Developers routinely ignore nature commitments – study shows

Developers often promise environmentally-friendly features to gain planning approval, but a recent study shows these commitments are routinely ignored once permission is granted. The lack of enforcement by under-resourced planning authorities allows this pattern to continue unchecked.

House-builders exposed for cheating on nature commitments https://t.co/fd7ej8IW1w #bats #biodiversitynetgain #birds #hedgehogs pic.twitter.com/X7N6ZzpUXQ

— Construction Index (@TCIndex) May 12, 2025

A study led by the University of Sheffield’s School of Planning and commissioned by the wildlife charity Wild Justice, examined 42 developments granted planning permission after 2012. The research spanned nearly 6,000 homes and more than 291 hectares of land across five local planning authorities. 

The team searched for 4,654 trees and 868 bird and bat boxes. They surveyed many hectares of what were promised to be wildflower grasslands, ponds, and hedgerows. They found that only 53% of the ecological features that had been a condition of planning permission were present. When they excluded newly planted trees, this fell to just 34%. 

Key findings include:  

* 39% of trees identified in planting plans were either missing or dead 

* 48% of native hedges that should have been planted were missing 

* 75% of bird and bat boxes were not installed 

* 83% of hedgehog highways were absent 

* None of the promised invertebrate boxes were installed. 

The study highlights a lack of monitoring and enforcement due to under-resourced enforcement teams, unable or lacking the skills to monitor the ecology of new developments. 

A summary of the research findings has been published by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) to expose the failings. RTPI’s own research has shown that 80% of planning enforcement officers believe there are insufficient staff to manage the workload, and 41% of local authorities lack the ecological expertise necessary to implement biodiversity net gain policy (BNG) effectively…

A new research summary published by RTPI shows that half of required nature enhancement features are missing in new builds due to enforcement gaps.

🌳 39% of trees identified in planting plans were either missing or dead

Learn more: https://t.co/59Tlt9axph pic.twitter.com/MVlB4aSS57

— Royal Town Planning Institute (@RTPIPlanners) May 9, 2025

AI’s water monitoring at Straitgate being undertaken incorrectly at several properties

To win permission to quarry Straitgate Farm, Aggregate Industries entered into a legal agreement to monitor the private water supplies of surrounding properties for the lifetime of the development. 

Part of this agreement also stipulates that 12 months of chemical analysis of water supplies be performed before any quarrying starts, to produce a baseline so that any potential changes in groundwater quality from future mineral workings can be detected. 

Aggregate Industries’ water consultants BCL Hydro are now nine months into this monitoring period. 

In an email to us last month, the consultants confirmed that all the samples taken for analysis are "untreated groundwater". 

It stands to reason. Chemical analysis is meant to provide an accurate baseline of the natural quality of the groundwater, not a baseline that is masked or altered by treatment systems. 

It now transpires, however, that "untreated groundwater" is not what’s being sampled from at least three of the 19 or so properties being monitored. 

It looks like Aggregate Industries and its consultants have fallen at the first hurdle, before any quarrying has even started. 

The nine months of data collected from these properties is invalid. The owners do not have the protection afforded to them by an accurate 12-month baseline of untreated groundwater data, independent of their treatment process, to evidence any potential future claim for "derogation, contamination or interference" to their supply. 

Devon County Council has been informed.

Lower Hare Farm, Whitestone: Judicial Review – Pre-commencement Conditions

Before any soil can be removed at Straitgate Farm by Aggregate Industries in relation to its permission to quarry the site, a number of pre-commencement conditions must first be discharged by the company and approved by Devon County Council.

Anyone interested in that process might want to note Item 7 of Devon County Council's Development Management Committee agenda for Wednesday, 23rd October, 2024, concerning a short report produced by the Council relating to the approval of two controversial planning applications (DCC/4101/2018, DCC/4293/2022) for a waste disposal site at Lower Hare Farm, Whitestone, EX4 2HW, and the judicial reviews that followed, filed by Whitestone Parish Council in connection with the discharge of pre-commencement conditions. 

In the Whitestone Parish Council minutes, (more details here, here, and here), it was claimed: 

The DCC seem to have entered wholeheartedly into the spirit of the NPPF and determined that “7 phases” has the same meaning as “3 phases”, that working from West to East is exactly the same as working from North to South, that “inert soils” are exactly the same as “engineering fill” also known as quarrying, mining, demolition and construction waste, that a gradient of “1 in 5” is exactly the same as a gradient of “1 in 10”, etc, etc. 

