Almost 10 years on, AI is still struggling to produce a workable site access plan

A site meeting was held this week to discuss what impact the proposed modifications to Birdcage Lane – required to facilitate access to the permitted quarry at Straitgate Farm for up to 200 HGV movements a day – would have on Trees F and G: the two majestic TPO-protected oak trees that sit beside the lane and either side of the proposed site entrance. 

Following the submission of plans last month by Aggregate Industries for the rural single carriageway lane, Devon County Council called for a site meeting, and this week five officers from the Council, including three from highways, and one from trees, together with two tree officers from East Devon District Council, met with four personnel and consultants from Aggregate Industries, and one tree consultant representing Straitgate Action Group; 12 attendees in all. 

What has now become clear, following these new plans and the site meeting, is that almost 10 years on from submitting the first application to quarry the farm in 2015, Aggregate Industries has still not worked out how to create an acceptable entrance into the site. 

Should we be surprised? Are the company and its chosen consultants incompetent? Or does this demonstrate – and we did warn – why Aggregate Industries should never have chosen Birdcage Lane for a site entrance? Either way, it doesn’t reflect well on the company. 

Three mature oak trees abut the proposed works: Trees F and G, and third-party oak Tree H. For these trees to remain unharmed by the works – as conditioned by the Planning Inspectors – the supply of air and water to their roots must be remain unhindered. It’s not rocket science. 

As things stand, the new road designs are likely to have a high impact on all three trees. 

At the Public Inquiry in 2022, the tree consultant acting on behalf of Devon County Council wrote: 

3.3 The initial scheme was a no-dig construction method. However, this construction was considered unacceptable by DCC Highways Authority (response dated 02 Nov 2021) [CD6.33A] commenting that ‘because of the size and weight of the haulage vehicles that will use the junction and Birdcage Lane, “No Dig” solutions for new road construction are not an option for consideration’. Subsequently a metalled road became part of the amended access arrangements to effectively cope with on-going movement of heavy machinery and HGVs. 

3.4 The following arboricultural report (Chapter 3 – Landscape Soils and Arboricultural Report) [CD4.26A] acknowledges that the "no dig" construction will potentially interfere with the root protection areas of Trees F and G and moreover ‘it is likely they will be damaged by the development and need to be felled’. The report considers that trees could survive the works, if the actual roots are deeper than the excavations / disturbance required. The mitigation provided is a watching brief by an Arboriculturist at the time of the works being carried out. This is outlined in ‘Detail Area, R22/L/3-3-005’ [CD4.63A] ‘to monitor the condition of trees F and G, and only remove them if necessary’. The proposal is to remove tree H...

 The Council’s consultant concluded: 

6.2 The Appellant’s proposal does not adequately consider the significant impact upon the Notable trees F and G impacted as a result of works to the access. These trees are mature and of potential veteran status and should be re-categorised as A (high value) with the sub-category 3 (wildlife and/or cultural attributes). The buffers proposed by the Appellant through the RPAs are inadequate, particularly in the light of amendment of means of construction of the access road from ‘no dig’ to metalled, while the Appellant’s proposed mitigation of a ‘watching brief’ is insufficient to secure their protection and would not contribute or link to the wider ecological network or green infrastructure requirements.

In respect of Tree H, Devon County Council wrote to Aggregate Industries in 2017 and said: 

Clearly, your proposal to carry out works in the highway is, as admitted in your own application documentation, likely to have a detrimental impact on the oak tree within the hedgerow known as "Tree H."…  

The issue, however, is whether Devon County Council as Highway Authority, in entering into a s.278 agreement with Aggregate Industries for works within the highway would knowingly be sanctioning works that would damage the property of a third party.  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. It is also clear that the Section 278 works for widening and construction of the carriageway are likely to result in damage to the tree and its potential demise. The tree in question is in the ownership of a third party and the highway authority is aware that he is opposed to any damage to the tree. He considers it to be in relatively good health, a view that is shared by the district council’s tree officer. In these circumstances the highway authority would not be in a position to enter in to a S278 agreement unless this matter is resolved. I would strongly suggest that you contact the owner of the hedgerow and tree and try to reach agreement before you proceed further with this application or come back to us with a proposal that might be acceptable which does not impact on third party assets or possessions. 

And again regarding the 'no dig' solution: 

Because of the size and weight of the haulage vehicles that will use the junction and Birdcage Lane, "No Dig" solutions for new road construction are not an option for consideration.

What we now find – inappropriate or not for the size of vehicles involved, and no doubt because of the protection that must by law be afforded to the TPO'd trees – is that the plans submitted by Aggregate Industries are indeed predominantly for "No Dig". 

The works proposed would raise the carriageway by some 750mm – much more than the permitted plans. The drawings claim to show a "permeable carriageway construction", but the new two-way carriageway surface would be capped with 300mm of bituminous material – impervious to both air and water. The 450mm sub-base of compacted aggregate would be held within a matrix structure called CellWeb TRP; the manufacturers say "The benefits of the CellWeb TRP® system can only be maintained if a suitably porous final surface is selected" and that "All surfaces in Root Protection Areas must be porous."

Devon County Council will now have to decide whether a no-dig solution is appropriate for a public highway with up to 200 HGVs a day; apparently, the Council has never accepted such a proposal before. 

Devon County Council might of course be persuaded by the temporary nature of the permission and lane modifications, as per Condition 4 and 49, which state:

the winning and working of sand and gravel and all operations and uses of land authorised by this permission (save for any restoration and aftercare pursuant to conditions 51 and 53) shall cease not later than 10 years from the date of the implementation of this permission. 

