If Aggregate Industries has been unable to produce a workable coherent flood mitigation scheme in SIX YEARS, why does Devon County Council's Flood Risk Team – in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority – think it’s a good idea to sort it all out post determination, other than to avoid further public scrutiny?
The LLFA has now withdrawn its previous objection, subject to a range of conditions being imposed – including the approval of "a plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed." But how well does the the LLFA actually understand what’s proposed?
Let’s take just two examples from the LLFA’s response.
One: The LLFA observes that:
The haul road will be stripped of soils before coming into use which will enable infiltration directly into the Pebble Beds and avoid the risk of soil compaction.
Fantastic. The problem? Aggregate Industries' Supporting Statement says:
3.1.3 An internal haul road will be constructed to link the mineral stockpiling area to the access point on Birdcage Lane. This haul road would be asphalt surfaced from the proposed wheelwash to the junction at Birdcage Lane to ensure that no mud will be deposited on the public highway.
So, "asphalt" or "Pebble Beds"?
Two: The LLFA will no doubt have put much thought into the proposed conditions. One of them reads:
(c) The applicant should commit to re-working the base of the void to a depth of 1 m as well as the removal of any silt accumulation to ensure the base is fully functionable for infiltration purposes.
At first glance, another sensible idea. The problem? The void created by any quarrying at Straitgate would be defined by the maximum water table. The Environment Agency has stipulated:
No working shall be undertaken below the ‘Maximum Winter Water Table'
So what on earth is "re-working the base of the void to a depth of 1 m" all about?
