AIUK is seeking permission for a new agricultural access onto the B3174 Exeter Road to facilitate an efficient crossing point for the current dairy herd at Straitgate Farm. 6.2
Straitgate Farm is let under an Agricultural Holdings Act Tenancy and supports a dairy business comprising a herd of some 150 cows. In certain circumstances it may become necessary for the farm tenant to move the dairy herd over to the south of the B3174 to access other grazing land owned by the tenant’s family. 6.1
What "certain circumstances" means for this efficient crossing point for the current dairy herd we are not told. Four times a day? For ever more? Who knows? Aggregate Industries does not even try to quantify the increase of livestock movements over the established "baseline". But more on that later, together with another phrase bandied around, "worst case scenario".
Aggregate Industries didn’t submit this application as some charitable gesture for the tenant farmer. The application is critical if the company is ever to quarry Straitgate Farm. Devon County Council has made it clear that it needs to see how the issues of cows and their impact on road safety can be dealt with before proceeding further.
...having discussed this with highway colleagues on the basis of the information submitted with the Regulation 22 responses, initial indications are that the proposed location would present safety concerns. This needs to be clearly addressed if the need for the cattle crossing situation is arising as a consequence of your proposed development.
...any impact on road safety is likely to be a material consideration. Therefore, in order to assess the potential highway safety impacts the MPA needs to have reliable information on existing and potential agricultural crossings of the Exeter Road and, in particular how this would be controlled in the future in the interests of highway safety.
But safety concerns were not addressed, clearly or otherwise. Reliable information was not forthcoming. Quite the reverse. By 2018, things were still no clearer. In internal correspondence within DCC:
We don’t know quite where the crossing point is, or how many cows they have. We have the transport guy saying 15-30 cows and I have also seen 80 and 100 quoted. We also have the time of milking. The transport consultant suggests, to avoid peak traffic, that they could be milked at 10.00-11.00 in the morning – with no indication of what time of night they would need to be milked or if the farmer would agree to that. In fact it is not even clear if the transport consultant realises cows are milked twice a day!
In another internal DCC email, the Council was wanting Aggregate Industries to demonstrate that any quarry "wouldn’t increase the danger to highway users by increasing crossing movements":
I don’t think what we asked for was unreasonable – which was the baseline to be adjusted to include the cattle movements and for the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development wouldn’t increase the danger to highway users by increasing crossing movements because there is less land to graze on the northern side of the road whilst the quarry is operating.
Fast forward to 2021. Has anything been resolved? Has Aggregate Industries demonstrated that more frequent cattle movements
wouldn’t increase the danger to highway users? Of course not. No safety assessment on this issue has yet been provided. Consultants
Vectos had previously warned:
The provision of a Cattle crossing over the B3174 may have severe impact on the operation of the B3174
In Aggregate Industries' Supporting Statement, the company claims:
The proposed crossing... provides betterment to the current situation in terms of enabling a shorter traverse of the highway, effectively reducing crossing times which both the tenant farmer and road users will benefit from.
Betterment? Straight across the road rather than diagonal is not betterment when we’re talking about introducing 150 slow moving cows, with set-up and clear-up times. In what parallel universe does Aggregate Industries operate??
Let’s remember, the current situation is that livestock cross this road a) infrequently, b) at quiet times, and c) in low numbers. Dairy cows DO NOT generally cross this road. The farmer has no requirement for such crossings, given the amount of pasture north of the B3174. It’s not complicated.
However, if almost 90% of the grazing pasture from the farm were taken for quarrying, the farmer would be forced to seek alternative pasture on the south side of the road; 150 cows would be forced to cross the road four times daily during the lifetime of the quarry. Again, this is not complicated.
Aggregate Industries’ Supporting Statement states:
The tenant farmer has made it known to Aggregate Industries UK in its capacity as Landlord that in certain circumstances it may become necessary to move the dairy herd and other livestock over to the south of the B3174 Exeter Road to access other grazing land owned by the tenant’s family.
But let’s get this clear. The crossing would ONLY be needed if any quarrying were to proceed. No farmer would want to be forced to cross this road with 150 cows four times a day, any more than any driver would want to wait the 15 minutes or more while they do so.
Furthermore, how on earth is it that Aggregate Industries’ application fails to mention that up to 216 HGVs a day – one every 3 minutes – would be put into the mix from its own operations, fails to assess the safety implications on this 60mph limit road, fails to mention the frequent accidents along this stretch of road, fails to assess the resulting queues of traffic, fails to assess the impact of such queues on the A30 Daisymount junction, fails to assess the impact on emergency traffic to the hospital, fails to assess the creation of rat runs to avoid the queues, fails to assess the implications of muck on the road?
How on earth – for Ottery’s main and busiest road – is it that none of this is mentioned? How is it that Aggregate Industries has the gall to claim "there are no material considerations why planning permission should not be granted"?
In fact, how have the issues of road safety connected with this crossing been swept so neatly under the carpet? What has been going on behind the scenes? What false illusions might Devon County Council have been labouring under? Fortunately, previous Freedom of Information requests to the Council tell us.
