TPO on Straitgate trees confirmed

Aggregate Industries’ consultants had previously recognised that site entrance works and deep-dig road construction at Straitgate Farm could cause the loss of two majestic 200 year-old oak trees, writing: 

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  

They produced a photomontage to show the result:

 

The Planning Inspectors, in their report permitting mineral development at Straitgate Farm, conditioned that all trees outside the mineral working area "shall not be felled, lopped or topped or have their roots damaged", and that specifically trees F and G, either side of the permitted site entrance, "are worthy of protection and should be retained". 

East Devon District Council agreed with Aggregate Industries’ consultants that the proposed works could damage trees F and G, and in March of this year issued a provisional Tree Protection Order 23/0014/TPO, as we posted at the time. 

Today, EDDC has confirmed the TPO, providing these trees with permanent protection, because: 

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.

Aggregate Industries – seeming to confirm the trees were indeed at risk – objected to the TPO:

... on the grounds that it is not necessary and that the mechanism for protecting these trees is already secured by condition 6 of the Appeal Decision for sand and gravel extraction at Straitgate Farm and that the only works that may impact on these trees are those that are necessary to implement a planning permission.

However, EDDC were 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, 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. 

Given that even Aggregate Industries’ own consultants recognised the risk of harm to these trees, there must now be a big question mark over the deliverability of the site access plans. 

TPOs allow the potential for "unlimited fines" in the case of damage: 

Section 210(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that anyone found guilty of these offences is liable, if convicted in the magistrates’ court, to a fine of up to £20,000. In serious cases a person may be committed for trial in the Crown Court and, if convicted, is liable to an unlimited fine. Section 210(3) provides that, 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.

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.

Where was the site access proposed in the '60s?

They knew a thing or two in the 1960s, not just about music, or putting a man on the moon, but that the site access on Birdcage Lane – originally proposed for English China Clays’ plan to quarry Straitgate Farm – didn't make any sense. 

The various site access schemes proposed by Aggregate Industries over the years since then have prompted much discussion. That’s hardly surprising given the hash the company has made of the whole thing – and the fact we’re now on the third plan:

... the plan originally discarded by Aggregate Industries’ consultants "on highway safety grounds". 

We too have raised the problems that a site access in this location on Birdcage Lane would bring, not least the increase in risks to school children and pedestrians, and damage to 3rd party property. 

We have even, through highway consultants Vectos, put forward an alternative that offered significant safety and other benefits – benefits highlighted again in our recent objection. 

A similar conclusion appears to have been reached by English China Clays before the Public Inquiry in 1968. The "Findings of Fact" from the Inspector's Report says: 

32. Although the application showed access as intended to be from the lane to the east of the site, it is now intended to be from the B.3174.

Ottery St Mary Urban District Council also had something to say on the matter: 

371. On the traffic aspect, they consider that Birdcage Lane is quite unsuitable for an access. The amended access proposal, to the B.3174, is better, but it would still create a hazard and an additional hazard would be caused by mud deposited on the road from lorries coming out of the quarry. 

372. The B.3174 is an attractive approach from the west to Ottery St. Mary. There is no speed limit along this section and traffic travels at times in excess of 50 miles per hour, particularly down the incline towards the east... The greater proportion of traffic would turn right on leaving the quarry, across the fast moving traffic, and the possibility of accidents cannot be ignored. Very dangerous conditions could be created when the quarry becomes operative and the volume of traffic using the road has increased (on 26th June 1968, a count showed that over 2,000 vehicles used the cross roads to the west, of which 948 travelled along the B.3174).

That was 1968. What do we have today? A 60mph limit and – when Aggregate Industries last conducted a count, 3 years ago this month – almost 7,000 vehicles a day.

DCC set to use Strava to identify popular cycling & walking routes for repairs

Strava to be used to identify popular Devon cycling routes for repairshttps://t.co/mH5v9IYZKb

— Devon Live News (@DevonLiveNews) July 9, 2020

Strava is set to be used by Devon County Council to decide where some of the additional £27m of spending on Devon’s roads will be allocated... the extra spending will go towards roads that are used by cyclists or walkers...

An extra £6m will be spent on Devon’s principal road network, with £3.2m extra of bridges and structures, with £17.7m to be spent on smaller roads, such as ‘C’ and unclassified roads, with a focus on improving the condition and resilience of high-usage local route networks.

By coincidence, it wasn't many months ago that we mentioned Strava on this blog. We posted What Strava tells us about AI’s haul route – how Aggregate Industries had claimed one local route network was hardly used by anyone, and how Strava showed otherwise:

In the past, Aggregate Industries' consultants have disputed that Birdcage Lane is used by pedestrians:

The roads adjacent to the application sites are not ideal for pedestrian use. 
4.1

It was of course nonsense. Aggregate Industries, if asked, would no doubt still dispute that these quiet lanes have amenity value. Show us the proof, they might say. And modern technology does.

Strava: a social fitness network, that is primarily used to track cycling and running exercises, using GPS data.

Click on the screenshot below to show the pedestrian use of Birdcage Lane:

Strava also tells us about the B3174 – the road that Aggregate Industries wants to use to haul sand and gravel. The company's previous TA said the B3174 was unattractive to cyclists. The latest TA is silent on the matter of cyclists and the interaction with up to 216 HGV movements a day, save for:

3.2.13 There are no designated cycle routes within close proximity of the proposed mineral extraction site, however proficient cyclists may utilise the network of quiet lanes.

Clearly they use more than just the quiet lanes. The screenshot below shows cyclist use of the B3174:

It was yet another example of Aggregate Industries' consultants saying one thing, and reality – with the help of some modern technology – telling us the reverse.

But it's good that Devon County Council are recognising the benefits of Strava to identify popular high amenity pedestrian routes across the County. It means the data presented above can hardly be disputed.

What Strava tells us about AI’s haul route

Birdcage Lane is hardly used by anyone, argues Aggregate Industries' Transport Assessment. Someone apparently counted vehicles on Birdcage Lane at "peak hours", and came to the answer of one.

What a perfect place to put up to 216 44-tonne HGVs a day. Who on earth would notice?

But Birdcage Lane’s low frequency of traffic is what makes it so attractive to pedestrians, joggers, ramblers, dog-walkers, cyclists, horse riders, and even five-time Olympic runners. It was why, with the backing of highway consultants Vectos, another site access point was suggested to eliminate pedestrian and HGV conflict.

Aggregate Industries' Transport Assessment is silent on the pedestrian use of Birdcage Lane, save for:

1.1.6 To reduce the potential interaction of pedestrians and HGV’s in a rural environment a footway will be provided along Birdcage Lane to the point where the new section of Permissive footpath is proposed.

This would have a "1.2m maximum width" and be overgrown in no time. But it’s the thought that counts, and we should consider ourselves lucky.

In the past, Aggregate Industries' consultants have disputed that Birdcage Lane is used by pedestrians:

The roads adjacent to the application sites are not ideal for pedestrian use. 
4.1

It was of course nonsense. Aggregate Industries, if asked, would no doubt still dispute that these quiet lanes have amenity value. Show us the proof, they might say. And modern technology does.

Strava: a social fitness network, that is primarily used to track cycling and running exercises, using GPS data.

Click on the screenshot below to show the pedestrian use of Birdcage Lane:

Aggregate Industries' consultants should clearly have been counting bipeds and quadrupeds as well. But then again, that wouldn't have given them the answer they wanted, would it?

Strava also tells us about the B3174 – the road that Aggregate Industries wants to use to haul sand and gravel. The company's previous TA said the B3174 was unattractive to cyclists. The latest TA is silent on the matter of cyclists and the interaction with up to 216 HGV movements a day, save for:

3.2.13 There are no designated cycle routes within close proximity of the proposed mineral extraction site, however proficient cyclists may utilise the network of quiet lanes.

Clearly they use more than just the quiet lanes. The screenshot below shows cyclist use of the B3174:

Plainly – and this won't be the last example – Aggregate Industries' Transport Assessment has been found deficient. Consultants have not assessed ALL road users around the site. How very remiss. How very unsurprising.

‘AI warns public not to wander onto access road following a number of incidents’

Aggregate Industries wants to turn a quiet rural lane in East Devon – a lane used by the public for dog-walking, jogging, horse riding, etc, and by school children waiting for and being dropped-off by buses – into a site access road for up to 200 HGV movements a day. What could possibly go wrong?

Plenty, according to AI. The company already has problems with an access road elsewhere:

Aggregate Industries is raising concerns about members of the public putting themselves in danger from oncoming traffic while walking on roads used to transport quarry materials.

Matthew Sharpe, Quarry Operations Manager at Aggregate Industries, comments: "We take the issue of public safety incredibly seriously and would like to warn visitors of the dangers of wandering off the designated footpaths on to high-traffic access roads following a number of incidents in recent years which have raised concerns."

We have advanced safer alternative plans that would avoid members of the public – including children – having to walk on roads used to transport quarry materials. To date, these plans have fallen on deaf ears – undermining those public safety claims from AI.

Here's the photo MP Sir Hugo Swire tweeted after his recent meeting with AI and its highways consultant where these access arrangements were discussed. Hugo Swire had previously written that "road safety and the transport of children is causing me real concern". We can only imagine what the representative from AI is telling our MP:

the school children would be... er... right there... er... umm yes, that is where our 44-tonne artics would umm enter and umm exit the site... but... er... we do take the issue of public safety incredibly seriously... incidents on access roads elsewhere?... er... er... er... well, now you come to mention it, we have had a spot of bother in Cambridge... umm... but we do take the issue of public safety incredibly seriously...

AI made allowances for school children at Burlescombe too; how’s that working out?

Aggregate Industries’ proposed site access for its Straitgate Farm quarry proposal and its 44-tonne HGVs is exactly where children stand waiting for school buses.

An alternative proposal eliminating pedestrian and HGV conflict, put forward by traffic consultants working on behalf of the local community, has apparently been dismissed by both AI and DCC.

MP Sir Hugo Swire has recently warned DCC that "road safety and the transport of children is causing me real concern". DCC’s response was that:

My officers have been discussing details of the proposal with the school travel team and have suggested to the applicant ways in which this might be resolved to ensure that the proposal does not increase the danger to children who are picked up or dropped off at this point.

It might, for example, be agreed that AI would restrict HGV movements to outside the times the lane is used by schoolchildren.

Sounds fantastic, except it wouldn’t work. With a haul route that’s 46 miles long, it would be impossible to restrict HGVs from turning up inside restricted times. Where would they wait, having arrived at the wrong time? On the A30? On the Daisymount junction?

But ignoring that, has AI has made a success of similar promises elsewhere? Of course not.

HGV movement restrictions were agreed between Burlescombe Primary School and AI for its Westleigh Quarry. Burlescombe Parish Council has recently objected to AI’s application to extract an additional 600,000 tonnes at Westleigh Quarry, making these comments regarding the school:

3) We would also like to point out the negative effects the Quarry HGV’s are having on Burlescombe Primary School: a. They have effectively stunted the growth of the school due to parents concerns over the safety of their children wholly generated by lorry movements past the school at all times of the day. b. There had been a verbal agreement with the previous head teacher concerning lorry movement restrictions (an agreement to stop and wait) within school drop-off and pick-up times (not always upheld). We would request that this agreement is formalised.

c) SS: 7.8 to 7.19 — Whilst accepting that the current proposal remains within the current permissions, a majority of residents who have voiced their opinions in Open Forum’s or online to the Council feel strongly that the rules are continuously broken — lorries travelling through Burlescombe in convoy, within restricted times around school drop-off and pick-up times, in excess of the speed limits, and un-sheeted. We request that no permission is granted to this application until an alternative route to the one through Burlescombe Village is reexamined fully.

In other words, even when the quarry is less than a mile away – trucks still turn up during restricted times.

A villager made this video in 2014 to show the impact of HGVs on children and the primary school. The included text speaks for itself:

This is the true plight of a village being trampled on by a multi national conglomerate with the backing of the district council taken over 8 years ago the lorry movement within the village has got significantly worse. This video demonstrates the shocking way in which a small village community have to live in fear of taking their children safely to school. how their local environment is polluted with noise and dust to the extent that washing cannot be hung out without becoming soiled, fish ponds have become polluted and murky no matter how good a filtration system, in the summer windows cannot be left open at night for fresh air because of the noise and vibrations our roads are now cracking up under the constant thunder of these vehicles and of course our children's primary school is right next to this road which is constantly under a dust cloud which our children are breathing in It appears that the DCC planners only duty of care involved here is making sure the quarry makes another pound at the cost of the ever diminishing quality of life to the local residents of Burlescombe and now they want to increase it more by building a hot tarmac silo so that they can run all night when ever it suits them. WE KNOW THE QUARRY LIE E.G working below the water table, contravening the 106 clause. THEY ALWAYS HAVE THEY ALWAYS WILL THEY ALWAYS OFFER VOLUNTARY ASSURANCES TO PLACATE BUT NEVER STICK TO THEIR WORD. SO WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD STICK TO A VOLUNTARY RESTRICTION

Cutting hedges next to roads is a standard but necessary chore for any landowner…

... who wants to stay on the right side of Section 154 of the Highways Act 1980.