The Parish Council submitted a judicial review claiming the decision to discharge certain pre-commencement conditions was unlawful on a number of grounds, including: 

the decision to grant approval to carry out further development not authorised in the original permission by way of discharge of condition was ultra vires; 

and:

the Council erred in law by asking whether submitted details were ‘acceptable’ rather than considering whether the submitted details met the requirements of the conditions;

Devon County Council conceded on both of those grounds, and says in the report: 

4.4 In the light of this claim for judicial review, the following steps have been implemented within the Council’s Planning team: 

 • training has been provided to the County Council’s planning officers on procedural requirements for the discharging of planning conditions; and 

 • the relevant officer’s report template has been amended to require clearer consideration of the requirements of the EIA Regulations and the need to consider whether the submitted details meet the requirements of the condition.

The full report can be found below:

 

EDIT 29.1.25 Permit 'likely' for new countryside landfill site

AI’s planning permission for the livestock crossing has expired – so what next?

Remember all the fuss about the cattle crossing – first raised here in 2017, and mentioned numerous times since?

 

The subject of the crossing was covered at the Public Inquiry, and the Planning Inspectors subsequently ruled that mineral extraction at Straitgate Farm is contingent upon the implementation of planning permission 20/2542/FUL, a permission secured by Aggregate Industries from East Devon District Council in 2021, for a "New access to the B3174 Exeter Road to provide a livestock crossing incorporating holding pens." 

Condition 19 of Aggregate Industries' permission to quarry Straitgate says: 

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

The Inspectors granting permission for the quarry spelt out the reason for this: 

109. Material to this appeal proposal is a planning permission granted by East Devon District Council (EDDC) for a new access to the B3174 Exeter Road to provide a livestock crossing incorporating holding pens. At the time of the Inquiry this permission had not been implemented. However, no cogent evidence was presented to suggest that it would not be implemented. From the details of this permission submitted to the Inquiry it is clear that this livestock crossing arrangement will enable a more direct, efficient and therefore safe movement of livestock when they need to cross the road which is of benefit to the livestock, farmer and other highway users. 

However, as we posted last year, Aggregate Industries mucked up. Permission 20/2542/FUL could not be implemented as it stood because some nitwit from the company had put the red-line planning boundary in the wrong location, as the District Council later confirmed: 

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

Overlooking that inconvenient detail, the livestock crossing permission, granted on 21 June 2021, was itself subject to conditions, the first of which said : 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and shall be carried out as approved. (Reason - To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). 

Today, three years have passed. 

A further application has not been made. The development has not been implemented. Parroting a famous sketch: The permission is no more. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It is an ex-permission.

But that’s not the end of the story. In desperation, Aggregate Industries will now lower itself to more brutal tactics. To negate the need for the livestock crossing, and hopefully thereby to persuade Devon County Council to drop the Inspectors’ condition, the company’s ability to implement its permission to quarry Straitgate Farm will now be contingent upon foisting more pain and suffering on local people. The company will attempt to evict the tenant farmers and their children from their home – a home that has been in the same family more than 80 years – and to close down their successful dairy operation. 

The words heartless and bastards might spring to mind. 

But fortunately, and as the company itself acknowledged many years ago, the tenants have "the benefit of an Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 Tenancy Agreement." 

tenancies under the 1986 Act continue to exist because they are difficult to terminate, and because tenants have powerful rights of succession, allowing their close relatives to succeed them. 

What pain and suffering would befall this multinational cement bully should any eviction not be successful and implementation of the permission not be possible? Is there an urgent need for sand and gravel from Straitgate? Are the minerals in fact needed at all, given the millions of tonnes of similar material available to the company next to its processing plant at Hillhead also allocated in the Devon Minerals Plan? Answers: Insignificant, no and no. 

To prove the point, earlier this year, the company admitted that economic conditions are not currently conducive to the viability of mineral working at Straitgate, and that once the permission is implemented the site could be mothballed.

Aggregate Industries’ pushback on planning conditions has already started

Aggregate Industries claims: 

In all areas of our business, including internal and external interactions, we always act with integrity. 

Why is integrity important? Aggregate Industries tells us: 

High performance with high integrity is key to sustainable success. 

It may only be corporate BS, but doesn’t it sound good? Well done to the company’s PR gurus. 

If, however, Aggregate Industries does act with integrity, if Aggregate Industries does have strong moral and ethical principles, if Aggregate Industries is virtuous, honourable, trustworthy, it would of course want to abide by planning conditions. It would not want to find weasel words to get around them. It would recognise that planning conditions are there for a reason. They are not there to be interpreted in a way that is favourable to the bottom line of a multinational cement conglomerate. They are there to protect people and the surrounding environment. They are there to "enable development to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission."

But, surprise, surprise, what do we find? Aggregate Industries is already pushing back on the conditions imposed for its permission to quarry Straitgate Farm, pushing back on environmental protection. 

Take the two majestic oak trees, trees F and G, which sit either side of the approved site entrance, but outside of any mineral working area. In its planning application, Aggregate Industries admitted: 

the works will potentially interfere with the root protection areas of Trees F, G... and it is likely they will be damaged by the development and need to be felled. 4.1

One of the reasons Devon County Council had refused Aggregate Industries' application to quarry Straitgate Farm was because: 

6. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of mature trees and hedgerows leading to the fragmentation of habitat corridors, contrary to Policies M16 and M17 of the Devon Minerals Plan, Policy D3 of the East Devon Local Plan and Policies NP1, NP2 and NP8 of the Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan. 

The Council defended this reason for refusal at the Public Inquiry when the company appealed. 

However, by that time, Aggregate Industries had changed its story about trees F and G. Representatives for the company assured Government Planning Inspectors that the site entrance could be created without harming these trees or their roots. 

In their subsequent report, the Inspectors recognised that these 200-year old oaks "are worthy of protection and should be retained". This was secured by Condition 41, which states, unequivocally:

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

What could be clearer than that? 

East Devon District Council also recognised that the trees were worthy of protection and last year put a Tree Preservation Order on both. 

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

The Council was of the view that:  

The detailed plans submitted by Aggregate Industries show both trees being retained but then states that tree F (named as T3 in TPO) and tree G (named as T2 in TPO) ‘will be monitored and only removed if necessary’. This is somewhat ambiguous and raises concern that the trees may not be given the full protection during construction if it’s considered that the trees can be removed ‘if considered necessary’.  

It is noted as stated by the Objection [from Aggregate Industries], that the trees are protected by Condition 6 of The Appeal as they are shown as being retained on the plans (albeit with the caveat of ‘will be monitored and only removed if necessary’). However, with the conditions being only short-term and the rather ambiguous wording, it is considered that TPO will therefore help ensure long-term protection and that they are appropriately managed by current and future owners.

It is a criminal offence to wilfully damage or destroy a protected tree without consent from the local authority. TPOs allow the potential for "unlimited fines" in the case of damage:  

in determining the amount of fine, the court shall take into account any financial benefit which has resulted, or is likely to result, from the offence.

You would think that that would be the end of the matter. But no. At a meeting last month, Aggregate Industries said it would try not to damage oak trees F and G. 

Try. And in writing this month, Aggregate Industries confirmed: 

Our tree and highway consultants are looking at this issue and I will be able to update you in due course. I would refer you to approved plan reference R22/L/3-3-005 which clearly labels Trees F and G as "condition of tree to be monitored and only removed if necessary". 

Removed if necessary. It’s a surprising position to take, not only because of the clarity of Condition 41, and the TPO, but also because – as East Devon District Council recognised – the approved plans (listed below) all show the oak trees retained:

0308.101 rev F Junction improvement scheme layout 

0308.104 Junction improvement long section 

SF/RS/XX Road Section AB 

SF/RS/XX Road Section CD 

Clearly, Aggregate Industries thinks it’s above planning conditions and TPOs. Integrity?

Planning conditions mean AI must drill more water monitoring boreholes

In order to protect surrounding private water supplies, Condition 30 of Aggregate Industries’ permission to quarry Straitgate Farm stipulates: 

Piezometer coverage across the site shall be, at any time, no less than the proposed one piezometer at each corner of each working sub-phase. Piezometers which are lost through quarry working shall be replaced within seven days. Continuous monitoring of all site piezometers (and interpolation between them) shall be used to ensure, during working, that the base level to which the quarry is worked is no closer to the measured groundwater level than 1 metre. 

Our emphasis.

Three working phases have been proposed, with two sub-phases in each.

Even as things currently stand, there is no piezometer on the SE corner of Phase 1. 

Furthermore, it is patently clear – and has been for years – that there are large areas on the eastern boundary that cannot be quarried without breaching the MWWT, given that groundwater has now been recorded just 1.19m, 0m, 1.26m and 1.59m below the surface at PZ2017/02, PZ2017/03, SG1990/021 and SG1990/012 respectively. 

The eastern boundary of Phase 1 and Phase 2 will therefore need to be redrawn.

Piezometer PZ2017/03, at the NE corner of Phase 1 and SE corner of Phase 2, is obviously unable to provide any meaningful information on how far to the west of this point the maximum groundwater levels would allow sufficient depth for mineral extraction, given water levels here have reached ground level. 

Clearly, therefore, there need to be further boreholes drilled at the redrawn eastern boundary of the extraction area – to fulfil Condition 30, ie. so that there are piezometers at "each corner of each working sub-phase". 

At least 12 months of groundwater monitoring in these new boreholes would then be required to provide any meaningful baseline. 

Without new piezometers in these locations there can be no way "to ensure, during working, that the base level to which the quarry is worked is no closer to the measured groundwater level than 1 metre."

