Should The Harris Superquarry Go Ahead? :: essays research papers

Should The Harris Superquarry Go Ahead?TABLE OF FIGURESFIGURE 1 LOCATION OF THE SUPERQUARRY31 SUMMARYThere is considerable environmental opposition to the development of the Harrissuperquarry. This is unlikely to stop the development on its own, but if theScottish Office decides that the project brush off go ahead environmentalrestrictions are likely to be imposed on the operation to minimise, as far aspossible, the impact. The reasons for the development centre rotund the needfor economic development to bring jobs and prosperity to this remote area. Thelife of the quarry is expected to be around 60 years and provide an sign 30jobs, rising to 80 as the quarry reaches peak production. The question is ifa superquarry is the best solution to the problems of a remote rural area.What entrust pass when the jobs come to an end and would another form ofinvestment not be more appropriate to their needs? Would the presence of aquarry restrict the pickax for further development? Could an integratedapproach be adopted and a 2nd generation quarry planned? The decision ofwhether or not to go ahead cannot be delayed indefinitely as Norway and Spainare looking at developing their own. If it is to go ahead then an early startwill give Harris a stronger position in the market.2 INTRODUCTIONThis report examines the controversy and key issues surrounding the superquarryat Rodel, Lingerbay on the southern coast of the islet of Harris (Figure 1) andattempts to find an acceptable solution. The quarry will hollow out the heartof the mountain but leave enough of a shell to leave the horizon largelyunaffected. The whole question of whether or not it should go ahead or not isthe subject of the current public enquiry in Stornaway. A decision must bemade soon. The market for aggregates is limited, Norway and Spain (Section 3.1,1991) have their own sites and are also looking at the potential for developingthem.FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF THE SUPERQUARRY(Glasgow Herald, 20/10/94)3 THE ISSUE S SURROUNDING THE DEBATE3.1 History1927A detailed geological survey identified the deposit of anorthosite.1965Planning license was given in principle to quarry the rock. Theremit covered a larger site than is planned today.1966Some small scale quarrying took can but found an on site rock crushingplant and a deep harbour were necessary for economic viability.74-76Outline planning allowance was given for quarrying, shipping andloading facilities but this was never acted on.1977The Scottish Office issued National Planning Guidelines. Harris wasidentified as one of 9 potential sites. (The Scotsman 18/7/93)