So why are the hedgerows around the perimeter of Straitgate Farm proving so difficult for Aggregate Industries to cut back – in the interests of road safety?

This, of course, is at a time when AI should be doing all it can to convince people that it really could be a good neighbour to the local community – if the company’s controversial quarry plans, and all the associated harmful impacts, were to be dumped all over them.

The area on the right of the lane pictured below is AI's responsibility. Only last year, an ash tree was lost after AI delayed dealing with known issues.

The perimeter hedges around Straitgate are AI's responsibility. They have not been maintained for many years and are in desperate need of attention. AI has repeatedly been warned, this year and previous years, that for safety reasons the hedges need cutting back. Visibility is currently obscured for those exiting Birdcage Lane onto Exeter Road, and elsewhere.

Despite the warnings, at the time of writing no action, or even indication of action, has been forthcoming.

Perhaps posting here will spur AI into taking responsibility? Because if AI can’t even keep a few hedges cut back, what hope is there for the myriad of other more complex and onerous mitigation conditions it would have to adhere to at Straitgate, if its damaging quarry plans were given the go-ahead?

Leader of DCC replies to MP Hugo Swire

Last month we posted that Sir Hugo Swire, following a meeting with local people:

... has written to Cllr John Hart, Leader of DCC, pointing out that a safer access proposal has been put forward to DCC by Vectos, with the backing of local people, but that no response has yet been elicited, and that "road safety and the transport of children is causing me real concern" – the access point for AI’s 44-tonne HGVs is used as a school bus stop for pupils from King's and Colyton

His letter to Cllr Hart was clear:

They are very much concerned about the access onto the B3174 and some constituents have commissioned Vectos to come up with an alternative proposal… Can I ask you to investigate this and let me know what is happening here?

We had posted about the alternative proposal from Vectos back in March – Revised junction plan put forward by Group eliminates pedestrian & HGV conflict:

According to Vectos, following a subsequent meeting with DCC’s highways officer last month:

DCC are currently waiting for a Transport Assessment from the new consultant working for the applicant but he confirmed that one of the possibilities that the consultant would be looking at was a new access proposal on Exeter Road (west of Birdcage Lane/Toadpit Lane) – which is very encouraging.

But readers will see that, whilst Cllr Hart’s reply does address agricultural movements and a number of other transport issues, his letter fails to address the central thrust of Sir Hugo Swire's letter – the alternative access proposal:

Tour of Britain 2018

From one sport on two wheels to another.

Today, the Devon stage of the Tour of Britain started in Cranbrook and finished in Barnstable; Chris Froome and Geraint Thomas were among the riders.

The road to Ottery St Mary – the gateway to the Otter Valley – formed part of the early stage. The video below shows riders passing Straitgate Farm – the area behind the cyclists screened by trees. Aggregate Industries wants to remove a large number of these mature trees as part of its plans to reduce the farm to a sand and gravel quarry.

But let's not spoil the day with ugly thoughts. This was one sporting event enjoyed by thousands of people on the 108.8 mile route. More than that, at least in East Devon, the sun was out, it wasn't raining, the roads were dry, and Aggregate Industries – the company that has recently won fame in the world of motorsport and aquaplaning – will be glad that this is one occasion where it should be able to avoid the sort of PR catastrophe that ensued after the cancelled British Grand Prix MotoGP at Silverstone – a PR catastrophe that @AggregateUK has now managed to escalate, after threatening an experienced and respected motorsport journalist with legal action.

AI has run into even more problems

Should we begin to feel sorry for Aggregate Industries?

Readers may remember that in August, solicitors Foot Anstey and traffic consultants Vectos, representing the third party whose oak tree (Tree H) is at risk from AI’s plans, responded to the planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm; we posted Highway consultants demonstrate AI’s attempt to use Birdcage Lane has ‘failed’; Damage to 3rd party property ‘would expose Council to legal action’.

In September, AI supplied a revised junction plan which included a pedestrian footway.