What exactly is a water body?

Although the creation of temporary water bodies – for surface water management and restoration – is shown on Aggregate Industries’ plans to quarry Straitgate Farm, Planning Inspectors conditioned that the site can only be quarried if: 

25. No water body shall be created within the site other than the approved weigh bridge lagoon. 

The reason for this was set out in the condition in its draft form (20):

To prevent the site becoming attractive to flocks of birds that may lead to an aviation hazard in the interests of public safety and in accordance with Policy M20 (Sustainable Design) of the Devon Minerals Plan.

Straitgate Farm sits directly below the landing approach for Exeter Airport.

 

Condition 25 is unequivocal. 

It is not weakened by an unless otherwise agreed tailpiece. The Inspectors strengthened the draft condition by removing "without the prior written approval of the Council...".

It is not limited by size. The Inspectors did not specify any minimum. 

It is not limited by duration. The Inspectors removed the qualifier permanent from the draft condition after hearing how temporary water bodies can attract seasonal birds. 

What exactly is a water body? Lawinsider says: 

Waterbody means any accumulation of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, including rivers, streams, creeks, ditches, swales, lakes, ponds, marshes, wetlands, and ground water. 

Wikipedia says:

The term most often refers to oceans, seas, and lakes, but it includes smaller pools of water such as ponds, wetlands, or more rarely, puddles.

Puddles? Apparently so. In 47 Types Of Bodies Of Water: Pictures And More, Puddle sits at No. 31. 

In fact, in Puddle Britain: 11 amazing facts about tiny bodies of water, Prof Jeremy Biggs, the CEO of the Freshwater Habitats Trust, author of the book Ponds, Pools and Puddles, explains when a puddle becomes a pond, or, for that matter, a lake:

In the UK, we call everything up to 2 hectares [about 5 acres] a pond, but a lake that’s 2.1 hectares is really no different from a pond that’s 1.9 hectares. Down the bottom end, we call things down to 1 sq metre a pond, so then it’s below that we have puddles.

🔵 What is a puddle?

🟡 When does a puddle become a pond? Or, for that matter, a lake?

🔵 Can anything live in a puddle?

🟡 Can animals survive in puddles?

Discover 11 facts about these bodies of water with @guardian ⬇️https://t.co/MODLYxySaZ

— ipbes (@IPBES) November 30, 2023

What hope does Aggregate Industries have of controlling puddles – if it can’t even control this? 

Indeed, what hope does Aggregate Industries have of not creating any new bodies of water, when Google Earth images confirm they were introduced at all of the company's other BSPB quarries? 

As we've said before, the company's plans for Straitgate are incompatible with Condition 25.

But perhaps Aggregate Industries has a cunning plan. 

Why does all this matter? Aggregate Industries left water bodies at nearby Blackhill Quarry – and these were some of the visitors that arrived.

It was Canada geese that brought down US Airways Flight 1549.

Judge quashes Cornwall planning condition sign off

Aggregate Industries’ permission to quarry Straitgate Farm is subject to a plethora of conditions, a number of which will need to be discharged before any soils can be stripped. 

How should councils grapple with the discharge of planning conditions? 

A judgement, handed down last month by the High Court (Barbara Laing, R (on the application of) v The Cornwall Council [2024] EWHC 120 (Admin)), in relation to the replacement of a length of Cornish hedgerow, gives an insight into the interpretation and discharge of planning conditions. 

Judge Jarman KC summarised the legal principles involved, writing: 

There are no special rules for the interpretation of planning conditions. The test is what a reasonable reader would understand the words to mean in the context of the other conditions and of the consent as a whole. This is an objective exercise in which the court will have regard to the natural and ordinary meaning of the relevant words, the overall purpose of the consent, any other conditions which cast light on the purpose of the relevant words, and common sense: DB Symmetry Ltd v Swindon Borough Council [2022] UKSC 33 at [66]. 

In the particular case he was presiding over, linked to a permission for a nine-home development, the judge quashed Cornwall Council’s decision to discharge a planning condition linked to an ecological plan. That plan had stipulated that double the length of hedgerow to be lost must be constructed elsewhere on-site. The developer applied to discharge the condition, submitting that 23m of lost hedgerow would be replaced by 25m of new. A principal planning officer for the Council considered this acceptable, reporting: 

The condition can therefore be discharged as the [ecological plan] is deemed to be acceptable and in accordance with the general requirements set out in the originally submitted [ecological appraisal]. 

The claimant, who lives next door to the site, challenged the Council’s decision. The Judge ruled: 

The authority interpreted condition 6 too narrowly, and consequently did not grapple with the noncompliance of the ecological plan in two important respects, namely the length of new hedge and direct connectivity with retained hedge... The decision on the application must be quashed and resubmitted to the authority for redetermination.

