland.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *