Harm to setting of listed farmhouse already means presumption in favour of refusal

There can be no argument - quarrying Straitgate Farm would substantially harm the setting of its Grade II listed farmhouse, for ever more; surrounding fields would be removed, different levels would be introduced, screening would be ineffective, farming may no longer be viable. In 1967, Aggregate Industries (then English China Clays) wanted to bulldoze the farmhouse; today it is protected in law.

Straitgate has been farmed for more than 400 years, as copies of legal papers we have confirm. The farmhouse is thought to date back to around 1580. Part of the surrounding land is also listed, and the rest is fundamental to the setting of the farmhouse and its continuation as a working Devon farm.

In the 2012 S1-S10 site appraisals, DCC wanted us to think that "there is a medium risk of harm to the listed building which sits within an historic landscape of Barton Fields, which may require the retention of a buffer area to preserve its setting", and that nothing could be a ‘showstopper’ for S7/Straitgate. Only later, when the Sustainability Appraisal looked at the matter, did it consider that "the setting of the Grade II listed Straitgate Farm would experience a significant negative impact".

Now, in 2015, Aggregate Industries proposes that:

An impact assessment will identify the significance and sensitivity of all heritage assets affected by the proposals, and includes an impact assessment to evaluate the magnitude of change and thus direct and indirect impact on heritage assets. In particular the potential impact on the setting of designated heritage assets within 2km will be considered in relation to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. If mitigation can be designed to reduce the effects of potential impacts on the settings of the statutorily protected heritage assets, then a strategy will be written and (assuming its implementation as part of the permitted scheme) the reduced residual effect will be assessed in light of the mitigation.

The issue of 'heritage assets' could be very important - not just a material planning consideration.

We mentioned the Barnwell Manor Appeal Court decision last year, but we have been reminded again by CPRE of its potential implications for Straitgate Farm. This Court of Appeal judgement upheld an earlier decision overturning permission for wind turbines in the setting of various heritage assets. CPRE, who have made representations to DCC regarding Straitgate in the past, wrote:

It is being treated as a landmark decision and is frequently referred to in subsequent planning decisions/appeals.

The importance is that it highlights the significance of the setting of a heritage asset, i.e. a listed building such as Straitgate Farmhouse. The setting includes not only views from the heritage asset, but views of the asset and its surroundings - anywhere that you get a view of the heritage asset.

The emphasis is on S66 Listed Buildings Act (1990) and the "special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting". This statutory duty outweighs any policies (such as the NPPF), and as the Listed Buildings Act is worded more strongly than subsequent policies, it is helpful.

Harm to the listed farmhouse's setting would be substantial; yet, even if it were not, the judgement says:

It does not follow that if the harm to such heritage assets is found to be less than substantial, the balancing exercise referred to in policies HE9.4 and HE10.1 should ignore the overarching statutory duty imposed by section 66(1), which properly understood (see Bath, South Somerset and Heatherington) requires considerable weight to be given by decision-makers to the desirability of preserving the setting of all listed buildings, including Grade II listed buildings.

That consideration "can outweigh even considerable planning benefits such as, in this case, temporary (25 year) generation of zero carbon renewable energy". As the Planning Resource article, Pickles prioritises heritage in wind turbine decisions, puts it:

Judges ruled that once the decision-maker finds some harm to a heritage asset, that harm should be given "considerable weight", creating a "strong presumption" against the grant of planning permission.

In other words, there is a presumption in favour of refusal if harm is present.

The onus will be on AI to demonstrate that sufficiently powerful material considerations exist to justify such harm. For the decision-maker, this is not just "a simple balancing exercise but whether there is justification for overriding the presumption in favour of preservation"; preserving the setting is not a "mere material consideration to which (he) can simply attach the weight (he) sees fit in (his) judgement".

AI will also have to demonstrate that "there is no clear alternative which would generate equally powerful public benefits". If you think of AI’s extensive mineral rights in the region, covering thousands of acres, that might not be so easy; because of course there are sand and gravel deposits in other locations that wouldn’t cause as much harm, that would generate 'equally powerful benefits'.

More Straitgate history comes to light

We know that Straitgate has been farmed for thousands of years - in Neolithic, Iron Age and Roman times. Now more history has come to light, in the form of a number of legal documents from the 16th and 17th century; one contains an extensive list of covenants relating to Straitgate Farm - known around the time as Streateyate, Streatyeate or Streatyeat.

