Four years ago, Aggregate Industries planted some trees around Straitgate Farm in an effort to compensate for the ancient hedgerows and veteran trees that would be lost if quarrying took place. The trees were meant to provide replacement habitat for protected dormice. This is what they look like now:
They had previously looked like this:
We said at the time that the planting was presumptuous and 20 years too late. The area set aside for planting was also woefully inadequate.
As it turned out, AI failed to consult Exeter Airport on the issue, and planted the majority of these trees in the wrong place. In 2015, Exeter Airport advised:
Any tree and hedge planting should be restricted to the far eastern side of the site and below the 135mAOD contour ensuring trees are not allowed to grow to a height that will cause OLS penetration issues in future years.
Tree management and planting should be carried out following the guidance in the attached EDAL tree planting plan to ensure no further penetrations of the Obstacle limitation surfaces.
As a result, AI’s Reg22 Ecology Response admitted:
6,000 m2 (0.6 ha) of advance woodland planting within the application boundary will be removed due to issues relating to Exeter Airport. 2.1.5
However, if you look at the above plan you will see that Exeter Airport advised AI to remove only the trees in the red circle, and control the height of the remainder. Perversely, AI has chopped down ALL the trees and shrubs in both the red AND the orange areas.
It’s a shambles. If we can’t trust AI to do a simple job like managing tree planting in the right place, how can we trust it to dig in the right place, or more specifically for the protection of people’s water supplies, dig to the right depth? We digress.
Last year DCC’s Reg22 Request said:
The MPA must ensure that the application provides sufficient compensatory habitat for loss of species rich / ecologically valuable hedges and associated species. As a dormouse licence is required from NE [Natural England] we need to be sure that the three Habitats Regulations tests will be met and that it is likely that NE will issue a licence. Please can the applicant provide information to evidence that the favourable conservation test will be met and that they believe that NE will issue a licence.
In relation to the Habitats Regulations tests, AI’s consultants argued that:
With regard to Test 3 consideration of dormouse has taken place since 2014 with supplementary planting of new woodland and hedgerows. These have developed significantly since being planted, with the latter already suitable for dormice. It is likely the woodland will take a couple of years before it too will suitable for this species.
Well, as of last week, the majority of the supplementary planting of 2014 has gone. So, where does that now leave protected species, Test 3* and the likelihood of Natural England issuing a dormouse licence?
No doubt all will be cunningly explained in due course. AI has recently been planting some saplings, below 135m AOD, in an effort to make up for what has been and would be lost, but it will again be many years before these develop into anything useful.
Remember, this is the same company that wants to establish itself as "true advocates of biodiversity":
Quite simply, biodiversity matters to us. As part of our overall Sustainability Policy we were clear about how we wish to manage our impact on nature. We stated that we would "manage our land holdings so that biodiversity is protected and enhanced, where practicable, throughout our operations and is considered in our site restoration schemes." Never has this been more true.
Brilliant.
But if biodiversity mattered to AI, wouldn't it have come up with more than the derisory amount of established compensation planting so far offered for the loss of irreplaceable habitat for protected dormice and bats?
If biodiversity mattered to AI, why is Devon Wildlife Trust concerned that restoration proposals at Straitgate "will need many years to reach a state in which they can perform a meaningful part of the ecological network of this area"?
If biodiversity mattered to AI, why has the People's Trust for Endangered Species objected to the Straitgate application, reminding us that "Compensation planting... for losses of irreplaceable habitat should be at a ratio in the region of 30 – 1"?
Quite simply, AI talks big but has failed to deliver anything close to the required amount of compensation planting. Quite simply, AI has had years to get this planting in place. Quite simply, "if your actions do not prove the truth of your words, then your words are nothing more than lies" - as the famous saying goes.
We positively contribute to UK biodiversity through ongoing site management & wildlife focused restoration schemes 🌳 https://t.co/q1ERjFaq1A pic.twitter.com/eSPUYJjoa2— Aggregate Industries (@AggregateUK) September 12, 2017
* Natural England Guidance Note: "the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range"19.