This week we were copied into a letter from Foot Anstey and Vectos to DCC criticising those revised plans. They raised a number of new issues; even the gravel path for pedestrians is not deliverable:

In relation to the proposed drawing provided by the applicant, it is clear that it creates even more problems.

Foot Anstey and Vectos also commented further on Tree H - which is not owned by AI but is "likely [to] be damaged by the development and need to be felled." The owner of this oak tree has previously objected to such damage. We've posted on the subject of Tree H before: How AI’s site access plans still have a major problem and Should DCC support a scheme that requires criminal damage to implement?

DCC has already been advised by Foot Anstey that the third party:

... will not allow damage to his property. Accordingly, any development which may cause such damage will be resisted through available legal means, which may include an application for an injunction and/or an action for damages. Any such action would be brought against both the applicant and the Council (in its capacity as the local highways authority), and may also include a private prosecution for criminal damage.

Notwithstanding the numerous additional trees that would be lost on the other side of Birdcage Lane, DCC was of the view that AI's revised plan had fixed the Tree H issue, that it "would not require the sort of construction that would be likely to impact on the tree".

In their latest letter, Foot Anstey and Vectos disagreed:

It is not accepted that the provision of a gravel footway would not harm the tree. There would still need to be a deep dig in the highway area which would harm the tree. This is confirmed by the applicant's delineation of Tree H's Root Protection Area on the Tree Constraint Plan SF 6/5-9 in the Arboricultural Survey Report, within which no works should be allowed. "RPAs... provide a minimum area around the tree which should be left undisturbed during the development, in order to remove the risk of decline and ensure the survival of the trees." (paragraph 3.1)

Local people will surely concur with the closing remarks of Foot Anstey's letter:

With each new attempt to address a problem, the applicant merely creates new ones, demonstrating that the scheme is inherently poorly conceived.

Of course, tractors use Birdcage Lane too

Picture for a moment how up to 200 HGVs a day would fit into this scene on Birdcage Lane - Aggregate Industries’ proposed site access to Straitgate Farm.

The field entrance on the right is the one belonging to a third party - the field entrance that AI wants to incorporate into its new junction plans.

Whilst this scene obviously doesn’t happen every day on Birdcage Lane - and what AI is proposing would - it was enough to cause a few problems on the B3174.

But Birdcage Lane serves a valuable purpose for agricultural access; people are happy with that - it’s how food gets to our table.

Birdcage Lane hosts Devon Classic Rally 2017

This tiny lane - the lane that Aggregate Industries wants to wreck in its quest to claw an ever decreasing amount of sand and gravel from Straitgate Farm - was chosen to form part of this year’s Devon Classic Rally. Cars included Bentleys, Lagondas, Aston Martins and Jaguars.

It’s another example of how Birdcage Lane provides recreational amenity.

And whether for walking, horse riding, jogging or cycling, it is this valuable amenity that AI’s plans for up to 200 HGVs a day would steal from people - both local to East Devon and beyond.

HGVs kill more pedestrians than cyclists

Vectos, the highways consultants engaged by a third party, were concerned by the lack of pedestrian provision in Aggregate Industries’ 200 HGVs a day plans for Straitgate Farm. They pointed to "HGVs and Vulnerable Road Users" from RoSPA which states:

More pedestrians are killed or injured casualties in collisions with HGVs than cyclists. In 2015, 186 pedestrians were killed or seriously injured on British roads in accidents involving at least one HGV.

Over half of the HGVs which hit a pedestrian were moving off when they struck the pedestrian, and almost all the pedestrians were crossing the road in front of the HGV at the time of the collision. In some cases, the driver failed to stop because they had not realised that a collision had occurred. 


It's easy to see why - when you consider HGV blindspots, indicated below:

Addressing the Straitgate Farm plans, Vectos warned:

The indicative route of a permissive path is show on drawings SF2 & SF6 but the proposed access design (drawing 0308.101 Rev D) does not show this facility nor does [it] allow for the separation of the pedestrians and HGVs which will access and egress the proposed site, as no specific footway provision is demonstrated.

It is noted that currently school students are required to cross the B3174, however based on the ROSPA note on HGV and pedestrian interaction, I am of the opinion that the introduction of 200 HGVs a day HGV at this location presents a safety risk to pedestrians (including school students).