The documents, dating from before the English Civil War, add yet more 'historical colour' to what is at stake, and what stands to be lost. They paint a picture of a Devon farm almost 400 years ago, of the farmland that Aggregate Industries - with the help its Swiss paymasters and your county council - is now plotting to destroy for good.

We hope to post transcripts in due course.

‘Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning’ – the MPA is not happy

The Mineral Products Association - the trade body representing quarry companies - is not happy with English Heritage. The MPA claims English Heritage’s draft Good Practice Advice (GPA) - a series of documents intended to help local authorities, applicants and other interested parties implement the historic environment policy of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - is "not in tune with the presumption in favour of sustainable development formalised by the NPPF". Its director of planning said:

It seems that English Heritage expects the planning system to protect heritage assets above all other interests and that is not how the planning system is supposed to be operating.

It is bothered that the previous advice "Mineral Extraction and Archaeology: A Practice Guide" - a document produced in 2008 by the Minerals and Historic Environment Forum (MHEF) - has been sidelined, "given only one brief mention in the draft GPA":

In complete contrast to the MHEF, the group that drafted the GPA was comprised almost entirely of heritage professionals. Unless English Heritage involves a broader range of interested parties in the production of the GPA, with a view to winning their joint endorsement to the final document, it seems unlikely that the planning system will afford much weight to what it says. That is also likely to result in a document that reflects a better balance of interests…

In other words, the MPA wants planning advice that better reflects the interests of its quarrying members, and that less reflects the interests of the UK's historic environment. The MPA champions the NPPF’s "presumption in favour of sustainable development", but that's the same document that says local planning authorities "should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource [to be conserved] in a manner appropriate to their significance".

But what is in the draft GPA that has made the MPA so angry? Well, and bearing in mind we now have evidence of a settlement of Iron Age roundhouses at Straitgate, here are a few things that English Heritage, a statutory consultee in the planning process, says:

Note 1: The Historic Environment in Local Plans

On Local Plan site allocations - "The best way of ensuring that the selection of sites to be put forward for development supports the delivery of the conservation strategy within the Local Plan is to avoid the selection of sites that will harm the significance of heritage assets." [16]

Note 2: Decision‐Taking in the Historic Environment

On Archaeological and historic interest - "Archaeological interest, as defined in the NPPF, differs from historic interest… because it is the prospects for a future expert archaeological investigation to reveal more about our past that need protecting." [13]

On Assessing the proposals - "Heritage conservation is an objective of sustainable development, as are many other public benefits. The optimum sustainable scheme is therefore one that can clearly show that it avoids, minimises or mitigates conflict between heritage conservation and any other public benefits it may deliver. This may be achieved, for example, by reconsidering the means of providing the public service or benefit, the location or the design." [23] "For loss to be necessary there will be no other reasonable means of delivering similar benefits, e.g. a different design, other mitigation or, as a last resort, development of an appropriate alternative site." [24]

On Decision‐taking for assets with archaeological interest - "For sites with archaeological interest, whether designated or not, the benefits of conserving them are a material consideration when considering planning applications for development." [31]

On Recording and furthering understanding - "…records cannot deliver the sensory experience and understanding of context provided by the original heritage asset, so the ability to investigate and record a heritage asset is not a factor in deciding whether consent for its destruction should be given." [32]

On Public engagement - and remember all the initial hoo-ha and secrecy surrounding the archaeology at Straitgate in September? - "Where appropriate and possible, local planning authorities and the developer are advised to consider the benefits of making the investigative works open to and interpreted for the public and to include that as part of the written scheme of investigation. The results can contribute to a deeper sense of place, ownership and community identity. Promoting understanding will increase active protection for the historic environment. Opportunities for public engagement, proportionate to the significance of the investigation, could, for example, include enabling participation in investigation, providing viewing platforms and interpretation panels, jointly designed open days in partnership with the local community, public talks and online forums as well as coverage in local media." [45]

On Unexpected discoveries during work: "Where a new heritage asset is discovered or an existing known asset proves to be more significant than foreseen at the time of application, the local planning authority is advised to work with the developer to seek a proportionate solution that protects the significance of the new discovery, so far as is practical, within the existing scheme. Developers are advised to incorporate the potential for unexpected discoveries into their risk‐management strategies." [46]

So you can see why the MPA is concerned. It's not going to be in favour of anything - even something as important as the nation's historical and archaeological assets - that hinders the activities and profits of its multinational cement conglomerate backers. English Heritage's GPA is something for us all, including DCC, to bear in mind, as Aggregate Industries pushes on with its plans to bulldoze Straitgate Farm.

Nick Smith

Miscellaneous

1. "We did not give up and now this battle has been won.”