A scheme for the restoration of the haul route and the reinstatement of the hedgerow and the lane verges shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority within one year of the completion of the physical restoration works to the site. The scheme shall be implemented within two years of its approval.

However, what quarry ever finished in the time allocated? Mineral working at Venn Ottery – down the road from Straitgate – was permitted in 1965, and finished 51 years later. Even before any extraction at Straitgate has begun, we’ve been told the 10 years is likely to be extended. Aggregate Industries itself has already said that the site is likely to be mothballed. 

Apart from all that, the plans have thrown up a number of other problems. 

The first is that the lane is not wide enough to accommodate Aggregate Industries' plans! Yes, you read that correctly. 

We had warned Devon County Council back in 2017 that the verge to allow two-way carriageway construction was not as wide as Aggregate Industries had assumed. The company and its consultants can’t even be trusted with a tape measure. 

Birdcage Lane has a grass verge on both sides of the carriageway. 

Verges, especially on rural lanes, are not only there for wildlife and to protect the hedgebanks, they are also important for livestock and horses. S71 of the Highways Act 1980 says: 

(1) It is the duty of a highway authority to provide in or by the side of a highway maintainable at the public expense by them which consists of or comprises a made-up carriageway adequate grass or other margins as part of the highway in any case where they consider the provision of margins necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of ridden horses and driven livestock; and a highway authority may light a margin provided by them under this section.

Permission was granted for a minimal 1.0m grass verge to be maintained, as well as the 1.2m gravel path on the other side for pedestrians:

   

At the meeting this week, there was talk of amending the permission to allow Aggregate Industries' new plans to fit in – so that there would be no grass verge left at all.

What’s more, Aggregate Industries has only now, at this very late stage, realised that the drainage ditch along the lane must be moved. Where has the company proposed to put it? Right through mature trees and Devon hedgebanks on the perimeter of the site, and on through the centre of trees planted several years ago for the purposes of screening, alternative compensatory bat and dormouse habitat, and biodiversity offsetting. Approximately 450 square metres of trees would be lost. 

It would be the second time Aggregate Industries has had to cut down newly-planted trees – trees that were supposed to be 'compensation' for the 1.5km of ancient hedgerows due to be ripped out. 

All these trees destined for the chop are outside of the red line planning boundary. Conditions 39 and 41 of the planning permission say: 

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…. All tree and shrub planting and other landscape works implemented pursuant to this permission shall be maintained and shall be protected from damage for the duration of the extraction and restoration works, and for ten years from the completion of restoration in any part of the site. 

There are a multitude of other issues – including this major blooper: 

With the new road surface raised by some 750mm above current levels, the pedestrian footpath next to this carriageway – a condition of the permission intended for school children and other lane users – would sit even higher, at about 900mm. 

The construction of the footway would need to be against the hedgebank – measured at about 1m, and less in places – on the eastern side of the lane, and would block this field gateway:

 

Who knows if the hedgebank is strong enough to support all this material and the weight of laden HGV traffic? Both belong to a third party, whose permission has not been sought, and who has been a longstanding objector to the proposal. 

Aggregate Industries has once again demonstrated just how good it is at not thinking things through. 

Following the meeting this week, the company has been tasked with a long list of further work – some of which you might have thought should have been done before the application was determined, not afterwards – including supplying more accurate topographical surveys showing the exact position of tree trunks, hedgebanks, levels etc, supplying an accurate tree survey showing the results of tree root investigations and the actual root spread of all the mature trees to be retained, providing further information on the new drainage ditch arrangements, assessing the impact of the work on the third party hedgebank and field entrance, assessing the extent and impact of tree removal on the splay to Exeter Road, etc. 

Aggregate Industries is already halfway through the three years it has to implement the permission, granted 5 January 2023. The modifications on Birdcage Lane are but one of the obstacles the company must overcome.

Secondary aggregate sales in Devon continue to rise – whilst sand & gravel flatlines

In 2021, sales of secondary aggregates in Devon exceeded sales of sand and gravel – according to Devon County Council’s 11th Local Aggregate Assessment, published last week.

This is not a one-off – as previous LAAs confirm. It has been the case for the last 4 years. Indeed, sales have been growing for some time. Back in 2012, sales of secondary aggregates were 24% lower than sales of sand and gravel; in 2021, they were 30% higher. 

Devon County Council commented: 

the three years sales averages for... sand and gravel remain below the ten years sales averages for the second consecutive year [whilst] sales of secondary aggregates have increased by 14% in 2021 from the previous year 

With hundreds of millions of tonnes of this waste product blighting the landscape in Devon and Cornwall, secondary aggregates are a sustainable alternative to primary virgin aggregates – the sort that will be dug up with untold damage at Straitgate Farm. 

In the LAA, the Council explains: 

3.3.1 The major source of secondary aggregates in Devon is the by-products derived from the extraction and processing of china clay in the Lee Moor area of Devon, which in 2021 accounted for 79% of the county’s production of secondary aggregates (a reduction of approximately 20% from 2020). For each tonne of saleable china clay, up to nine tonnes of other materials are produced, with two main elements capable of use as secondary aggregate:  stent (rock), which can be used as general fill or, after crushing and screening, for other aggregate purposes; and  tip sand (washed material comprising quartz, unaltered feldspar and mica) which, with grading and washing, can be used for a variety of aggregate purposes including concrete and building sand. 

