AI U-turns on water charges – but seeks to reduce post-restoration monitoring

In February, Aggregate Industries wrote to local private water supply owners – those people now at risk of losing their drinking water due to the permitted quarry development at Straitgate Farm – with the offer of water monitoring, and remediation in the event of derogation, reminding them: 

For the avoidance of doubt, AIUK shall only be responsible for implementing the proposed solution and not for any subsequent charges, fees or any other costs associated with the solution once implemented.

For years, Aggregate Industries has refused to commit to paying ongoing water charges should surrounding supplies be lost as a result of its works, as we last posted here. 

However, following pressure from PWS owners at a meeting last month, Aggregate Industries has backtracked and now says: 

The company has reviewed its position and, in the unlikely event that properties have to be connected to a mains supply, will now agree to meet any ongoing costs for the supply of mains water to affected properties for the life of the planning permission and the post restoration monitoring period.

Why the company has taken so long to recognise the inequity of its previous stance is anybody’s guess. 

What happens after the post restoration monitoring period? Aggregate Industries says: 

All obligations and liabilities on the company cease. 

Why Aggregate Industries thinks its liability should end at this arbitrary point in time – if the company were to cause the loss of drinking water supplies – is not clear. 

In granting permission for the development, the Planning Inspectors wrote: 

176. The suggested condition for groundwater monitoring would impose a 10-year requirement for post-restoration monitoring, however the section 106 agreement provides for this period to be agreed in writing between the parties. We have accordingly not included reference to the post-restoration period for monitoring in the condition.

However, the company made clear at the above-mentioned meeting that it intends to press Devon County Council for "a break clause", to reduce the period for post-restoration monitoring. 

What’s the problem with that? As Professor Brassington explained at the Inquiry: 

I have shown that currently it takes almost 11 years for the water to reach the Cadhay spring which means that the full effect will not be felt until after the appellant has left the site.

So how much is Aggregate Industries’ U-turn worth? Not very much it would appear.

EDIT 12.7.23 

In correspondence with Devon County Council relating to post-restoration monitoring, it has now been confirmed that "the Company intends to abide by the timescales discussed at the Inquiry."

AI’s livestock crossing - needed before quarrying Straitgate - currently not permitted

Aggregate Industries has mucked up. 

In June 2021, following the submission of planning application 20/2542/FUL, Aggregate Industries secured permission from East Devon District Council for "a new agricultural access onto the B3174 Exeter Road to facilitate an efficient crossing point for the current dairy herd at Straitgate Farm".  

Mineral extraction at Straitgate Farm is dependent upon the implementation of this permission.

The Planning Inspectors, who in January granted permission to quarry Straitgate, wrote: 

109. Material to this appeal proposal is a planning permission granted by East Devon District Council (EDDC) for a new access to the B3174 Exeter Road to provide a livestock crossing incorporating holding pens. At the time of the Inquiry this permission had not been implemented… 

Condition 19 of the Straitgate permission states: 

No soil stripping in Phase 1 of the development hereby approved shall be undertaken unless the cattle crossing permitted by East Devon District Council permission ref. 20/2542/FUL has been fully implemented and brought into operation in accordance with the conditions of that permission. 

However, as it stands, 20/2542/FUL cannot be implemented. 

Aggregate Industries has put the red line planning boundary for application 20/2542/FUL in the wrong location. Facepalm.

   

What is the red line boundary? Government guidance says: 

The application site should be edged clearly with a red line on the location plan. It should include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development… 

The red line boundary drawn by Aggregate Industries for 20/2542/FUL does not incorporate the existing gateway on the south side of the B3174, nor the gap in the trees on the north side of the B3174, as specified in the company’s supporting statement. The red line boundary does not match the detailed drawings that formed part of the application. 

The permission therefore cannot be carried out in accordance with the approved detailed drawings listed in Condition 2. 

East Devon District Council has today confirmed that Aggregate Industries will need to submit another planning application:

I have written to Aggregate Industries drawing their attention to this issue and recommending that they address this issue through a further application.

Local people, councils and statutory bodies will be able to respond to a new application in the normal way. Until that application has been approved, and implemented, no digging can start at Straitgate Farm.

EDDC slaps TPO on Straitgate trees

We posted about the roots of an oak tree earlier in the year. 

What really happens below ground 🌳 pic.twitter.com/R1xM59HDjK

— The English Oak Project (@TheKentAcorn) December 30, 2022

The relevance at Straitgate concerns the modifications required – let’s not call them improvements – to Birdcage Lane to allow up to 200 44-tonne HGV movements a day in and out of the site. Devon County Council recognised: 

It is clear that the size of vehicles involved in the application render a ‘no dig’ solution inappropriate for the depth of road construction that would be required. 

Aggregate Industries’ consultants accepted that: 

Devon County Council Highways have confirmed that they would not accept a “no dig” construction, due to HGV vehicles that will be using the road to access the proposed development... [which] means that the works will potentially interfere with the root protection areas of Trees F, G and H and some of G15A as illustrated by Drawing R22/L/3-3-005 and it is likely they will be damaged by the development and need to be felled. 4.1 

The visual impact that would be caused by the loss of these majestic 200 year-old oaks is clear:

 

The Planning Inspectors, in their report permitting mineral development at Straitgate, wrote: 

91. The proposed site access would be located in between trees F and G. There was some debate over whether trees F and G should be categorised as A or B using BS5837:2012. In our view, both categories A and B would indicate they are worthy of protection and should be retained. 

The Inspectors imposed the following conditions: 

39 All existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows within the site and on its boundaries shall be retained and protected from damage during the process of extraction and subsequent restoration unless they are identified to be removed as part of the current phase or a succeeding phase of mineral working or restoration as set out in the approved plans. 

41 Outside the designated mineral working areas, trees shall not be felled, lopped or topped or have their roots damaged and hedgerows shall not be removed, thinned or cut back without the prior written consent of the Mineral Planning Authority. 

Earlier this week – coincidentally the same week TPOs were slapped on HS2 – East Devon District Council, having recognised the importance and threat to the three oak trees around the proposed site access, imposed Tree Preservation Order 23/0014/TPO stating: 

The trees contribute to the amenity and character of the area and they are considered under threat from development and the impact of heavy machinery and vehicles.

The legislation governing Tree Preservation Orders can be found here. The Woodland Trust says "usually TPOs are placed on a tree or wood that’s deemed to be a local amenity": 

A Tree Preservation Order, or TPO, is usually made by a local planning authority (often the local council) to protect a specific tree or woodland from deliberate damage and destruction. This could include felling, lopping, topping, uprooting or otherwise wilful damage.

Wettest March since 1981 – and Straitgate groundwater levels not monitored

Mineral extraction at Straitgate Farm is permitted to a level down to a guesstimate of the maximum water table – the MWWT. 

It is no surprise to see that the latest version of this model is already out of date. It doesn't reflect the maximum groundwater levels recorded – as detailed in Table A.1 of Aggregate Industries’ Proof of Evidence to the Public Inquiry.

The Planning Inspectors said in their report that "the MWWT grid would be updated as necessary to reflect any higher groundwater readings."

Indeed, Condition 28 of the permission says: 

Prior to the commencement of any soil stripping on any phase of the development, a review of the Maximum Winter Water Table (MWWT) grid (being the hydrogeologically modelled surface of the maximum winter water table based on the highest recorded winter groundwater levels) shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for its approval in writing.

Have groundwater levels at Straitgate Farm exceeded the MWWT this month, given that England has had its wettest March since 1981? 

Nobody knows. 

Groundwater levels across the site are currently not being monitored – and haven't been for over a year.