Judge quashes planning condition sign off over council’s failure to meet environmental appraisal requirements #planning #environment #development https://t.co/PVtbOZjlma.

— Planning Magazine (@PlanningMag) February 5, 2024

Another part of Aggregate Industries accused of breaching planning controls

In Devon, Aggregate Industries has a history of breaching planning conditions – as we have frequently posted about, most recently here. 

Last year, Aggregate Industries acquired Sivyer Logistics, "a leading handler of construction and demolition waste (CDW) materials to the London construction industry." Dragan Maksimovic, Aggregate Industries’ latest CEO, crowed: 

Sivyer Logistics is an impressive business that has multiple synergies with our own…

Residents local to Morden Wharf in Greenwich seem far from impressed with Sivyer, claiming the company has "a reputation for flouting planning conditions".

@EnvAgency One more time! Sivyer at Morden Wharf with material piled at least 2m above the boundary walls despite a DEMP in place. The licence issued by the EA needs to be withdrawn. @EnvAgencySE @TheMurkyDepths @BBCLondonNews @TamFinkelstein @MTPennycook @AggregateUK pic.twitter.com/5XMsWPcMZP

— Ralph Hardwick (@HardwickRalph) January 19, 2024

@David_Llew @Will_nicholas the Thames Path at the Sivyer/Morden Wharf site. Sivyer dust is being swept onto the foreshore, no doubt ending up in the Thames. This much dust means inadequate dust suppression on site. Time for RBG to step up and sort this out. pic.twitter.com/MXYb5WVJGE

— EGRA (@EGRA_London) June 3, 2023

An older picture of the same site. If heavy industry is to coexist alongside residential developments then companies like Sivyer in this case really have to adhere to the highest demolition waste handling standards, this ain't them. pic.twitter.com/lvaSssrCyt

— EGRA (@EGRA_London) February 11, 2023

We all know Aggregate Industries will have difficulty complying with Straitgate’s ‘no water body’ condition – Google Earth images confirm why

One of the first posts on this blog, back in 2012, asked: Could Straitgate be quarried without water? 

We noted that Exeter Airport's request that "no ponds or body of water be allowed as part of this development" to ensure aircraft safety from bird strikes, would surely be an impediment to any scheme. 

And indeed this impediment has now been formalised.

Earlier this year, the Planning Inspectors, in granting permission to quarry Straitgate Farm, conditioned: 

No water body shall be created within the site other than the approved weighbridge lagoon. 

As we posted in January, this makes Aggregate Industries' plans for Straitgate incompatible with the Inspectors’ planning conditions, given that the company's approved plans rely on the formation of water bodies – both for flood mitigation and for restoration. As we wrote, the Inspectors' condition: 

...is clear and unambiguous. It is not limited by the size or duration of any water body – large or small, permanent or temporary.  

What exactly is a water body? As we previously posted: 

Wikipedia says "The term most often refers to oceans, seas, and lakes, but it includes smaller pools of water such as ponds, wetlands, or more rarely, puddles." LawInsider goes further. This helpful graphic also explains.  

In that 2012 post, we wrote about Aggregate Industries' nearby sand and gravel quarries at Blackhill and Hillhead, quarries that extracted the same type of material from the Budleigh Salterton Pebble Beds that would be extracted at Straitgate Farm. We wrote that Google Earth images: 

...reveal several bodies of water in each and it is inconceivable that Straitgate, particularly with all its water related issues, could ever be quarried without the formation of ponds or lagoons of some kind.

In fact, Hillhead suffered ponding problems only this year. 

Further back, we posted how the water body at Aggregate Industries' quarry at Thorn Tree Plantation at Blackhill was meant to be ephemeral but is instead present all year round. 

The company's quarry at Venn Ottery also suffered ponding issues. 

Hanson’s Town Farm Quarry works the same type of material and also has bodies of water. 

But let's build on that 2012 post, and, using Google Earth’s historical imaging, look at all five BSPB quarries in Devon that have been worked in recent times. The images below show the quarries at Venn Ottery, Marshbroadmoor at Rockbeare, Thorn Tree Plantation at Blackhill, Houndaller at Hillhead and Town Farm, at a time when extraction was actually underway. 

Venn Ottery

Marshbroadmoor

Thorn Tree Plantation

Houndaller

Town Farm

Clearly, sizeable new bodies of water were introduced at all of them.

So, even if we were to overlook Aggregate Industries' flood mitigation and restoration plans for Straitgate – that actually encourage water bodies – the above images underline, if any more underlining were needed, just how unworkable the whole scheme really is. 

What’s the scale of Aggregate Industries’ ponding problem at Hillhead?

