Rochdale Observer reports during 1995 Ding campaign.
During 1995 we were very fortunate to have the support of Rochdale Observer. The help we were given by the then editor Richard Catlow, was tremendous. The reporters were with us every step of the way, a very special thank you goes to
Jim Pendrill, Martyn Green, Ian Ogden and Tony Cross.
Below are some of the reports taken from the Rochdale Observer during the campaign to stop the re-opening of Ding Quarry in 1995.
Police blame mystery protesters for two-tonne barrier built in the night.
Unknown Ding protesters briefly blocked the path of contractor D.P.Williams on the road to the quarry this week.
The company was trying to remove machinery from the quarry on Wednesday when they were confronted by a large dry stone wall, which mysteriously appeared overnight.
Police inspector Frank Doyle said “The Company rang us to say a wall with over two tonnes of stone was blocking its path. We can only speculate that it was put there by someone opposed to developing the quarry”.
D.P.Williams later demolished the wall, then complained to Rochdale council and the Police, claiming the stone dumped across Rooley Moor road posed a threat to the safety of security staff holing a round the clock vigil at the quarry.
Mr Cawkwell, production manager at the Welsh-based firm, said “For a start, it is illegal to block a public road as it is a bridleway and a public footpath.
“But we also felt security men were being put at risk as there was no way of reaching them in an emergency at night.”
But Inspector Frank Doyle said “Police would be able to deploy a helicopter or off road vehicles in case of emergencies. Blocking the road would not cause us any undue problems. There seem to have been a number of spoiling tactics on the moor in recent days, and we have absolutely no idea who is behind them.”
In an exclusive meeting with D.P.Williams and Rochdale Observer, Mr Tony Cawkwell the production manager gave his responses.
Q: What kind of lorry movements do you envisage?
A: I cannot give you any figures. Both high and low figures could be misconstrued. We will be governed by market demands, which will undoubtedly fluctuate. That is why it would be wrong to guess figures of lorry movement. We will operate within the conditions of the lease and the conditions set out by Rochdale Council.
Q: When, and why, did D.P.Williams become interested in Ding Quarry?
A: In 1993, the company decided to expand the quarrying side of its business and Rochdale Council’s Unitary Development plan identified the need for aggregate beyond the year 2000. In fact, the councils plan noted that “In recent years there has been gritstone working at… Ding Quarry” As a result, we secured the lease from the lord of the Manor. We spoke to Rochdale Council in 1994 about our proposals fro Ding and there was no unfavourable reaction.
Q: Have you been involved with small-scale extractions from the quarry in recent years? A number of people from the area in the past few years say no quarrying has taken place.
A: We have presented Rochdale Council with considerable documentary and photographic evidence which proves positively that the quarry has operated between 1982 and 1994. We have sworn affidavits from previous lessees and their employees that they have operated during that period. These documents are proof that the planning permission is current and active.
Q: Did you ever expect so much trouble when you negotiated the rights to quarry Ding?
A: we don’t like the word trouble. It is too emotive. We expected a degree of protest, which we have had. The protests have been orchestrated by people for their own ends and are not for the benefit for the general public.
We feel the protests have been orchestrated to promote sensationalism and we do not think that is right. If the people of Rochdale were aware of all the facts and the genuine intention of the company, most of the fears would be allayed.
Q: Did you ever think of pulling out once you became aware of the strength of feeling against quarrying?
A: No. The company’ resolve has been strengthened because of the considerable amount of hate mail, which has included death threats and threats of physical violence. We are sure the genuine people of Rochdale do not support that course of action.
Q: Would you be willing to meet the protestors and discuss their fears. If not, why not?
A: I have on a number of occasions made overtures to Mr Crossley and other people of Lanehead. All such overtures have been rebuffed or not answered. We still support the view that we should discuss the issue with the residents in a structured way. It is important we meet with representatives of all interested parties, the meeting chaired by a responsible senior member of Rochdale Council. Following this kind of meeting, the company would be prepared to have a more open meeting to allow the general public to voice its fears and concerns, provided the meeting was not turned into a shouting match.
Q: North West Water and the National Rivers Authority have expressed fears about possible chemical dumping in the quarry. Are you aware of any dumping?
A: We are not aware of any dumping. We have spoken to both authorities and we co-operating with them. There has been fly-tipping lower down the moor. When the quarry opens it will be ‘policed’ seven days a week and visited on a regular basis to guard against fly-tipping
Q: Have you considered an alternative route to the quarry?
