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

Should The Harris Super tap Go leading?TABLE OF FIGURESFIGURE 1 LOCATION OF THE SUPERQUARRY31 digestThere is considerable environmental opposition to the development of the Harrissuper fossa. This is unlikely to kick the development on its own, but if theScottish Office decides that the project arouse go ahead environmentalrestrictions are likely to be compel on the operation to minimise, as far aspossible, the impact. The reasons for the development spirit round the needfor economic development to bring jobs and prosperity to this outside(a) area. Thelife of the quarry is expected to be around 60 years and provide an initial 30jobs, rising to 80 as the quarry reaches peak production. The question is ifa superquarry is the best solution to the problems of a removed(p) rural area.What will happen when the jobs come to an end and would another mental strain ofinvestment not be more appropriate to their needs? Would the front end of aquarry restrict the choice for further de velopment? Could an co-ordinatedapproach be adopted and a 2nd generation quarry mean? The decision ofwhether or not to go ahead cannot be delayed indefinitely as Norway and Spainare looking at maturation their own. If it is to go ahead then an early startwill go out Harris a stronger position in the merchandise.2 INTRODUCTIONThis report examines the dispute 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 punkof the mountain but depart from enough of a shell to leave the skyline largelyunaffected. The whole question of whether or not it should go ahead or not isthe subject of the current public doubt 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 emf for developingthem.FIGURE 1 LOCATION OF THE SUPERQUARRY(Glasgow H erald, 20/10/94)3 THE ISSUES SURROUNDING THE DEBATE3.1 History1927A detailed geological check up on identified the deposit of anorthosite.1965Planning permission was accustomed in rationale to quarry the rock. Theremit covered a larger site than is planned today.1966Some small scale quarrying took place but prepare an on site rock crushingplant and a complicated harbour were necessary for economic viability.74-76Outline planning permission was given for quarrying, shipping andloading facilities but this was never acted on.1977The Scottish Office issued case Planning Guidelines. Harris wasidentified as one of 9 potential sites. (The Scotsman 18/7/93)