If Aggregate Industries is to quarry Straitgate Farm, it must do so without creating any water bodies – for aircraft safeguarding reasons – as we have previously posted. 

Is that possible? Of course not. 

How can we be so sure? You only have to look at Aggregate Industries’ Houndaller quarry at Hillhead, near Uffculme. It has the same type of sand and gravel that exists at Straitgate Farm. We recently posted that Aggregate Industries has ponding problems at Houndaller, and that the company has now been forced to apply for permission to change the surface water management plan for the site. 

Last December, Devon County Council’s Monitoring Report for the site reported: 

4.15 Since the previous monitoring visit, Phase 6 has now been worked out and is awaiting grading and topsoiling… It is understood water is ponding in this Phase and the operator would like to direct this water to Houndaller Pond, north of the farmhouse in order to complete restoration.

 And the scale of the problem? The Monitoring Report helpfully provides this photo:

AI’s archeological analysis & report for Hillhead more than THREE YEARS LATE

Aggregate Industries finds it difficult to stick to planning conditions – as we have previously posted here, here, here, here, here, here and here. 

Condition 12 for Aggregate Industries’ Houndaller quarry at Hillhead near Uffculme in Devon states: 

RECORDING OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC FEATURES 

No topsoil stripping shall be undertaken in Working Phases 6, 7 and 8, as shown on drawings nos. 2285/ROMP/3C and 2285/ROMP/73D, until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out at all times in strict accordance with the approved scheme, or such other details as may be subsequently agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. 

Reason: To ensure that an appropriate record is made of archaeological evidence that may be affected by the development in accordance with the Development Plan specifically Devon Minerals Plan Policy M19.

Why is this condition important? 

In 2016, Devon County Council’s Senior Historic Environment Officer wrote: 

…the [geophysical] survey did identify anomalies that have the appearance of land divisions and may be associated with former prehistoric or Romano-British field systems. The expansion of the quarry into these areas will destroy these heritage assets. … 

Based on the results of this initial stage of works the requirement and scope of any further archaeological mitigation can be determined and implemented either in advance of or during construction works. This archaeological mitigation work may take the form of full area excavation in advance of groundworks or the monitoring and recording of groundworks associated with the construction of the proposed development to allow for the identification, investigation and recording of any exposed archaeological or artefactual deposits. The results of the fieldwork and any postexcavation analysis undertaken would need to be presented in an appropriately detailed and illustrated report.

The initial archaeological fieldwork was completed in 2019, so where’s the analysis and report? How do we know what’s been destroyed? Devon County Council’s latest monitoring report for the site says the report should have been "completed within 3 months following the completion of fieldwork": 

Comments/ Course of Action: 

Written Scheme of Investigation entitled ‘Western Extension of Houndaller (Hillhead) Quarry, Phases 6, 7 and 8, Uffculme, Devon - Project specification for an archaeological excavation’ dated 18th April 2019 - approved on 14 May 2019. Soil stripping on Phase 6 commenced on 12 August 2019 and archaeological investigation was complete. The archaeological investigation for Phase 7 is complete, however, post-excavation analysis, reporting and archive is yet to be completed. The agreed Written Scheme of Investigation states that this will be completed within 3 months following the completion of fieldwork. The operator has confirmed that this is anticipated to be completed within 3-4 months. Therefore, this should be completed within 4 months, by 13 July 2023.

As of last week, MORE THAN THREE YEARS LATE, Aggregate Industries has still not done the work, with the Council’s Senior Historic Environment Officer, writing: 

the post-excavation assessment, analysis, reporting and archive creation and disposition has yet to be undertaken. 

What hope, therefore, for the plethora of conditions for Straitgate Farm?

Aggregate Industries tries to wriggle out of Straitgate PWS monitoring obligations

It’s started already. Aggregate Industries is trying to wriggle out of its obligations.

If Aggregate Industries is to quarry Straitgate Farm, it has a legal obligation – as detailed in its Unilateral Undertaking – to monitor the numerous Private Water Supplies that surround the site, with agreements from the various owners, for the lifetime of the development. 

Condition 27 of the appeal decision says: 

Prior to the commencement of development, a water supply monitoring scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. etc

The obligation to monitor surrounding PWS is irrespective of whether the owners of those supplies also have the use of a mains supply. The UU states: 

"Private Water Supply Interests" means those persons who own or occupy the Private Water Supplies as listed in Appendix 7 or as otherwise notified to the Owner [Aggregate Industries] pursuant to paragraph 1.1.3 of Schedule 1 to this Deed; 

OWNER'S OBLIGATIONS 

The Owner [Aggregate Industries] hereby covenants with the Council as follows... to send an Offer Letter to Private Water Supplies Interests offering to monitor their water supply in accordance with the Water Supply Monitoring Scheme for the lifetime of the Planning Permission and thereafter in accordance with the Post Restoration Water Supply Monitoring Scheme for the duration set out within the approved Post Restoration Water Supply Monitoring Scheme... 

