Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate is unlikely to be determined anytime soon.
Perhaps the end game is now beginning to be played out. Perhaps not. Who knows? In the end, the outcome of this ridiculous and unsustainable application may hinge on clauses buried in aged legal papers - as we alluded to in Why the delay? It’s black & white and So, what’s AI planning to do?
That was how AI’s last application fell apart. It looks like it could be the undoing of this one too. In any event, it's likely that matters will be tangled up for months as solicitors to and fro.
As we've already posted, the cows have put AI in a very big hole. Earlier this month we wrote:
it’s been evident for some time that the cattle crossing proposed by AI was not deliverable. It’s obvious that for AI to proceed any further it must remove cows from the picture. And this is where the company has a problem, because it can’t; in law or otherwise.
To remove the cows from the picture, AI would need to show it can gain vacant possession of the farm. The tenants, however, have the benefit of an Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 Tenancy Agreement. AHA tenancies provide succession rights for future generations and are difficult to terminate. Nevertheless, tenants can be given notice to quit where:
the land is required for a use, other than for agriculture — for which permission has been granted on an application made under the enactments relating to town and country planning
If AI’s application for Straitgate were to be successful, the tenants could be evicted from the land for which permission has been granted for non-agricultural mineral-related development; i.e. land within the red line planning boundary.
No such grounds would exist to evict the tenants from land and buildings beyond this boundary. The tenants cannot therefore be evicted from the entire holding; the cows cannot be removed from the picture; the tenants would have no choice but to use land in their control to the south - across the Exeter Road - to replace the pasture lost to them by any quarrying.
If AI wants to rely on the tenancy agreement for Straitgate Farm, that’s clear too. The relevant clause is:
43. Power to resume possession of part of the holding
You can see AI’s problem: part: (noun) some but not all of something. Clause 43 is long, but essentially:
It shall be lawful for the Landlord to resume possession at any time of any part or parts of the land for any purpose specified in Section 31 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948... for mining quarrying gravel working... such resumption of possession not to terminate the tenancy hereby created except in regard to the land taken.
Possession of any part of the land for quarrying cannot terminate the tenancy for other parts of the land, farmhouse and agricultural buildings. It’s pretty straightforward.
Solicitors acting for AI will no doubt rattle their sabres, invent a hotchpotch of different arguments, threaten the tenants with all manner of things; standard fare when your case is weak.
If the law was on the side of AI it would not need to resort to such bluff and bluster. But what else can it do? The company has backed itself into a corner.
And AI won’t want to leave fate to a Tribunal. Trying to make a case that a Sixteenth Century Grade II listed Devon Longhouse is needed for quarrying would just look stupid.
