Alberto has led a Westminster Hall debate calling for reforms to quarry planning policy, air quality guidance and safety regulation, warning that current standards pose a risk to communities near to quarry developments.
Speaking in the debate he tabled on Planning Policy for Quarries, Mr Costa highlighted serious concerns arising from a proposed large-scale quarry at Misterton, near Lutterworth, and the wider implications for communities living near quarry operations across England.
Alberto told MPs that while quarrying remains vital for housing, infrastructure and economic growth, current planning and regulatory frameworks are outdated, inconsistent and insufficiently aligned with modern scientific evidence, particularly in relation to air quality and fine particulate pollution.
Alberto said, “Residents quite reasonably expect that decisions affecting their health and environment are based on up-to-date science, robust evidence and independent scrutiny. Too often, that is not what is happening.”
Air quality and outdated guidance
Alberto raised particular concerns about reliance on DEFRA’s 2021 background air quality model, which he said produces artificially low PM2.5 baselines that no longer reflect post-pandemic conditions. He pointed to local monitoring by Harborough District Council, as well as the applicant’s own consultants, showing higher background pollution levels already close to or exceeding future legal limits.
He said:
“Where more recent local data exists, it must be used. And where a development could increase PM2.5 exposure, there should be a mandatory period of local monitoring before permission is even considered.”
Alberto also criticised reliance on nearly decade-old guidance from the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM), particularly the continued use of a 250-metre screening distance, which he argued fails to reflect the behaviour of fine particulates such as PM2.5.
“We now know these particles can travel much further than previously assumed,” he said.
“Treating them like nuisance dust underestimates risk, especially for children, older people and those with respiratory conditions.”
He welcomed the IAQM’s decision to place its guidance under formal review, but urged the Government to provide clarity on how planning authorities should apply interim standards, given the UK’s legally binding air quality targets under the Environment Act 2021 and the Air Quality (England) Regulations 2023.
Access to independent advice
Mr Costa also highlighted the difficulty communities face in accessing independent technical expertise when responding to quarry applications from major operators.
“It took nearly a year for residents to find a qualified planner willing to put their name to an impartial review,” he said.
“That experience raises serious questions about fairness and whether communities are truly able to engage on equal terms in complex planning cases.”
Strengthening safety regulation
Finally, Alberto called for a review of the Quarries Regulations 1999, arguing that they lag behind modern safety practice and do not provide adequate protection for the public.
He urged the Government to consider bringing quarry operations within the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, or adopting a Safety Case regime similar to those used in other high-risk industries.
“Quarries involve heavy machinery, airborne dust and complex site operations,” he said.
“They should be regulated with the same rigour we expect elsewhere, with clear accountability, formal risk assessment and a strong focus on protecting both workers and nearby communities.”
Following the debate, Alberto said:
“I called for this debate because it has become clear that quarry regulations in this country are failing to keep pace with the latest science and public health standards. I am encouraged that MPs from across the House share these concerns, and I will continue working with them to press the government for meaningful change.”
He added:
“Residents in Lutterworth, Walcote, Cotesbach and the surrounding villages will rightly be disappointed by the Minister’s response, which did little to reassure them that the government fully recognises the scale of the problem. But I am one of many MPs who care deeply about this issue, and I will continue to lead the fight on behalf of our constituents.”