We’ve mentioned pedestrians before, on the lane that AI wants to make its own with up to 200 HGVs a day: Birdcage Walk, Provision for two-way 44-tonne HGVs, but where do pedestrians fit in?, AI hasn't thought about school children either.

Here’s "drawing 0308.101 Rev D". See if you can spot how the pedestrians that currently enjoy Birdcage Lane are supposed to fit into AI’s scheme.




If DCC were to approve these reckless plans in their current state after so many warnings by the public, and now by Vectos, people would obviously know where to point the finger if something awful happened.

For anybody who thinks Vectos is being alarmist, google "pedestrian lorry OR HGV".

Highway consultants demonstrate AI’s attempt to use Birdcage Lane has ‘failed’; Damage to 3rd party property ‘would expose Council to legal action’

On the instructions of a third party, a large law firm has responded to Aggregate Industries' application to quarry Straitgate Farm, specifically addressing:

1. the highway and safety impacts of the proposed access along Birdcage Lane;

2. the unsustainability of the proposed development in policy terms;

3. the impact of the proposed access works on a tree within [3rd party] land.

Highways consultants Vectos have also been engaged.

The head of the planning team at Foot Anstey writes that DCC "will agree that the safety of people is more important than the extraction of sand and gravel":

The application is now the third attempt by the applicant to find a means for accessing the development. As the Vectos Report demonstrates, this attempt has failed. Any scheme which raises the prospects of harm to children is, self-evidently, both sub-optimal and unacceptable. No application should be approved which places 200 HGVs per day in potential conflict with pedestrians and school children. This is reflected in policy, both at a local and national level… The LPA will agree that the safety of people is more important than the extraction of sand and gravel. Unless the applicant can demonstrate that safety will not be compromised, permission should be refused.

Vectos has raised a number of significant concerns relating to the proposed development. These include problems with right-turning traffic from the B3174/Exeter Road, problems with the interaction between the required new cattle crossing and the operation of the B3174, and, most worryingly, significant problems of pedestrian safety, including those of children… the LPA cannot lawfully grant planning permission without properly considering the Vectos Report, the response to that Report by the applicant, and any residual adverse and harmful highway and safety impacts.

The Vectos Report gives more detail:

The design does not take into account the impact of HGVs emerging on right turning traffic into Birdcage Lane. Vehicles will have to wait on the B3174 longer creating a hazard. There is evidence of collisions occurring due to turning traffic along the B3174. As a result, in accordance with TD 42/95 a right turn lane should be provided;

… the currently proposed access and proposed Birdcage Lane adjustments do not take into account the safety of pedestrians (including school students) and should be considered not to provide safe and suitable access for all people, which is contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

The provision of a Cattle crossing over the B3174 may have severe impact on the operation of the B3174, which in the absence of assessment is not known.

On the "Unsustainability of the Development in Policy Terms", DCC is reminded by Foot Anstey that "the inclusion of the application site in the DMP is only the first stage" and whilst:

 … there may be a planning need at some future date for allowing development at Straitgate notwithstanding its non compliance with policies… in 2017, a grant of permission at Straitgate would be premature at best, as alternative sites already exist which will deliver the requisite mineral requirements, and which do not have adverse environmental and other planning impacts.

On the damage to third party property, Vectos concurs with AI’s consultants, who have said that it is "likely [that Tree H] will be damaged by the development and need to be felled."

Foot Anstey has advised DCC that the third party:

... will not allow damage to his property. Accordingly, any development which may cause such damage will be resisted through available legal means, which may include an application for an injunction and/or an action for damages. Any such action would be brought against both the applicant and the Council (in its capacity as the local highways authority), and may also include a private prosecution for criminal damage.

The accidents that don't appear in DCC's records

In light of Aggregate Industries' ludicrous plans for the B3174, this video has been reposted by Ottery Fictional Matters - for those who missed it first time around:

Back in the real world, it's fortunate that no-one was injured on the B3174 in this scene from last year:

Or in this scene from earlier this year:

And because no-one was injured in these accidents, the data does not appear in DCC's injury collision records which are used to assess the suitability or not of the Exeter Road for AI's application for Straitgate Farm. If we exclude the accident that happened only last month, here are some more accidents, over the last year or so, that don't appear in the records either:

#Devon In Ottery St Mary we have reports of an accident on Exeter Road near Birdcage Lane. [PL]