Plans for an Aggregate Industries' concrete plant 'directly opposite' The O2 in London have finally been rejected after a three year campaign.

Part of AI's undoing, according to The Secretary of State, was:

There is little evidence that thought has gone into alternative layouts and arrangements of structures to take account of the site’s environmental constraints or wider context. Indeed, there is little identification of these, or opportunities, unlike the analysis carried out for the Objectors... [12.36]

A warning that environmental constraints for any application must be properly addressed, even by AI.

2. Gravel switch: crushed rock is the preferred tonnage as sourcing changes

In an article in Mineral Planning, on the effects of the NPPF, the director of planning for the Mineral Products Association admits:

Operators have been eking out reserves they already have. The last thing they have wanted is to go anywhere near a planning authority... [as a result] MPA survey figures suggest both producers and consumers have adapted by switching from sand and gravel to crushed rock.

On the subject of planning, he bemoans that:

Concern over vulnerability to legal challenge is leading to an ever more precautionary approach by regulators. This results in delay and unnecessary costs in providing superfluous information to support plan allocations and planning applications.

Superfluous information? Is that really the industry's thinking when responding to its impact on people, groundwater, ecology, history, endangered species, dust, noise, traffic, etc?

3. Silica Particles from Frac Sand Mining Put Tens of Thousands at Risk

An article by Environmental Working Group claims that thousands in the US are exposed to potential health risks from silica sand mining:

Research has shown that these particles can degrade air quality as far as 750 meters away, leading to a variety of serious health problems, particularly in children and other vulnerable populations.

Dust, and its effects upon health, is a continuing concern around quarry sites in the UK; we have written a number of times in the past about Respirable Crystalline Silica.

4. Business and society: defining the 'social licence'

An article by John Morrison in The Guardian argues that:

Social licence can never be self-awarded, it requires that an activity enjoys sufficient trust and legitimacy, and has the consent of those affected. Business cannot determine how much prevention or mitigation it should engage in to meet environmental or social risk – stakeholders and rights-holders have to be involved for thresholds of due diligence to be legitimate (sometimes even if these are clearly determined in law).

5. The resource curse of corporate social responsibility

A blog on the impacts of mining across the world, by a PhD candidate at the University of Bristol, tackles the subject of corporate social responsibility or CSR:

Often, CSR in the mining industry is little more than a public relations exercise, with no tangible reality to support its elaborate rhetoric.

6. Prehistoric boundary

For anybody interested in learning about Prehistoric Boundaries - like the one thought to run through Straitgate Farm - this English Heritage document explains more.

Settlement of Iron Age roundhouses at Straitgate?

Evidence of a prehistoric settlement of Iron Age roundhouses from over 2000 years ago was one of the last things Aggregate Industries would have wanted to find from its archaeological surveys at Straitgate.

Michael Murray

The Devon Historic Environment Records for the area, kindly sent to us back in 2012, had suggested there might be - based on an excavation in 1996-7 next to Straitgate Farm, referred to as the 'Long Range excavation'. This archaeological dig was one of the eight site excavations undertaken in advance of the new A30 between Honiton and Exeter, and revealed the presence of Iron Age roundhouses and pottery from around 400-100 BC, as well as finds from the early Neolithic period. Two of the roundhouses were indicated by evidence of complete penannular gullies - circular-shaped gullies formed either by rainwater dripping off the end of the eaves and eroding a small trench or where a drainage trench has been cut to carry rainwater away from the walls. These are documented fully in Prehistoric & Roman Sites in East Devon: The A30 Honiton to Exeter Improvement DBFO, 1996-9 (Wessex archaeology report).

Many more of these structures are thought to lie in the fields at Straitgate, after the geophysical survey last year revealed 10 or more circular or part-circular anomalies. Investigations at Straitgate will add to the 'Long Range' data, and will give a fuller picture of what life was like for our predecessors - in a hill-top settlement overlooking where Ottery St Mary stands today.

Archaeology is rarely a ‘showstopper’ - many think Straitgate already has plenty of those. But as part of Devon’s history, Straitgate's past will have to be fully explored and documented before any of it is lost to a Swiss multinational cement conglomerate.

For maps of the historic finds in the area, contact Devon County Council Historic Environment Team.

Archaeology at Straitgate

A group of local people met with archaeological contractors and DCC archaeologists on the fields at Straitgate Farm yesterday. AI and its consultants, SLR, were also present.