3.3.5 Two new sources of secondary aggregates are included in this year’s figures, one of which is Hemerdon Mine, near Plymouth, where the current operator, Tungsten West, has expressed a clear intention to re-start the winning of tungsten and tin, and commenced commercial secondary aggregates production in February 2021 through a new company called Aggregates West. At the time of publication of this report, Aggregates West were also seeking to vary a condition on the mining consent which currently restricts the export of secondary aggregates to 50 HGVs per day. The second new site is the incinerator bottom ash (IBA) recycling facility at Hill Barton Business Park, Exeter, which was granted permission in November 2019 and became operational in February 2020. Whilst the upturn in secondary aggregates sales figures for 2021 can be partially attributed to these two new sites, it is considered that the significance of Hemerdon as a source of secondary aggregate could increase in the future if the current planning application is approved. 

Since this was written, and as we posted, Tungsten West’s plans to increase HGV movements of secondary aggregates from the Hemerdon Mine from 50 to 200 per day have been put on hold, after its planning application DCC/4314/2022 – which attracted hundreds of objections – was withdrawn. 

Meanwhile, and as we record here, the new LAA charts the fall in Devon's sand and gravel landbank from 7.6 years in 2020 to 6.5 years in 2021. This is less than the 7 years suggested by the NPPF, which allowed the Planning Inspectors to boldly claim "a shortage of sand and gravel in Devon" and thereby "great weight in favour" of permitting mineral extraction of the 1 million tonnes – a relatively minor 2 years' worth of additional landbank – at Straitgate Farm. 

Inexplicably, the Inspectors chose to ignore the 23 million tonne resource at Penslade, sitting next door to Aggregate Industries’ processing plant at Hillhead, which will provide Devon with nearly 50 years' worth of the very same material.

DCC’s statement of case

Landbank above 7 years at time of Straitgate decision – revision shows

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.

A fantastic result for Ottery St Mary

Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm was yesterday refused by the Development Management Committee at Devon County Council. 

A recording of the proceedings can be found here, and the minutes here.

The proposal for refusal was put forward on the grounds of: 

a) the great weight afforded by the NPPF to the protection of heritage assets irrespective of the degree of harm, 

b) the unacceptable impact on human health relating to private water supplies, 

c) the unresolved road safety issues relating to the cattle crossing and children’s bus stop, 

d) the lack of evidence of protected species due to failure to provide up-to-date surveys, 

e) the lack of a surface water management plan, still not produced after all this time,

f) the loss of mature trees and 1.5km of important hedges,

and the impact on climate change. 

The proposal for refusal was carried by 5 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions. 

Following this, the recommendation for the in-tandem application for haulage 23 miles to Hillhead was rapidly re-written, from a recommendation of approval to one of refusal on sustainability grounds. This revised recommendation was then put to a vote and passed unanimously. 

An enormous thank you to everyone involved over the years, including Cllrs Jess Bailey and Roger Giles, and Claire Wright, and to all those who have worked so hard behind the scenes. 

Special thanks as well to the professionals who have helped us along the way, particularly: 

Professor Rick Brassington 

Dr Helen Rutter 

Charlie Hopkins 

Tim Taylor – Khift Ltd 

Richard Moules – Landmark Chambers 

We can highly recommend them all. 

Yesterday was a very good day; a victory for local democracy.

DCC planning officers couldn't even get the name right

Devon County Council's planning officers have had more than six years to get things right.

The report recommending approval of Aggregate Industries' scheme to quarry Straitgate Farm starts: 

1.1 The application is for the development of a new sand and gravel quarry... at Stairgate Farm. 

The officer’s report contains a multitude of material errors, inconsistencies and misleading statements, and a list has now been sent to Devon County Council to circulate to the Planning Committee before tomorrow’s decision. 

More importantly, a Pre-Action Protocol Letter for Judicial Review has also been sent to the Council. 

In response, the Council has now issued three pages of hastily revised conditions.

The Development Management Committee meeting to decide Straitgate's fate will be held tomorrow, 1 December at 2.15pm. 

The meeting will be livestreamed – the link can be found here.

DCC officers recommend approval of AI’s application to quarry Straitgate Farm

In 1968, "the Minister [was] anxious to safeguard such valuable agricultural land." 

Today, however, it should come as no surprise to readers – who will have long smelt the direction of travel, long sensed the approaching stitch-up – that Devon County Council planning officers are recommending councillors approve Aggregate Industries’ controversial and flawed scheme to quarry Straitgate Farm and decimate its best and most versatile agricultural land.

The recommendation comes despite the plethora of material issues still outstanding, despite the impact to drinking water supplies, despite having no idea if a surface water management scheme is even feasible, despite the 2.5 million mile haulage scheme, despite the 23 million tonne resource of sand and gravel already sitting next door to the processing plant, 23 miles closer, despite warnings that approval at this stage would be unlawful. 

But as we said, this should come as no surprise. The writing was on the wall back in 2012, when selecting sites for inclusion in the Minerals Plan the Minerals Officer rejected nine others in a sham site appraisal exercise in favour of Straitgate, a site with a claimed 3.6 million tonnes, and the only site owned by Aggregate Industries. Even the Environment Agency recognised "some of the excluded sites may be preferable in environmental terms." 

