Following Savills recent announcement of an amended MIN93 site boundary map, I've received what can only be described as a disturbing story of deception from a source who wishes to remain anonymous, and will hereafter be referred to as Miss X.

I have learned that the new site map, which can be viewed here, existed as long ago as March 17th 2008, possibly even earlier.

Two days before the meeting held in Pentney village hall on March 19th, an inadequately publicised meeting was held in Pentney Caravan Park. In attendance were the parish council, a handfull of Pentney residents, and the land owners son, Luke.

Miss X was witness on that night to a map which was more or less identical to the new reduced site which Savills have now released under the guise of a recent amendment.

So the question that must now be asked is this...
If the reduced site plan existed as long ago as March 17th, why did Savills and the land owner wait until July 7th - after the consultation period had closed - to release the new map?

Could they possibly have known there would be strong objections to any quarry in Pentney, and this was an attempt at ensuring they had some bargaining power when those objections started flying?

Did they ask for an outrageously large site, knowing all along that they only wanted half of it?
That way, they can stand up and wave the new map in the air saying "Look, we're being reasonable. We're prepared to settle for a lesser deal if it will keep everyone happy".

I urge everyone not to be fooled by this tactic. The meeting on March 17th proves that this was their plan from day one.
The land owners and their agents have engaged in deception. Using the larger site, which they never really wanted anyway, as a smokescreen to allow them to slip the smaller site in through the back door.

It's a centuries old bartering ploy that's existed for as long as people have been trading.
Ask for more than you want, then when you pretend to capitulate and accept less you are more likely to get it.

But we need to be careful here. We cannot allow any quarry to proceed in Pentney village, for any minerals excavation is the equivalent to getting a foot in the door.
It has been demonstrated time and again elsewhere that it's easier to get permission to expand an existing quarry by field boundaries than it is to get permission for a brand new quarry.
So once permission is given for a smaller MIN93 site, there's very little to stop the land owner from extending the quarry until it fills the originally proposed site boundary, bringing it right back into the village.