— BBC Travel SouthWest (@BBCTravelSW) December 14, 2016

#Devon In West Hill Exeter Road is blocked due to an incident around Birdcage Lane.[SG]

— BBC Travel SouthWest (@BBCTravelSW) September 9, 2016

#Devon Ottery St Mary Exeter Road is partially blocked near Birdcage Lane due to an incident.[SG]

— BBC Travel SouthWest (@BBCTravelSW) June 20, 2016

#Devon #OtteryStMary #B3174 Exeter Road we have reports of an accident around Birdcage Lane, between the hospital and #A30. [SGr]

— BBC Travel SouthWest (@BBCTravelSW) November 4, 2015

Together they add to the evidence that shows how unsuitable the B3174 is for AI's plans; DCC's most recent Road Safety Statistics Year End Report already puts the B3174 Daisymount A30 to Ottery St Mary as one of the worst performing roads in Devon.

So, if AI can’t use Birdcage Lane…

... without damaging other people’s property - without the necessary space to allow the unrestricted two-way flow of HGV traffic called for by DCC - what’s left?

Site access problems have dogged Aggregate Industries from the start. Click on the maps below to see the three ideas that have been proposed for Straitgate Farm so far.

Having discarded the Straitgate Farm entrance itself as being too dangerous, AI’s first idea for site access was on the west side of the site. In November 2012, residents found out what that would have been like, when they woke up to find this on their doorstep without warning. The idea was quickly discarded, for a multitude of reasons.

AI’s second idea for site access was at the northern end of the site. Numerous residents had concerns over that idea, and Hugo Swire MP met with the company to voice them. It transpired, in any case, that AI had no rights to use the land in the way it intended - something we'd warned about two years before - and the planning application that relied upon it was subsequently withdrawn.

Useful meeting with @AggregateUK. Opportunity to stress concerns that constituents have about #Straitgate development pic.twitter.com/QOzall1psY

— Hugo Swire (@HugoSwire) September 23, 2015

'If planning is eventually granted then I do feel that DCC should explore alternative entry and exit points to mitigate the disruption that this development will cause.'

AI is now on its third idea. The company's Transport Assessment - the one with the fictional traffic figures for the Exeter Road - reckoned this was an improvement on the previous idea:

The presently proposed access is better for goods vehicle movements from Straitgate Farm than the initially proposed route. 9.29

But that was obviously without taking third party property, trees or the width of the lane into account.

If AI can’t use Birdcage Lane or land to the north, what’s left? Last year, after the first application was withdrawn, AI had looked at another option: Little Straitgate.

It was an odd decision, because Little Straitgate - 75m to the west of Birdcage Lane - 75m closer to the brow of a hill - had already been deemed too dangerous in the company's first application:

Initially two possible locations for site access at Straitgate Farm were assessed, one being in the south of the site and the other at the northern end of the site. 5.43

The southern option, onto the B3174, was dismissed early in the process on highway safety grounds. It would have been too close to existing accesses, including the access to Straitgate Farmhouse, and the vertical alignment of the highway at this point would compromise visibility. It was decided therefore to create a new access at the northern end of the site... 5.44

Nevertheless, AI prepared some access plans for Little Straitgate. This was the option that a Road Safety Audit suggested should be left turn only - not right, the way AI needed to go; the option that subsequently involved installing traffic lights on the B3174. Concerns were raised by DCC, including on visibility splays, and - after the high vis jackets meeting - the whole idea was dropped in favour of Birdcage Lane.

If AI was to revisit Little Straitgate - it would have to factor in the cows too - the ones that would need to cross the road 4 times a day to find replacement pasture - the ones that would need two more entrances onto the Exeter Road; one of which would be between the Little Straitgate and Straitgate Farm entrances, and one opposite. Would the HGVs and cows each have their own set of traffic lights?? It’s all looking very complicated. Perhaps it would be simpler if AI helicoptered the sand and gravel out.

But don’t quarry companies always find a way around these things? Not always. In June of this year, an attempt by Tarmac to reopen a quarry was blocked by councillors over road safety concerns:

My main concern is that fully-laden vehicles leaving this site slowly, entering into fast-flowing traffic, is a major problem.

I’m not quite sure that the proposals to improve the signage and cut back vegetation to improve views is the answer.

Sound familiar? Tarmac was looking at "up to 13 vehicle movements per hour" onto a 50mph road; here, it’s up to 20 per hour, onto a 60mph road, on a hill.