It has, however, come to our attention that various properties with PWS were not in fact sent the company’s latest offer letter in April – referenced here – contrary to what the company tried to assure us. 

One PWS owner was forced to write to Aggregate Industries earlier this month: 

Please could you provide us with the most recent letter regarding the monitoring of PWS. We only have the original one dated 2 February 2023.

Aggregate Industries wrote back: 

From checking our files I can confirm that this was not sent to you as we have your property down as already having a mains water supply. If this is not correct and you would like to be part of the monitoring scheme then please let me know and I will update our records and ensure you are included.

But Aggregate Industries’ UU – which was necessary to make acceptable in planning terms, what was otherwise an unacceptable development – makes no mention of excluding properties with PWS from the monitoring scheme that already have a mains water supply. 

Of course, it would undoubtedly be more convenient for Aggregate Industries to exclude from monitoring those properties already with access to a mains supply, to ignore those springs, wells or boreholes that could be trashed by the company’s development; it would undoubtedly be more convenient to overlook the fact that a number of local PWS owners rely on both their mains and private supply, and that others wish to maintain their PWS in a usable state for potential future deployment. 

But, whatever the reason owners might have for protecting their PWS, it’s irrelevant. Aggregate Industries' legal obligations say all PWS interests must be offered monitoring. Simple. 

This doesn’t bode well for the future, that Aggregate Industries at this early stage is already trying to wriggle out of its obligations.

EDIT 18.7.23 

Aggregate Industries has now informed Devon County Council that: 

I can confirm that all PWS owners have been offered the chance to be part of the monitoring scheme and we are not excluding people who are on mains supply.

Oh look, Aggregate Industries suffers ponding problems at Hillhead

After many years of working its Houndaller quarry at Hillhead, near Uffculme, Aggregate Industries now wants to change the surface water management plan for the site – a site with the same type of sand and gravel that exists at Straitgate Farm – as this recent Scoping Opinion request PRE/1659/2023 to Devon County Council reveals: 

The approved restoration contours, Drawing No. 2285/ROMP/4C located within Appendix C, illustrates the site falling west to east, with a low point on the south-western boundary of the site. This is causing surface water to pond within the south-western part of the site (Phase 6). Therefore, Aggregate Industries are proposing to amend the surface water management plan for the site, to include a perimeter surface water drainage ditch running northwards from the south-west corner of Phase 6 along the western edge of the site into Houndaller Plantation Pond. There will be a slight amendment to the alignment of the final land form contours for Phases 6,7 and 8, to enable surface water to be shed to the perimeter surface water drainage ditch. 3.2.3 

Of course, it’s not unusual for surface water to pond at quarries. What quarry doesn’t have water? 

Even for Straitgate Farm, Aggregate Industries’ plans positively encourage water bodies – for its surface water management and restoration plans: 

ephemeral water bodies and species-rich wet grassland to be encouraged in low-lying infiltration areas (in the base of the depressions)

In fact, the creation of infiltration areas on the eastern boundary of the Straitgate site forms an integral part of the company’s flood mitigation scheme. At the Public Inquiry the Inspectors were told by Aggregate Industries’ hydrogeology witness that standing water will remain in these areas for up to 15 days in the summer and 24 days in the winter.

However, and as we have previously posted, the Planning Inspectors stipulated – for aircraft safeguarding reasons – that: 

25. No water body shall be created within the site other than the approved weigh bridge lagoon. 

Bizarrely, therefore, Aggregate Industries’ plans for Straitgate cannot be implemented without breaking one of the planning conditions. 

As we remarked: 

This condition, which Aggregate Industries must comply with if it is to quarry Straitgate Farm, is clear and unambiguous. It is not limited by the size or duration of any water body – large or small, permanent or temporary. 

The company's inability to control surface water at Houndaller, highlights the problem: How will Aggregate Industries be able to comply with condition 25 at Straitgate ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All obligations and liabilities on the company cease. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDIT 12.7.23 

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

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

Aggregate Industries has mucked up. 

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

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

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

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

Condition 19 of the Straitgate permission states: 

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

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

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

   

What is the red line boundary? Government guidance says: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aggregate Industries’ ‘unilateral ultimatum’

Local private water users are understandably unhappy about Aggregate Industries’ threadbare legal obligation – the company’s Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking, or, as many have called it, ultimatum. 

This legal document, approved by the Planning Inspectors following the Public Inquiry last October, details what Aggregate Industries is obligated to do in the event that any private water supply in the surrounding area is harmed as a result of the company digging into the aquifer at Straitgate Farm. 