The writing was still on the wall in 2017, when – with the recoverable resource now barely 1 million tonnes – it was made abundantly clear that Devon County Council’s job was to deliver Straitgate for the Swiss-owned multinational cement conglomerate. We posted: 

Aggregate Industries’ quest to quarry Straitgate Farm has been a long-running and sorry saga. Anyone hoping that its latest planning application would be decided on its merits – weighing up the multitude of conflicting issues – will be disappointed. 

Since 2017, there has been nothing but problems. Devon County Council has however favoured Aggregate Industries with 13 extensions of time for determination. In return, the company has been unwilling to supply information on various fundamental parts of the application, not only on the impact on the A30 and B3174 from the dairy cows that would need to cross Ottery’s main road 4x daily between replacement pasture and milking parlour, but also on the crucial issue of surface water management. The latter was, according to Devon County Council:

...so important in terms of the likely significant impacts of the proposal the MPA would wish to ensure that a SWM scheme can be designed to meet all of the requirements identified in advance of the determination of this application. 

This "so important" issue has now been left to resolve post determination – beyond the eyes of public scrutiny – which not only makes a mockery of the last 6 years and the process of Environmental Impact Assessment, but is, according to legal advice we have received, unlawful. Recent case law says: 

...a planning authority cannot rely on conditions and undertakings as a surrogate for the EIA process. It cannot conclude that a development is unlikely to have significant effects on the environment simply because all such effects are likely to be eliminated by measures that will be carried out by the developer pursuant to conditions and/or undertakings. 

Obviously, the planning officer’s report will now be scrutinised. As we know, planning committee reports are 'a fertile ground for judicial review challenges'. An earlier FOI request revealed that the case officer has already admitted privately that: 

some of the issues may have to be "seen" to have been discounted if we are to avoid JR on this one... 

Councillors will vote on the application at the DMC meeting on Wednesday 1 December.

Those dependent on the site for their drinking water will hope that councillors do the right thing.

DCC Highways offers no objection – but answers nothing

Devon County Highways, as the Local Highways Authority, the LHA, has taken 4 years to produce a response to Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm. It needn’t have bothered. It answers nothing.

In 2017, the Council’s case officer told Aggregate Industries: 

…in order to assess the potential highway safety impacts the MPA needs to have reliable information on existing and potential agricultural crossings of the Exeter Road and, in particular how this would be controlled in the future in the interests of highway safety.

Reliable information on the impact of agricultural crossings has not been provided. EDDC objected. 

On 12 August 2021, the same case officer wrote to the LHA: 

I’d be really grateful if you could take onboard the comments from East Devon DC in your response – especially as AI still seem to be leaving the real impact of the quarry/cattle crossing/farm viability to us to consider with no real evidence that they wont be causing problems down the line – except their say-so. 

Does the LHA answer this? No. 

The case officer also wrote: 

The other (late) issue I have been presented with is the tree officer saying that the road access sections don’t include the trees he was concerned about and he still isn’t convinced that the gravel path won’t impact on the third party tree. Given that AI will need our agreement to do any works in the highway verge I’m assuming that the control would be with us and we wouldn’t permit any construction that could impact on that tree or they will probably sue us? So we do have the control? I just need you to confirm that and I will go back to AI and tell them that (and explain in my report). 

Does the LHA answer this? No. 

The case officer also wrote: 

The SAG are chasing about why we didn’t think the Vectos access through Little Straitgate was a less damaging alternative (in terms of hedgerow/tree loss). My recollection was that it was in the wrong place in terms of highway safety but if there’s any chance of clarifying that in your final response it would help me to deal with that point?

Does the LHA answer this? No. 

In 2018, Vectos transport consultants put forward an alternative site access to Devon County Council. As it turns out, this alternative had already been considered behind the scenes by Aggregate Industries. Vectos said the alternative site access:

...would remove many of the local concerns and provide comparative advantages, which include… Improved safety for children waiting for school buses at Birdcage Lane/Toadpit Lane junction… Removal of threat of injunction and legal action against Council from the neighbouring landowner whose property would be damaged… [whilst] Visibility for right-turning quarry traffic exiting at this widened junction would not be significantly different to the visibility at the Exeter Road/Birdcage Lane junction.

Aggregate Industries has failed to include a comparison of environmental effects for this alternative in its Environmental Statement. Planning guidance says:  

...where alternatives have been considered, paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 [of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations] requires the applicant to include in their Environmental Statement a description of the reasonable alternatives studied (for example in terms of development design, technology, location, size and scale) and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects. Paragraph: 041 Reference ID: 4-041-20170728 

So, how could Devon County Council, without a "comparison of the environmental effects", lawfully conclude that the development would be acceptable?

The LHA's response is remiss in other areas too. On traffic surveys, the LHA reports: 

...the LHA does not dispute the number of vehicle movements as described in the TA.

The LHA ignores the fact that the traffic counts are now more than 3 years old. 

On cumulative impact of permitted development, the LHA reports:

The LHA agrees with the number of sites and residential units, plus care home that have been evaluated in the TA.

This ignores all the development that has occurred since 2018.

On collision data, the LHA reports:

The LHA agrees with the collision data put forward in the TA and does not disagree with its conclusions.  

This is despite the collision data only covering up to 2016, and only covering a short stretch of the road – conveniently ignoring a recorded fatality. The LHA's conclusion is also surprising, because although Aggregate Industries’ Transport Assessment claims: 

No collisions involving HGV’s have occurred within the three year period and none have been attributed to excessive speed.

the case officer – knowing there have been accidents on the B3174, including HGVs, many reported on this blog – asked the LHA to:

check that the basic information on accident data is in fact correct

The LHA couldn't even be bothered to do that.

