This week, Devon County Council issued a revision of the county's sand and gravel landbank as it stood at the end of 2020.
This was the landbank figure applicable last December when Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm was determined. The figure should have been 7.6 years – not the 5.7 years put forward by the Council.
We pointed to the spurious fall in 2020's sand and gravel reserves – a loss of 0.9 million tonnes in excess of sales – at the time. The 10th Devon LAA claimed:
There has been a significant reduction in reserves during 2020. This can be attributed to a reassessment of reserves by operators.
Devon County Council has now sent a correction – Appeal Note – Landbank - 20/07/2022 – to the Planning Inspectorate, which states:
1.3 In the course of preparation of the [as yet unpublished] 11th Devon LAA, based on aggregates sales and reserves data for 2021, it has been identified in July 2022 that an inaccurate figure for reserves provided by a mineral operator [not the Appellant] for the 2020 aggregates survey has resulted in the calculation of an incorrect duration for the sand and gravel landbank.3.7 Contrary to the statements made in the committee report as outlined in paragraph 1.1 above, Devon’s sand and gravel landbank was, using the revised landbank figure of 7.6 years, above the seven years minimum required by Policy M11 of the Devon Minerals Plan [CD8.02] and paragraph 213 of the National Planning Policy Framework [CD8.01].
Indeed, the notion that the landbank was less than the 7 years suggested by the NPPF featured heavily in the committee report that informed councillors determining the Straitgate application:
6.1.10 The 10th LAA for Devon... shows that, at the end of 2020, the landbank for sand and gravel was 5.7 years and it has therefore fallen below the seven years minimum required by paragraph 213 of the NPPF and Policy M11 of the DMP.6.1.12 In this context, Part 2 of Policy M11 presumes in favour of permitting proposals for a new or extended sand and gravel site as the relevant landbank is below the minimum duration…
Crucially, the apparent shortfall guided the "Planning Balance and Reasons for Recommendation":
7.5 A number of objectors have pointed out that the reduced amount of aggregate to be derived from the site must now mean that the harm caused by the proposal would outweigh the benefit of working the site; however, the current aggregate landbank has also fallen below the required seven years supply and this would weigh significantly in favour of this proposal in the absence of any other site coming onstream in the near future.
Clearly, with more than 7 years’ worth of permitted sand and gravel, the size of the landbank should NOT have "weigh[ed] significantly in favour of this proposal".
Indeed, knowing the true figure, the officers might even have had to recommend refusal, given what "a fine balance" the whole decision was:
7.22 Although this site is allocated in the current Devon Minerals Plan, the length of time it has taken to bring it to determination has reflected the complicated issues that needed to be addressed, and it is acknowledged that the benefits of delivering the Minerals Plan proposal and maintaining the required aggregates supply, set against the impacts of the proposed development, has been a fine balance
Aggregate Industries' statement of case for the appeal also plays heavily on the fact that the landbank for sand and gravel was below 7 years.
One might reasonably conclude that the company's case is now even flimsier.
