Quarries: Planning Policy

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for so fully introducing the debate. It is of real interest to me. I am always amazed, when I go to cities, that so much of what we see above ground was once below ground. I want to speak about two quarries in Edinburgh South West, and my speech might be a bit more positive than some of the others we have heard.

Back in April, I had the opportunity to visit Ravelrig quarry in Edinburgh South West. It is operated by Tarmac, and that site demonstrates what a collaborative approach between operators, planners and the community can achieve. Ravelrig extracts about 450,000 tonnes of stone every year, and that stone has built the foundations of the Queensferry crossing, filled countless roads across the region—I think some more of it may be needed to fill the potholes—and helped to underpin Scotland’s renewable energy infrastructure, including wind turbines.

Behind the impressive scale of that operation, there is an incredible ethos. The quarry’s processes are powered largely by electricity, keeping its carbon footprint remarkably low. About 90% of the stone is used within 11 miles of the site, genuinely minimising the environmental impact of transporting that heavy stone. Not all stone from Edinburgh quarries has stayed so local, however. The stone used for statue of Nelson at Trafalgar Square was extracted in Edinburgh. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) is not here to hear me say that, because it is from her constituency.

When the city considered the planning extension for Ravelrig, it did so through a framework of conditions—31 in total. That ensured that the community and environment were not afterthoughts, but integral to the decision. The conditions eventually agreed on will limit blasting times, restrict operating hours, cap HGV movements and put rigorous noise, dust and wildlife protections in place. They also set clear restoration timelines, and expect Tarmac to put forward a financial guarantee to make sure that it happens, so that it cannot walk away from it.

I am proud of the work that Balerno community council has done to broker this agreement with Tarmac, and I look forward to working with it to make sure that Tarmac keeps its side of the bargain. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire: although those in the community council were not quarry experts, they had to become experts quite quickly—a daunting task, but one they absolutely embraced. That is what planning for quarries should look like; it should be focused on engaging with local residents.

On the issue of restoration, another quarry in my constituency is a great example of what restoration could look like. Hailes quarry was a quarry between 1750 and 1920; at its peak, it employed around 150 people, and its stone was used to construct much of the New Town, as well as the fantastic St Cuthbert’s parish church in nearby Colinton. Thanks to the Wester Hailes community enterprises, it is now a fantastic public park. I find myself there every Sunday to support the local junior parkrun. There have been lots of requests made of the Minister this morning, but I will put a nice one in: it would be great to see her at the junior parkrun. I am sure that she would be very welcome to run it alongside the children, if she has the energy to do so.

Other former quarries in Edinburgh have now been converted to fantastic attractions, including what is now an international climbing centre and an outdoor surf arena—I guess the Minister could also go surfing at a quarry while she is in Edinburgh. The standard of restoration that we see across Edinburgh, particularly that of Hailes Quarry Park, is what we should aim for. Quarries are necessary, as we have heard, and they can be run responsibly, but planning policy must always ensure that collaboration, community benefit and long-term restoration are built in right from the start, not treated as optional extras.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing this important debate, which is of real concern to not only his constituents but those of Members around the country. As a child growing up in Somerset, I well remember the occasional roar of the neighbouring Dulcote quarry, which is now worked out. I no longer live near a quarry, so I do not experience the very genuine issues and concerns of those who do. In particular, significant concerns have been raised about respirable silica dust, especially when the particulate matter is PM₁₀ or smaller, which means that it is fewer than 10 micrometres across.

Studies by the Health and Safety Executive have shown that respirable silica dust, inhaled over prolonged exposure—for example, by workers who do not receive proper protection—is potentially carcinogenic. It can lead to silicosis and other respiratory diseases. Environmental impacts from the dust, which could affect local residents, are therefore a concern to those who spend time near quarries.

HSE studies of those environmental effects in 2002 and 2003 led it to conclude that no cases of silicosis have been documented among members of the general public in Great Britain, indicating that the levels of environmental exposure to silica dust are not sufficiently high to cause the occupational disease. Notwithstanding that finding, the impact of dust in residential environments is a genuine concern rightly held by many residents, and a potential hazard.

As we have heard, the new Environment Act targets would reduce PM_2.5 concentration levels to no more than 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040. People also suffer wider immunity impacts from the dust, noise, vibration and flyrock that quarries emit. The fact that PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 pollutants can travel further than 250 metres and that IAQM guidance is under review emphasises those effects and immunity impacts.