DCC moves to climate-focused road repairs – so there’s even less need for Straitgate

Aggregate Industries claims "the Straitgate deposit is of importance because it can be used for surface dressings and surface course asphalt production."

However, with 23 miles separating the proposed quarry face and processing plant, any sand and gravel extracted from Straitgate Farm would have higher amounts of embodied carbon, even before processing and onward distribution is taken into account. 

Each as-dug load would require a 46-mile round trip. Each as-dug load would contain 20% silt, a waste product. In total, some 2.5 million miles of HGV haulage would be required, with effectively 500,000 miles of that for waste. 

It's lunacy. No other UK aggregates operator hauls as-dug material 23 miles for processing. No other UK aggregates operator produces sand and gravel that would have such a high carbon footprint.

This week, Devon County Council announced "an absolute game-changer":

Devon is leading the way on new approach to carbon-reduction in highway maintenance 

We are adopting a pioneering new, climate-focused approach to road maintenance that is winning plaudits nationally. 

We’re reviewing our road maintenance procedures – the materials we use, how they’re produced, how they’re used, how they’re applied, the labour required, the time it takes, how long they last, everything – to assess the carbon impact of the work we do. 

Councillor Stuart Hughes, Cabinet Member responsible for highway maintenance, said: 

"In the past, we’ve looked at road maintenance from the point of view of cost and quality. Those factors – the cost to fix something and the performance of the products – have determined how we got the job done. 

"But now we’ve got a third, and arguably most important factor – carbon impact – that is determining a new approach to road maintenance. 

"Now we’re thinking about the materials we use, and how high in carbon their production is; waste, and whether there’s a lot of waste; sustainability, and how long that repair will last. 

"It’s putting carbon-reduction at the heart of our design, alongside performance and cost." 

Councillor Andrea Davis, Cabinet Member charged with responsibility for climate change response, said: 

"The ramifications are enormous. It’s an absolute game-changer that we will not go back from. 

"We have made a public commitment that this council will be net-zero carbon by 2030, and a lot of our carbon output is from the responsibilities we have as a highway authority."

What does this mean? Road contractors will now need to show the carbon footprint of material used for Devon County Council work.

And how long will it be before the disclosure of embodied carbon is required for other markets? 

Today, at COP26, more than 100 organisations led by the UK Green Building Council are due to publish a Net Zero Whole Life Carbon Roadmap for the nation’s built environment. One of the recommendations:

Introduce the regulation of embodied carbon for new buildings and major refurbishments

The World Green Building Council has also issued "a bold new vision" that: 

By 2030, all new buildings, infrastructure and renovations will have at least 40% less embodied carbon

Could the sand and gravel resource at Straitgate become a high-embodied-carbon stranded asset?

Click to read BBC coverage of Devon's new carbon-cutting road maintenance plans! https://t.co/bgmW1l5P1g

— Devon Climate Emergency (@devonclimate) November 10, 2021

DCC has ‘no real evidence’ cattle crossing won’t cause problems

Aggregate Industries’ planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm has been beset by delays over the years – in part because of the cattle crossing issue: the 150 or so dairy cows that would need to cross the B3174 up to 4x daily to access alternative pasture if quarrying were to proceed, with literally who-knows-what impact on the functioning of the main road into and out of Ottery St Mary, and on the A30.

The issue was raised more than 4 years ago. In 2017, Devon County Council wanted the company "to assess the implications of the farmer moving cattle across the B3174 as a result of the proposal". This June, East Devon District Council objected, saying Aggregate Industries' transport assessment:

...offers no detailed explanation for the conclusion that "there will not be a need to intensify livestock crossings". It also fails to explain how the applicant could prevent the farmer crossing livestock over the B3174 in the event that the mitigation measures prove unsatisfactory. In the seemingly likely event that a need arises for increased crossings of the B3174, neither the existing crossing arrangements nor the approved arrangements are considered suitable given the speed of traffic, the advance visibility and the fact that delays to traffic on this road would adversely affect a large number of businesses, schools and people in Ottery St Mary, as well as the emergency services.

What progress has been achieved in the last 4 years by the great minds at Aggregate Industries & Co? Following an FOI request, we now know. According to an email on 12 August 2021 from the case officer to Devon County Highways officers: 

AI still seem to be leaving the real impact of the quarry/cattle crossing/farm viability to us to consider with no real evidence that they won't be causing problems down the line – except their say-so.

This obviously represents a problem. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations say: 

The aim of Environmental Impact Assessment is to protect the environment by ensuring that a local planning authority when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a project, which is likely to have significant effects on the environment, does so in the full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and takes this into account in the decision making process. Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 4-002-20140306 

Transport Assessments should include: 

...movements across all modes of transport that would result from the development and in the vicinity of the site; [and] an assessment of the likely associated environmental impacts of transport related to the development. Paragraph: 015 Reference ID: 42-015-20140306 

Policy M22 of the Devon Minerals Plan says: 

Mineral development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated, where appropriate through a Transport Assessment or Statement, that it would not have a significant effect on: (a) road safety; or (b) the capacity and functionality of the transportation network for all users.

So, how – "with no real evidence that [AI] won’t be causing problems", not least on the functioning of the B3174 and the A30 – could Devon County Council lawfully conclude that the development would be acceptable? Answers on a postcard.

