In all areas of our business, including internal and external interactions, we always act with integrity.
Why is integrity important? Aggregate Industries tells us:
High performance with high integrity is key to sustainable success.
It may only be corporate BS, but doesn’t it sound good? Well done to the company’s PR gurus.
If, however, Aggregate Industries does act with integrity, if Aggregate Industries does have strong moral and ethical principles, if Aggregate Industries is virtuous, honourable, trustworthy, it would of course want to abide by planning conditions. It would not want to find weasel words to get around them. It would recognise that planning conditions are there for a reason. They are not there to be interpreted in a way that is favourable to the bottom line of a multinational cement conglomerate. They are there to protect people and the surrounding environment. They are there to "enable development to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission."
But, surprise, surprise, what do we find? Aggregate Industries is already pushing back on the conditions imposed for its permission to quarry Straitgate Farm, pushing back on environmental protection.
Take the two majestic oak trees, trees F and G, which sit either side of the approved site entrance, but outside of any mineral working area.
In its planning application, Aggregate Industries admitted:
the works will potentially interfere with the root protection areas of Trees F, G... and it is likely they will be damaged by the development and need to be felled. 4.1
One of the reasons Devon County Council had refused Aggregate Industries' application to quarry Straitgate Farm was because:
6. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of mature trees and hedgerows leading to the fragmentation of habitat corridors, contrary to Policies M16 and M17 of the Devon Minerals Plan, Policy D3 of the East Devon Local Plan and Policies NP1, NP2 and NP8 of the Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan.
The Council defended this reason for refusal at the Public Inquiry when the company appealed.
However, by that time, Aggregate Industries had changed its story about trees F and G. Representatives for the company assured Government Planning Inspectors that the site entrance could be created without harming these trees or their roots.
In their subsequent report, the Inspectors recognised that these 200-year old oaks "are worthy of protection and should be retained". This was secured by Condition 41, which states, unequivocally:
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.
What could be clearer than that?
East Devon District Council also recognised that the trees were worthy of protection and last year put a Tree Preservation Order on both.
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 Council was of the view that:
The detailed plans submitted by Aggregate Industries show both trees being retained but then states that tree F (named as T3 in TPO) and tree G (named as T2 in TPO) ‘will be monitored and only removed if necessary’. This is somewhat ambiguous and raises concern that the trees may not be given the full protection during construction if it’s considered that the trees can be removed ‘if considered necessary’.It is noted as stated by the Objection [from Aggregate Industries], that the trees are protected by Condition 6 of The Appeal as they are shown as being retained on the plans (albeit with the caveat of ‘will be monitored and only removed if necessary’). However, with the conditions being only short-term and the rather ambiguous wording, it is considered that TPO will therefore help ensure long-term protection and that they are appropriately managed by current and future owners.
It is a criminal offence to wilfully damage or destroy a protected tree without consent from the local authority. TPOs allow the potential for "unlimited fines" in the case of damage:
in determining the amount of fine, the court shall take into account any financial benefit which has resulted, or is likely to result, from the offence.
You would think that that would be the end of the matter. But no. At a meeting last month, Aggregate Industries said it would try not to damage oak trees F and G.
Try. And in writing this month, Aggregate Industries confirmed:
Our tree and highway consultants are looking at this issue and I will be able to update you in due course. I would refer you to approved plan reference R22/L/3-3-005 which clearly labels Trees F and G as "condition of tree to be monitored and only removed if necessary".
Removed if necessary. It’s a surprising position to take, not only because of the clarity of Condition 41, and the TPO, but also because – as East Devon District Council recognised – the approved plans (listed below) all show the oak trees retained:
Clearly, Aggregate Industries thinks it’s above planning conditions and TPOs. Integrity?
