The Planning Inspectorate has granted Aggregate Industries permission to extract sand and gravel at Straitgate Farm – despite the fact that the company’s approved plans cannot be implemented without one of the imposed conditions being broken.
It has long been recognised that mineral extraction at Straitgate could introduce bodies of water directly below the flight path of Exeter Airport, thereby increasing the risk of birdstrike. In 2012, Exeter Airport wrote to Devon County Council with its concerns:
As you are aware, the risk of a bird strike on an aircraft can be catastrophic, and as a result all aviation stakeholders do all possible to mitigate against this happening.Under the Air Navigation Law, it is a criminal offence to endanger an aircraft or its occupants by any means.The creation of any body of water, particularly on a long term basis, has the potential to create a suitable habitat which encourages an increase in bird activity for nesting, feeding and migration.Due to the location of the proposed quarry, it is felt that there is a real risk to aircraft if there is an increase in this area.
In light of these concerns – documented as a constraint in the Devon Minerals Plan – conditions relating to Airport Safeguarding were recommended in the Officer’s Report in 2021.
However, based on comments made on the last day of the Public Inquiry, the condition relating to Airport Safeguarding and the creation of water bodies was strengthened by the Inspectors. It now reads:
This condition, which Aggregate Industries must comply with if it is to quarry Straitgate Farm, is clear and unambiguous. It is not limited by the size or duration of any water body – large or small, permanent or temporary.
What exactly is a water body? Wikipedia says "The term most often refers to oceans, seas, and lakes, but it includes smaller pools of water such as ponds, wetlands, or more rarely, puddles." LawInsider goes further. This helpful graphic also explains.
How easy would it be to create a water body at Straitgate? Fortunately, we know. Aggregate Industries’ archeological investigations were held up in October 2014 because water in the archaeological trenches would not drain away.
We also know that Aggregate Industries has form in creating water bodies that attract birds elsewhere at their sites in Devon – just click on the labels airport safeguarding or birdstrike, or these posts here, here, here, here, here and here. Below is a photo of a water body left by the company at Hillhead:
But let’s put all that to one side for a moment.
One of Aggregate Industries’ approved plans – listed in the Planning Inspectors’ report as Restoration Scheme SF/6 rev E – actually encourages water bodies:
EPHEMERAL WATER BODIES AND SPECIES-RICH WET GRASSLAND TO BE ENCOURAGED IN LOW-LYING INFILTRATION AREAS (IN THE BASE OF THE DEPRESSIONS)
As low points in the quarried landform, water bodies might be expected to form in these areas. But Aggregate Industries says they are needed for surface water management reasons too:
The features are part of site restoration to ensure the site is restored to baseline conditions with some betterment. The features allow the restored site to mimic natural conditions, but ensure a greater proportion of rainfall passes to ground to provide flow support to the watercourses, rather than passing off-site as overland flow. 2.18.7
In addition to that, the creation of infiltration areas on the eastern boundary of the site is an integral part of the company’s flood mitigation scheme. At the Public Inquiry the Inspectors were told by Aggregate Industries’ hydrogeology witness that standing water will remain in these areas for up to 15 days in the summer and 24 days in the winter. Of course, if it rains again in the meantime – as it often does – the duration will be extended.
So – there is a contradiction. Aggregate Industries’ plans rely on the creation of water bodies, which the Planning Inspectors’ conditions prohibit.
In other words, Aggregate Industries’ plans cannot be implemented without the conditions being broken.
One might ask why the Planning Inspectors granted permission for a scheme that was incompatible with their conditions. Whatever the reason, it would appear there was more concern with approving Aggregate Industries’ scheme than there was in seeing whether it could actually work.