AI introduces new ‘MWWT +1m criteria’ to comfort LLFA

It would appear that Aggregate Industries has given up 1 metre of resource in its plans to quarry Straitgate Farm – according to emails sent by the company to persuade Devon County Council's Flood Risk Management Team in its capacity as Lead Local Flood Authority to withdraw its objection. 

Last month we posted DCC’s Flood Risk Team withdraws objection – WITHOUT sight of ‘a plan indicating how exceedance flows will be safely managed’, WITHOUT knowing whether a drainage scheme is even ‘feasible’. 

Following an FOI request, and the release of a number of redacted emails, we can now see the reasons behind the LLFA's volte-face.  

On 19 July 2021, Aggregate Industries told the LLFA: 

The objection you have received shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our scheme, one of the reasons why we are monitoring the MWWT is to inform the depth of extraction so that a minimum of 1m unsaturated zone is maintained over the MWWT.

  

On 28 July, the LLFA confirmed their understanding: 

My query is that if the MWWT keeps getting higher (closer to the ground) will there be enough depth (the report says 1.45 m) to accommodate the required volume for infiltration? Bearing in mind no excavation within 1 m of the MWWT and the fact that in some places the BSPB is as thin as 3 m (although I’m not sure where these places are).

  

On 18 August, Aggregate Industries told the LLFA: 

Regarding depth of void excavation for runoff storage above unworked material to protect MWWT:… Effectively, the eastern downslope edge of the extraction void for phases 1 and 2 will be shifted upslope, on account of the MWWT +1m criteria limiting the ability to extract from the downslope-most edge of these phases.” 

One hour later, the LLFA wrote: 

I am happy with the response. Essentially they are shifting the void upslope to account for the MWWT and 1 m stand off to ensure there is sufficient depth/capacity for the runoff which is reassuring.

With reference to the "void", on 30 June Aggregate Industries explained: 

The void created by mineral extraction acts as the infiltration basin so there is not a single cross section as this will change as extraction progresses... 

   

On 7 September, the LLFA withdrew its objection. 

Of course, "a minimum of 1m unsaturated zone... maintained over the MWWT" is brilliant news; we have been campaigning for material to be left unquarried above the maximum water table for years. 

Given that the Updated Resource Assessment claims: 

The MWWT will ultimately form the base of the workable deposit, and any variation will impact the potential resource.

we have suggested that Devon County Council ask for the resource to be recalculated taking the new "MWWT +1m criteria" into account. 

Or is all this just another big misunderstanding?

Has Aggregate Industries misunderstood its own scheme again?

Has Aggregate Industries – either intentionally or unintentionally – misled the LLFA officer?

Tackling climate emergency should be ‘top priority’ for planning system

That’s according to new guidance issued this week from The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA): 

The RTPI and the TCPA believe that climate change should be the top priority for planning across the UK. This is simply because the impacts of flooding, overheating and other consequences of climate change stand in the way of everything else we want to achieve in terms of the creation of vibrant communities and a sustainable and just society. We are particularly concerned that the damaging outcomes of climate change continue to have the most severe impacts on the most vulnerable and those least able to respond.

The new guidance warns: 

Climate change is the greatest challenge facing our society. Every decision we take must count towards securing our long-term survival. The science of climate change is now well understood, and we know that we must limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels if we are to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. A recent report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) made clear that drastic action to reduce carbon emissions is needed now if we are to have any hope of achieving that target. But we know that severe climate impacts are already locked in even if we do limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C. These impacts require urgent re-design of our communities to make them safe and liveable for future generations. We have to face up to this challenge now if human society is to have any chance of a long-term future. 

Indeed. What must planners do?

Clearly, this has not happened with the planners at Devon County Council. 

If they were seeking development options resulting in the biggest carbon reductions, they would not still be working tirelessly behind the scenes trying to make Aggregate Industries' scheme to quarry Straitgate Farm hang together; they would not still be entertaining Aggregate Industries' 2.5 million mile haulage scheme if climate change were their top priority. 

Neither, are they taking climate change seriously when thinking about future risks, because when it comes to the important matter of flooding a worst case scenario has not been applied. 

 

EA turns blind eye to AI’s BELOW the water table plans, but DCC still in no position to determine Straitgate application lawfully

Oh, how lucky Aggregate industries is to have the Environment Agency do its bidding. What, you may ask, has the company done to deserve such special hand-holding? It can’t be down to providing cogent environmental arguments, so what can it be? 

Of course, any idea that the Environment Agency might want to protect groundwater went out the window a long time ago when multiple warnings from a renowned Professor in Hydrogeology were flatly ignored. The Agency is obviously far more concerned about securing a diminished sand and gravel resource for Aggregate Industries, than it is about protecting the aquifer that supplies drinking water to so many homes and businesses. 

It will therefore come as no surprise that the Environment Agency has decided to turn a blind eye to another aspect of the planning application for Straitgate Farm that doesn’t work. 

We have posted – here and here – about the problems in the proposed soil storage areas. In these areas, Aggregate industries would need to dig down and remove topsoil and subsoils to expose the overburden layer, upon which – for like-on-like storage – other overburden soils from the rest of the site could be stored. This would be required to restore the best and most versatile agricultural land in the future. The problem? In these areas, the groundwater is very close to the surface, so close that seepages and springs occur. In other words, in these areas Aggregate Industries would need to dig BELOW the maximum water table. 

But it’s not just in the soil storage areas where this is a problem – it’s the loading area too, the central hub of any quarry. If the water table rises above the elevation of the loading area, all manner of problems could result, not just flooding. 