The archaeologists from DCC and the archaeological contractors spoke enthusiastically about a landscape that has been extensively occupied and farmed on and off over thousands of years. Signs from a number of prehistoric dwellings have been revealed, from the Iron Age to as far back, possibly, as the Neolithic period. Finds so far include pottery, post holes, drip gullies and enclosure boundaries. There is more archaeology than many had expected, and AI could eventually be called upon to excavate, survey and record much larger areas - if it were to ever secure planning permission.

Such evaluations would further add to AI’s running bill of costs. With so many constraints already identified, sand and gravel from Straitgate is unlikely ever to be won cheaply.

55 trenches

Doesn't 55 trenches - to assess ‘anomalies’ thrown up after the geophysical archaeological survey last December - sound a lot to you? It adds up to about 1.4 acres and 3,500 tonnes of soil to excavate. Remember the test pits that Aggregate Industries dug in November 2012? That was for 400 tonnes.

But it is important to assess any archaeology before ripping the farm apart with bulldozers and quarrying equipment. A pre-historic track is thought to run through Straitgate, and a number of archaeological finds were made in the area during the construction of the A30. The site's prominent position was also an important junction, where a Roman road (the Fosse Way - old A30) crossed a Saxon road (B3180) running from the Blackdown Hills to Exmouth.

Would significant archaeology stop a quarry? Well, only this week in South Oxfordshire “a rural site is being assessed for heritage status, which could affect plans for a large quarry”.

DCC's map of historical and archaeological features at Straitgate Farm

Straitgate Farm with all its hedgerows in 1888

National Library of Scotland has released newly digitised historic maps for the UK. Here's a screen shot showing Straitgate Farm in 1888 with all its hedgerows, most of which are still around today. Click on the screen shot for the full map.

Straitgate Farm, Straight-gate Farm, Great Street Gate Farm... Straitgate Quarry?

There's an 1801 map of the area that we were kindly pointed towards at the British Library's Online Gallery. It's a surveyor's draft for the Ordnance Survey map of 1807. Although the field boundaries are not accurate (there was no intention to publish them on the final map), it is still interesting to see it overlaid on today's Google Earth. The field boundaries are recorded on the tithe map of 1843.

It is also interesting to see field names, listed here on a Schedule for Great Street Gate Farm in 1870.

These emotive maps of the past, giving a flavour of what the area looked like up to 200 years ago, won't mean anything to a hungry Swiss Aggregates Giant - it doesn't care about our local history. But Holcim and Aggregate Industries ought to move with the times and progress to a more sustainable and environmentally acceptable business model, using increased proportions of recycled and secondary aggregates for example, before gouging out and scarring our beautiful and historic land.

Has DCC properly assessed the impact of quarrying on the historic environment?

Not according to "Heritage in local plans: how to create a sound plan under the NPPF" released last week by English Heritage.

Quarrying at Straitgate Farm would not only impact the Grade II listed Devon longhouse and its setting, but also the source of water for the mediaeval fish ponds that are of central importance to the gardens at Cadhay, the Grade I listed Tudor manor house. A pre-historic track also runs through Straitgate, and a number of archaeological finds were made in the area during the construction of the A30.

Water from Straitgate at Cadhay

The historic environment did not concern DCC in the Site Appraisal of S7 (Straitgate), with the impact on Cadhay rated "Medium/Low", and bizarrely even the impact on Straitgate, of removing the agricultural setting of a 16th century farmhouse, only rated "Medium". The Sustainability Appraisal also failed to appreciate these assets, assessing only a "Minor negative impact" on the historic environment of quarrying S7.

English Heritage however say "The NPPF expects heritage assets to be conserved and enhanced for generations to come."

English Heritage advise "Sound local plans will be based on adequate up-to-date evidence about the historic environment." "This is not just an exercise in listing known sites, but of understanding their value to society (their significance), how they and the area have developed through history, their physical conservation status and needs, the contribution of their settings, scope for enhancement and their potential to contribute to the delivery of other sustainable development objectives." 

We now know that DCC's Sustainability Appraisal did not inform, as it should have, the earlier Site Appraisals, but English Heritage are clear that "The evidence base will also be of relevance to the Sustainability Appraisal which accompanies the Local Plan, helping to populate the baseline data and informing the appraisal process itself." "Where the evidence base is weak, local planning authorities may find it useful to commission research from appropriately qualified and competent experts to supplement existing information." 

English Heritage consider that "One of the core dimensions of sustainable development is the protection and enhancement of the historic environment." DCC must not be blinkered in its pursuit for a Preferred Site for sand and gravel quarrying - the County's historic assets need to be taken seriously.