A: The lease we have secured gives as its access Rooley Moor Road. That is the access we have to use to abide by the lease. However, we would as a company, be prepared to consider any proposals that may be put forward regarding alternative access provided the company’s position was not compromised.
Q: What happens if the Government cancels the M62 Relief road and other major road-building schemes in the budget? Would this mean you would not need stone from Ding?
A: There is a need throughout Greater Manchester for stone. We did not set up for any specific major project, but to cater to total market demand. We do reserve the right to supply any project that becomes available.
Q: When did you reach agreement with the Lord of the Manor?
A: In early 1995
Q: Does the company appreciate the density of the population on the route to the quarry?
A: We recognise the area is built-up and we have every sympathy. The company would take every reasonable step to protect the residents and the environment. We have a large fleet of company Lorries and it would be predominantly company drivers and not cowboys who would be going to and from the quarry. That way we can control the drivers.
Q: Do you have a date in mind when quarrying will begin at Ding?
A: We are awaiting the outcome of our meeting with Rochdale Council on 28th November. We will certainly not quarry before that date.
Q: Who will work the quarry?
A: It is our intention to use local people and local plant wherever possible, including local management. We believe the operation can generate revenue to the locality. We are not the ogres we have been portrayed. We are a genuine company with genuine concerns for the people and the environment. We will always conduct our business in the most appropriate way.
People should not prejudge us.
Council using New law to hit Ding operations
Council chiefs this week admitted they cannot stop the re-opening of Ding Quarry, but could force the company mining it into tough new operating conditions which would ruin its economic viability.
At the heart of the Councils strategy is new Government legislation which comes into force on the 1st November.
If under the new environment act, the council can prove the quarry has lain dormant between 1982 and June this year, they could impose stringent regulations.
Mr John Pierce the council’s Chief executive told the Policy committee “We cannot stop them – but this new act can help us frustrate them.”
The council must prove the quarry has not been considerably worked so it could accept, amend or refuse the companies schedule for mining. D.P. Williams would then have to appeal to the Environment Minister if it disagreed with the restrictions imposed.
Mr Steven Beckworth, environment director, said the firm would have to provide a schedule of modern working methods. He explained: “We hope to impose the most stringent of conditions. If for example we could restrict them to 50,000 tonnes a year that would mean two Lorries a day rather than 10 every hour.
This would seriously hit profitability; the firm has already said it needs millions of tonnes of stone for motorway and building projects.
Councillor Ray Colley warned the authority that D.P. Williams holdings would use all legal means to find weaknesses in the council’s case, so great care has to be taken over how the council prepare the case.
It is understood the council is considering a number of other steps (still confidential) to help its case.
Before the meeting a statement was issued stressing the council’s commitment.
“This is an issue where all three of our parties are fighting the same fight,” said the statement from councillors Paul Rowen (liberal democrat) Jim Dobbin (labour) and Ashley Dernley (conservative). “We understand and share the grave concerns of local people, about road dangers, damage to the environment and the loss of peace and quiet in an attractive moorland area. “If someone applied now to open a quarry on Rooley moor it would undoubtedly be turned down.”
Not VQ-Day Yet.
Developers D.P.Williams (holdings) says its retreat from Ding does not mean the firm is pulling out of the quarry for good.
But the protesters believe it’s the beginning of the end for Ding. Residents are looking forward to the time they defeat the quarry – which they’ve dubbed VQ-Day.
The company says last weeks pull-out was partly because the estimated £1,000-a-week cost to man the quarry in the run-up to mining.
Production manager Tony Cawkwell said the security was posing a cost to us, but this does not mean we have relinquished our interest in the quarry.
It will be just as easy to put the security back in as it was to pull it out.
But a spokesman for the protesters Andrew Crossley said, If Williams were 100% certain they would be quarrying at Ding, they would keep security on the site.
If they can’t afford the £1,000 a week this was costing, they are not big enough to stand the extra costs of meeting all the environmental issues.
Meanwhile Rochdale Council is now looking at evidence submitted by D.P.Williams before deciding whether to class the quarry as dormant or active.
If it is deemed dormant, planning consent will be needed.
Mr Crossley added: We are confident Rochdale Council will prove Ding to be a dormant Quarry. We fail to see how D.P.Williams can possibly claim substantial quarrying has taken place, because we have substantial evidence to show this is not the case. Yes there has been sporadic theft of stone and flagstone, but no quarrying has taken place in recent years.
Once designated as a dormant quarry, and faced with the restrictions the council will place on any future quarrying, we are confident Williams will find it an uneconomical project.