Various concerns have been raised with Devon County Council as the Mineral Planning Authority. Many of these concerns, and other ones too, were raised by SAG at the Inquiry. Aggregate Industries' legal representatives dismissed them out of hand – as shown here (with our legal team’s annotated responses) – claiming the UU "fully addresses even the fanciful scenarios that the [SAG] Note proposes": 

the Appellant notes that no Private Water Supplies Interest has raised any concerns with the terms of the licence, including the Rule 6 Party. The terms of the Offer Letter, including the licence have also been agreed with the Council. There is therefore no evidence of any issue with the licence in any event. 

This is plainly not true. Cadhay had been raising concerns for years. These concerns were again raised at the Inquiry by SAG as the Rule 6 party. If other private water users had not raised concerns, it was because Aggregate Industries had not talked to them to find out their specific needs. 

The Planning Inspectors accepted that: 

52. The measures provided in the UU to mitigate loss of flow or water quality have been subject to criticism both by the MPA and by SAG. 

but nevertheless decided: 

55. The UU is provided as a precautionary measure in respect of water supplies and is only necessary on this basis. We find that the UU would be an effective mechanism to provide alternative water supplies. 

In response to the concerns since raised by local people, Devon County Council, who is not a signatory to the agreement, said: 

We have referred your concerns and those of others to the County Council’s legal department and it is their view that we cannot offer legal advice to third parties on this matter and that you would need to take your own legal advice to decide how to proceed. 

Clearly, local people are now on their own in the event of any dispute if their water supplies become harmed – up against the deep pockets of a global cement giant.  

The barrister representing SAG, said in his closing statement: 

The Appellant has given little attention to the practical details of the mitigation necessary to protect the 120 people, businesses, three farms and the Cadhay House Estate who rely on private water supplies. It is absolutely no excuse to say that private water supplies might be harmed in a number of different ways. The multiple types of problem which might occur underscore the need for proper solutions to be worked up. In that regard it is important to bear in mind the inequality of arms between the Appellant and the many individuals whose private water supplies the development plan requires to be protected. 

What Devon County Council does have some say over going forward is Water Protection and Monitoring, as detailed in Condition 27: 

Prior to the commencement of development, a water supply monitoring scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The scheme shall secure the ongoing monitoring, management and maintenance of water supplies and shall specify: 

(a) the monitoring arrangements (including monitoring of pH levels) for private water supplies;

(b) the monitoring arrangements (including monitoring of pH levels) for stream flows at private water supplies; 

(c) the frequency of monitoring at the private water supplies which for the avoidance of doubt shall be a minimum of once per month for the lifetime of the planning permission; 

(d) the continuation of the surface water and groundwater monitoring points including a requirement to maintain a piezometer at each corner of each working sub-phase of the development and to replace any piezometers that become lost through quarry working; 

(e) the maintenance arrangements for the piezometers at the private water supplies; 

(f) the form and content of the annual monitoring report which is to be provided to the Mineral Planning Authority in respect of the private water supplies. 

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved monitoring scheme. 

It is understandable how all this, which for many will be the first formal communication from Aggregate Industries, must all have come as a nasty shock for private water users. No friendly introductions. No apologies for its plans to dig up the neighbourhood and cause untold aggravation. Just a legal ultimatum that will leave a large number of people with 20 or more years of worry and uncertainty. 

Is it any wonder mineral planning applications attract so much opposition?

Aggregate Industries’ water monitoring scheme

Some 120 people and businesses and farms are dependent on the Straitgate aquifer for their drinking water supplies – supplies now at risk from Aggregate Industries’ planning permission. 

Last week, Aggregate Industries personnel delivered invitations to local people reliant on those private water supplies to join the company’s water monitoring scheme. This was not some charitable gesture. It forms part of the company’s legal agreement – necessary to secure permission – which undertook "within one calendar month of the date of the Planning Permission" to:  

send an Offer Letter to Private Water Supplies Interests offering to monitor their water supply in accordance with the Water Supply Monitoring Scheme for the lifetime of the Planning Permission and thereafter in accordance with the Post Restoration Water Supply Monitoring Scheme...;

where:

"Private Water Supply Interests" means those persons who own or occupy the Private Water Supplies as listed in Appendix 7 or as otherwise notified to the Owner pursuant to paragraph 1.1.3 of Schedule 1 to this Deed;

A template of the offer letter can be found here.  

Aggregate Industries will provide "12 months of baseline monitoring (consisting of monthly visits to check water levels and sampling of water quality)." Furthermore, in line with condition 27: 

Prior to the commencement of development, a water supply monitoring scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.

Amongst other things, this shall specify: 

the frequency of monitoring at the private water supplies which for the avoidance of doubt shall be a minimum of once per month for the lifetime of the planning permission