In an
email from DCC in 2019, advising Aggregate Industries to seek planning permission for a cattle crossing to 'improve' upon the current diagonal crossing point:
It appears that this would be a betterment of the existing situation and is related to the proposed mineral working based upon the worst case scenario of the available cattle movements, as put forward (TA 3.2.3) in the email from the Tenant Farmer to the Mineral Planning Authority dated 26 February 2018.
The email referred to, from the Tenant Farmer’s Land Agent, details the existing infrequent movements. But what
the email also says is:
In the event that no cow tracks were installed at Straitgate, and in time that no additional cubicle housing were erected to house the dairy herd these movements would need to occur daily.
How very selective of Aggregate Industries to have chosen to omit this line from its Supporting Statement for the cattle crossing.
But why is DCC talking about "betterment", given that Aggregate Industries’ Supporting Statement makes clear that the application is "to facilitate an efficient crossing point for the current dairy herd at Straitgate Farm"? Has DCC been labouring under the illusion that cattle numbers crossing the road would not increase? Perhaps so. Look at Aggregate Industries’
draft Transport Assessment:
The Applicant, Aggregate Industries UK, will work with any current or future operator of the farm to maintain sufficient grazing such that livestock crossings will not need to increase above the baseline stated within the email from West Country Rural Ltd. 6.3.7
This is plainly nonsense given that a quarry would remove almost 90% of the land.
The area of the existing agricultural holding extends to some 120.78 acres (48.9ha)… The application site covers an area extending to some 42.5ha, with mineral extraction proposed to take place within 22.6ha with the remainder of the site occupied by temporary soil storage bunds, mitigation planting and site management and access areas. 2.1.10
And what is the "worst case scenario" Devon County Council mentions? In an internal DCC email dated 4 September 2019:
Basically I want [DCC Highways officials'] opinion on if we take the ‘worse case scenario’ of the uncorroborated report of cattle movements across Exeter Road in the revised TA, including an email from the Tennant (App E) and plan showing the livestock crossing point (App F). Then should we be recommending that these cattle movements are mitigated by a condition requiring realignment of the crossing point to be at 90 degrees to the highway and/or cattle pens are required on the south side to aid quickness of movement.
But what is the "worst case scenario"? Existing numbers? It’s not entirely clear people know. In an internal DCC email 23 August 2019:
...is it clear that it’s the worst case scenario this time?
In another internal DCC email dated 21 November 2018
I didn’t read the worst case scenario so not entirely sure what the difference is.
And another dated 21 February 2018:
If we, in one of the most rural counties in England, go before our committee ‐ which has one or two farmers on it, without a realistic baseline on the agricultural activities we would be rightly chastised ‐ and the objectors would make sure that happened…. It is incomprehensible that [AI's traffic consultant] is saying 15‐30 cows.
So what is the "worst case scenario" everyone is referring to? Has a worst case ever been presented? Aggregate Industries’ traffic consultant, the one that seemed unsure whether "cows are milked twice a day", the one saying "15‐30 cows", originally claimed:
Our interpretation is therefore based on a logical ‘worst case’ situation from the base line information.
This is the baseline information referred to in the email dated 26 February 2018 from the tenant farmer’s land agent. This email details existing movements, NOT the worst case scenario where the entire dairy herd would have to cross the road four times daily.
So when DCC refers to betterment, it appears to be referring to the existing movements, NOT the future movements that would need to occur should quarrying remove 105 of the farm’s 120 acres on the north side of the B3174. Aggregate Industries’ application however is "to facilitate an efficient crossing point for the current dairy herd at Straitgate Farm", an entirely different set of numbers altogether.
Where might the confusion arise from? DCC had initially asked for a joint statement between Aggregate Industries and the farmer. The company produced a statement, and put it – unsigned – in its Transport Assessment.
The document claimed:
The approach outlined above negates the need for the Tenant to arrange to move livestock across the public highway at a greater frequency than that of the baseline and therefore there will not be a requirement to construct a new crossing point.
The problem was that the statement remained unsigned. Aggregate Industries’ traffic consultant, in an email to DCC 21 May 2019, was forced to admit:
We have removed the joint statement from the appendix and replaced it with the email from the land agent which sets out the livestock movements.
The existing movements email is what all parties are relying on. Indeed, Revision E of the company’s Transport Assessment reads:
The Tenant Farmer, through their Land Agent, provided the following information (reproduced below for ease of reference) direct to the Mineral Planning Authority, by email dated 26 February 2018, in relation to annual livestock movements across the B3174. The data below fixes the current baseline based on the current Tenant Farmer’s operational practices. 3.2.3
Again, this is the very same email that warns:
In the event that no cow tracks were installed at Straitgate, and in time that no additional cubicle housing were erected to house the dairy herd these movements would need to occur daily.
So betterment? Of course not. Clearly Devon County Council is trying everything possible to make this work, but 150 cows crossing four times daily across Ottery's busiest road for up to 12 years cannot just be magicked away, neither can "the danger to highway users by increasing crossing movements".