We must also remember that quarries are vital to the building of homes and other needed infrastructure. According to the Mineral Products Association, UK quarries produce 177 million tonnes of aggregates and support thousands of valuable jobs. On housing, the Liberal Democrats differ from the Government in that our ambition is for 150,000 council and social rent homes per year—but, to the extent that new homes are needed, we agree that quarrying in the UK needs to continue apace rather than be curtailed.

None the less, health and wellbeing of the public is the main priority of the Liberal Democrats, and must be the main concern in this debate. We would therefore pass a new clean air Act to cover not just quarries, but all air pollution, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a new air quality agency, including funding for local pollution centres and a new vehicle scrapping scheme for cleaner transport.

Clean air is important not just around quarries, but across all our communities. While life expectancy in Somerset and the south west is higher than in other regions of the UK, in my constituency it differs by 10 years from one side of my hometown, Taunton, to the other.

A report from Public Health England in 2018 attributed 250 deaths to black carbon—unburnt fuel from motor vehicles. As with quarries, there is little people can do about these sort of environmental health factors, but they still shorten people’s lives, sometimes by years. Therefore, as well as controlling quarries, we must do all we can to encourage people to replace their cars with zero emission vehicles at reasonable costs that they can afford. The Government must hold firm against the Conservatives and Reform, who seem no longer to care about that air pollution or the related deaths it causes. Flirting with climate deniers, the Conservatives want to reverse a position they once held, announcing that they will continue burning petrol in vehicles around people’s homes, schools and neighbourhoods.

While it is welcome that the Government have set out a delivery plan for nature’s recovery, we are waiting for a commitment to a new clean air Act and for them to get on with giving regulators the powers and resources they need. Instead, we are seeing unacceptable cuts to DEFRA—and therefore to the Environment Agency, which among other things regulates quarries—of 1.9% in real terms this year.

I turn now to the issue of buffer zones around quarries, which some hon. Members have raised. While imposing a buffer zone on an existing quarry—such as requiring a distance to residential properties to perhaps a kilometre—could detrimentally affect its operations, the imposition of some sort of environmental limit, as planning permissions already do, is an entirely reasonable proposition.

Some have argued that introducing a buffer zone could be devastating for the thousands of jobs in the sector. If that is the case, it would be equally devastating, not to mention reckless, to suggest no buffer zones or limits at all between quarries and residential properties. Presumably, even the most ardent quarrier is willing to stop when they reach someone’s garden wall or the threshold of their front door. Therefore, in a very real sense, the question is where to draw the line.

The Canadian example has much to commend it. For example, over the 600 metres under the Canadian rule, 100 dB from quarrying—a common level of noise from a building site—would degrade to around 40 dB. That is a typical level for background noise in residential areas—it is a little higher in cities. It has to be recognised, of course, that topography and other factors play a part in those calculations. Subject to assessment, Liberal Democrats would set in planning policy a buffer zone of 600 metres to 1 km for new quarrying consents. Local communities, through their elected councillors, should be empowered to impose such a zone and to make exceptions to it only in wholly exceptional circumstances. Sadly, the Government are going in entirely the wrong direction on the voices of local people being heard in planning.

[Dr Arthur]

In my experience of dealing with Ravelrig quarry in Edinburgh South West, a 600-metre line on a map is not always the best way to proceed, because the impact of blasting on properties varies considerably depending on the underlying geology and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the policy needs a bit more rigour than a simple 600-metre line around a quarry?

[Gideon Amos]

I accept that further assessment is needed before the policy is finalised, but the experience in Canada shows that the distance is appropriate for reducing noise. At the moment, no buffer zone at all is set as standard, as I have pointed out. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not be the quarrier I described quarrying up to someone’s front door, but a buffer zone of some sort is needed.

Clear and understood safeguards, such as a buffer zone, or something similar to the 21-metre back-to-back standard for houses, give people more confidence in the planning system and enable them successfully to live side by side with development, but under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Secretary of State will remove decisions from local councillors and the people who elect them. A new direction will force councillors to report to the Secretary of State and get his permission before they can refuse anything more than 150 homes, and we are told that there is more centralisation, and more community and nature bashing, to come this week in forthcoming announcements on the planning system.

We need quarries and we need development, but unless the Government change direction, we will have forgotten the most important lesson: that we develop for our environment and for people, not in opposition to them. In a world where a staggering 73% of global wildlife has been lost in the last 50 years, we need to save the remnants of nature for everyone’s sake, and we need people’s voices, and the safeguards they desire, to be heard in the process.