The implications of this have not been assessed. Aggregate Industries’ Environmental Statement is silent on the matter. Groundwater levels have not been monitored in the areas where overburden would be stored and where the loading area would operate – despite the clear evidence of elevated levels. 

Devon County Council needs to have all the necessary and relevant information to enable it to determine the application and reach a lawful decision: 

The Environmental Statement must include at least the information reasonably required to assess the likely significant environmental effects of the development listed in regulation 18(3) and comply with regulation 18(4). 

But, you ask, wasn’t the site only meant to be worked dry? Weren’t there arguments at the Minerals Plan Examination about that? Didn’t the Public Inspector get involved? Wasn’t the Environment Agency pushing for all quarrying to stop 1m above the water table? 

Yes to all the above. The Environment Agency previously said: 

Aggregate Industries have proposed to stop quarrying a metre above the water-table. We expect DCC to make this a condition of any permission that is granted. 

Devon County Council put a line through that 1m during the Examination. The Inspector commented: 

The Inspector's suggestion was intended to reflect the on-going uncertainty about what could be an acceptable way of working the site. An unsaturated zone of 1m may or may not feature in the final solution. However, it could be seen as inappropriate for Table C.4 to commit to a definite method of working when potentially acceptable alternatives have not been determined. The important points are that (a) only dry working would be acceptable… 

Only dry working would be acceptable. This is how the Minerals Plan was modified:

The Inspector's Report said: 

74. Provided that dry working takes place, as is proposed, I see no reason why water supplies would be materially affected. An acceptable solution would be determined in discussions involving the Environment Agency, as stated in Table C.4 

Provided that dry working takes place. This is what the Minerals Plan says today: 

5.4.9  Policy M12 therefore provides for the supply of sand and gravel through a Preferred Area at Straitgate Farm, near Ottery St Mary, subject to extraction being limited to dry working above the maximum water table to avoid potentially adverse impacts on private water supplies and water-sensitive habitats. 

Limited to dry working. The Environment Agency’s most recent stated position says: 

Our position remains that we consider this proposal can only be acceptable if subsequent permission includes conditions and obligations to protect the water environment…. we advise that the following must be secured on any planning permission: 1. No working shall be undertaken below the ‘Maximum Winter Water Table (MWWT) grid’. 

The man on the Clapham omnibus would take that to mean no digging below the maximum water table across the proposed site as set out at the top of the Environment Agency’s letter:

EXTRACTION OF UP TO 1.5 MILLION TONNES OF AS RAISED SAND AND GRAVEL, RESTORATION TO AGRICULTURAL LAND TOGETHER WITH TEMPORARY CHANGE OF USE OF A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING TO A QUARRY OFFICE/WELFARE FACILITY STRAITGATE FARM, EXETER ROAD, OTTERY ST MARY, DEVON, EX11 1LG 

The proposal is not limited to the extraction area. No quarry ever is. The size of the proposal, the size of the red line boundary, is helpfully defined by Aggregate Industries:

The application site covers an area extending to some 42.5ha, with mineral extraction proposed to take place within 22.6ha with the remainder of the site occupied by temporary soil storage bunds, mitigation planting and site management and access areas 

The proposal requires the storage of soils and the construction of a loading area and haul road. Overburden storage and loading areas alone amount to some 7 hectares. 

We wrote to Environment Agency with our concerns about the water levels in the overburden storage areas. The Agency said the matter "will be taken into consideration". However, the very same day, the Environment Agency reiterated its ‘no objection’ position provided "subsequent permission includes several robust conditions to ensure the protection of groundwater resources and quality." There was no mention of the soil storage areas, so we wrote to the Environment Agency again: 

It is clear that Aggregate Industries would have to dig beneath the maximum water table in large areas beyond the proposed excavation boundary in order to accommodate like-on-like storage of overburden. 

The EA’s approach to protecting groundwater is outlined in its position statement: 

"Where the potential consequences of a development or activity are serious or irreversible the Environment Agency will adopt the precautionary principle to manage and protect groundwater. The Environment Agency will also apply this principle in the absence of adequate information with which to conduct an assessment." 

Do you not agree – particularly given the absence of groundwater monitoring in the proposed soil storage locations – that there has not been "adequate information with which to conduct an assessment"? 

Whilst the Environment Agency did not deny the problem, it did not agree either. This week it wrote:

Our recommended conditions concerning the Maximum Winter Water Table (MWWT) are intended to apply to the quarry working area only, not the soil/overburden storage area and the Planning Officer is aware of the intention of the recommended conditions. 

Quarry working area only? That will be news to most people. No geographic limit is defined in the condition. Groundwater needs protecting whether it is inside or outside the extraction area. 

Let's repeat the Minerals Plan again, this time from the Table C.4 referenced above: 

The development of this site will only involve dry working, above the maximum winter (wet) level of groundwater. 

Development of this site. If there was any intention by the Environment Agency to restrict the condition to just the working area, it has only been arrived at since the elevated groundwater levels in the soil storage areas were highlighted. 

Devon County Council and the Environment Agency need to send Aggregate Industries back to do more extensive groundwater monitoring. Without such information, the Council is in no position to determine the application lawfully.

DCC issues 9th and 10th LAA

Devon County Council is tasked with producing an annual Local Aggregate Assessment which includes information on sand and gravel production and reserve levels. 

