Having had years to get its water story coherent, Aggregate Industries’ current planning application for Straitgate Farm is a hydrological mess: The Environment Agency and DCC are still awaiting fundamental information. The documents submitted are all over the shop. Some have been whitewashed. Some contradict others. The accuracy of the MWWT has already been shown to be a joke. The seasonal working scheme cannot work for large parts of the site. It’s a shambles.
Unlike AI, Hanson was straightforward and upfront when applying to DCC for permission to quarry the same material at Town Farm near Burlescombe:
Unlike AI, Hanson did not have over 100 people relying on its site for drinking water; unlike AI, Hanson did recognise the importance of a 1m unquarried buffer*.
Were there any clues that water would present such a problem for AI at Straitgate? There had been an earlier planning application for the site in 1967, but according to the newly adopted Devon Minerals Plan – which designates the site a Preferred Area for future sand and gravel extraction – refusal was nothing more than a matter of prematurity:
Planning permission for sand and gravel extraction was sought in 1967… The proposal was considered premature and refused following a public inquiry.
But DCC failed to mention something. The application wasn’t just premature; it wasn’t just a question of waiting a few more years.
No: In 1967, ECC made planning applications to quarry not only Straitgate Farm, but also land at Blackhill and Colaton Raleigh. These applications related to a total of 1347 acres, of which 844 acres were to be excavated. The need was based – as it transpired – on some ridiculous forecasts. The Devon River Authority (now the EA) objected to all three applications. There was a Public Inquiry in July and August of 1968. The Inspector’s findings, which were endorsed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, were issued in July 1969. On the issue of water, the Inspector concluded:
408. Bearing in mind the above facts I am of the opinion that:- (b) In the case of Blackhill and Colaton Raleigh sites… (e) As the likely effect on water supplies, as advised by the Assessor and set out below, would be material, and the practicability of the recharge proposals put forward at the inquiry is in doubt, it is undesirable that either of the applications as submitted should be approved… (g) In the case of the Straitgate site… (j) The same considerations regarding water supply are applicable as set out in (e) above. (p) For this reason any approval [for Straitgate] would be premature, and my recommendation not to allow that application also is on that basis, apart from water supply considerations.
It would be easy for DCC to claim that this refusal was a long time ago, that it had forgotten all about "water supply considerations". It would have been easy to claim this, if the manner of the 1960s refusal hadn’t been carefully referenced in the new DMP; it would have been easy to claim this, if it wasn’t for the fact that the EA told DCC about these "water supply considerations" before the DMP was adopted:
Our understanding is that risks to groundwater (and water supplies) were an integral part of the reasons for refusal by the Inspector in 1967 and not just on the grounds that the proposal was considered ‘premature’.
Why wasn’t the DMP subsequently amended? Who knows? Plainly it wasn’t in DCC’s interest: If a planning application for Straitgate Farm was only "premature" in 1967 then surely now – some 50 years later – it’s not. And when you’ve been championing a flagship Preferred Area allocation for five years you hardly want to talk about pesky risks to groundwater; not when you’ve put a line through the 1m unquarried buffer to protect surrounding water supplies.
Whatever the reason, the DMP is obviously misleading on the subject of "relevant planning history" for Straitgate Farm.
What’s more, if DCC was aware of "water supply considerations", why was it so gung-ho on the allocation of Straitgate Farm in the DMP, so willing to overlook the site’s other inherent problems, so ready to ignore the objections from hundreds of people, so eager to rule out a multitude of other sites that the EA thought "may [be] preferable in environmental terms"?
Readers can draw their own conclusions.
* The unsaturated zone above the water table affords protection of the aquifer from surface pollution, allowing adsorption, attenuation and degradation of contaminants prior to reaching the water table. Removal of lower permeability clay layers from within the Pebble Beds could also remove some protection from the groundwater. During the operation of the site pollution may arise from the extraction and restoration activities. The pollution may be in the form of fuel, lubricants and other fluids associated with the operator’s machinery. C3.1