The Council's 8th LAA was published in May 2020. At the time, we posted DCC says correlation 'broken' between aggregate sales and housing completions. It confirmed the long-term decline in sand and gravel sales in Devon. Since then, sales of sand and gravel have fallen further – as shown here. Last month, we posted that Sales of sand and gravel in Devon were down 12.6% in 2020.

This week, the Council published its 9th and 10th LAAs for the years 2010-2019 and for 2011-2020 respectively. The LAA highlights the ongoing decline in sales: 

For the three years to 2020, the average sales were 2.439 million tonnes for crushed rock and 0.493 million tonnes for sand and gravel, both falling below the ten years average for the first time in recent years. 

There has also been a significant "reassessment" of mineral reserves during 2020. 

At the end of 2019, reserves of sand and gravel were 4.199 million tonnes, and reserves of crushed rock 95.378 million tonnes. In 2020, after sales of 0.437 million tonnes of sand and gravel and 2.289 million tonnes of crushed rock, reserves had fallen to 2.880 and 81.323 million tonnes respectively – a loss in reserves of 0.9 million tonnes and 11.8 million tonnes in excess of sales. 

How careless. The LAA says: 

This can be attributed to a reassessment of reserves by operators. 

In other words, operators had overestimated the available resource, even misrepresenting the benefit at the time of applying for planning permission – something Aggregate Industries has made a habit. 

What about more sustainable sources of aggregates? The most recent LAA tells us that "despite the pandemic, sales of secondary aggregates increased by 2% in 2020 from the previous year": 

In addition to the existing sources of secondary aggregates outlined above, [there are] other potential sources that may be available in the future. This includes secondary aggregates from the processing of waste from tungsten and tin extraction at Drakelands Mine, near Plymouth, which commenced extraction in summer 2015 but ceased in autumn 2018. A new owner is looking to recommence operations at the site shortly.

AI’s proposal would PERMANENTLY alter the landscape – so why has the flood risk assessment only assumed a 10-12 year lifespan and 10% climate change uplift?

Aggregate Industries’ Flood Risk Assessment says: 

The development lifespan will be 10 to 12 years, so it is proposed that an allowance for a 10% increase in extreme rainfall is considered, according to NPPF guidance on climate change which states that an allowance of 10% is made for development with a lifetime extending to 2039 respectively;  

The change to the landform would not, however, be for just 10 to 12 years – it would be FOREVER. 

In our response in 2017, we wrote: 

114. The applicant has used an uplift of +10% in its runoff calculations to reflect climate change. However, since this proposal would result in a permanent change upon the landscape this uplift is inadequate. The EA forecasts peak rainfall intensity increasing by 20% in 2055-2085 and 30% in 2085-2115. 

We pointed to the LLFA’s response to Aggregate Industries’ ROMP application for Hillhead, which said: 

Following the publication of the Flood Risk Assessments: Climate Change Allowances document (dated 19th February 2016) by central government, the applicant will be required to use a climate change uplift value of 40% when sizing the proposed surface water drainage management system for this development.

40%, not 10%. 

In May this year, Devon County Council's Flood Risk Team, in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority, objected to Aggregate Industries' proposal, but was comfortable with what it understood to be the allowance for climate change: 

In terms of the concerns relating to climate change, the applicant has proposed a surface water management strategy which includes an allowance of 40% for climate change in terms of rainfall within the attenuation calculations. This is inline with the most up to date guidance from the Environment Agency: Flood Risk Assessments - Climate Change Allowances (July 2020).

Which would be brilliant – if 40% were true. The LLFA had either misread, or not read, Aggregate Industries' FRA. We wrote to the LLFA pointing out the discrepancy in their understanding.

Nevertheless, the LLFA has since withdrawn its objection, obviously still comfortable with the uplift for climate change even though it is only 10%. The statutory consultee pointed to the access road and holding area, and to national policy:  

The applicant has provided calculations to indicate that the proposed surface water drainage system for the access road and holding area has been designed to manage the 1 in 100 year event plus climate change which is in line with local and national policy.

Indeed, the access road and holding area may have a more limited lifetime, for which drainage calculations may be in line with national policy, but what about the 56 or more acres that would be permanently changed?

National policy considers the lifetime of development in terms of flood risk, and says: 

The lifetime of a non-residential development depends on the characteristics of that development. Planners should use their experience within their locality to assess how long they anticipate the development being present for. Developers would be expected to justify why they have adopted a given lifetime for the development, for example, when they are preparing a site-specific flood risk assessment. The impact of climate change needs to be taken into account in a realistic way and developers, the local planning authority and Environment Agency should discuss and agree what allowances are acceptable. Paragraph: 026 Reference ID: 7-026-20140306 

National policy also says: 

Indeed, for Aggregate Industries' proposal to construct an asphalt plant at Hillhead, the LLFA specified: 

MicroDrainage model outputs will be required to demonstrate that the proposed surface water drainage system is designed to the 1 in 100 year (+40% allowance for climate change) rainfall event. 

So why – when a 40% uplift was required at Hillhead for both the quarry and the asphalt plant, and when flooding has been acknowledged as such an important issue for communities downstream of Straitgate Farm – did the LLFA in all its flooding wisdom think that a 10% allowance for climate change would be acceptable, for a development that would not only leave a PERMANENT scar on the landscape, but would also PERMANENTLY change the way surface water runs off the site?

Has the LLFA not seen the news this year, the death and destruction that can happen when 150 mm of rain falls in 24 hours?

Events that were once in 100 years are becoming commonplace. Freak weather is increasingly normal.