Showing posts with label trees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trees. Show all posts

Friday, 18 April 2025

Nature doesn't have a voice – but the public does

Holcim UK is in a bind with its proposed road modifications for Birdcage Lane. The planned modifications for the lane – required to facilitate access to the permitted quarry at Straitgate Farm for up to 200 HGV movements a day – are restricted by two majestic oaks, both protected by a Tree Preservation Order. 
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.
Last August, we posted that almost 10 years on, Aggregate Industries is still struggling to produce a workable site access plan. Eight months further on, Devon County Council has confirmed that the company – now rebadged Holcim UK – has still not submitted the requested set of revised plans. 

Should the company be at all minded to allow these plans to risk harming the two notable oaks, sitting next to the lane and either side of its proposed entrance, it might consider the national fury that Toby Carvery rightfully received this week after felling a 500-year-old oak in Whitewebbs Park – see below. 

Toby Carvery, owned by Mitchells & Butlers, is now threatened with legal action from Enfield Council: 
The council had reported Toby Carvery to the Metropolitan police, but officers decided to take no further action as there was no preservation order on the tree. 
The Woodland Trust’s senior conservation adviser for trees, is quoted as saying: 
This is the most shocking fell I think I’ve ever seen in more than a decade working with ancient trees. In my view, and the view of many others, this is ecologically much more significant than the Sycamore Gap – and certainly a more irreplaceable tree. 

Ancient oaks are particularly rich in biodiversity, with habitats that take centuries to develop. They simply can’t be replaced by younger trees and can’t be replaced quickly.

Some of the biodiversity associated with ancient trees, like the Whitewebbs oak, is among the most threatened in Europe. 
Mitchells & Butlers apologised, and admitted "we need to tighten our protocols". No shit, Sherlock. 

The Whitewebbs oak had no tree preservation order. The two oaks at risk on Birdcage Lane do. The Woodland Trust says: 
Failure to obtain permission before carrying out work on a protected tree can result in prosecution, with fines of up to £20,000 in a magistrates’ court. Serious cases may be taken to trial in the crown court and offenders could face an unlimited fine if convicted.
Toby Carvery will no doubt be licking its wounds now, asking itself – too late of course – whether its PR disaster, and the subsequent damage to its corporate image and bottom line, was worth it. Reputations, as the company has found out, can be trashed overnight. 

Toby Carvery clearly missed the memo on corporate responsibility – in other words, responsibility for the landscape occupied, the heritage inherited and the communities served. Corporate responsibility does not stop at recycling bins and plant-based menus, or, for that matter, quarry liaison meetings and Quarry Keep Out signs. When companies brag about sustainability, community ties and green values – actions matter. The public has demonstrated that it won’t sit quietly by whilst corporates vandalise our natural history. Nature doesn't have a voice – but the public does. 

Of course, Holcim UK wouldn’t dream of harming two veteran oaks trees, would it? Because, you cannot preach sustainability whilst cutting down history.

Posted by
Labels:

Friday, 2 August 2024

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.
Posted by
Labels: , , ,

Monday, 10 June 2024

Aggregate Industries – planning application vs reality

Should a planning application from Aggregate Industries be read more like a sales pitch than a promise? More like a dream than reality?

Take Aggregate Industries' plans for restoring the orchard at Straitgate Farm back to "its former glory": 
3.8.14 Immediately to the south of Straitgate farmhouse is a dilapidated orchard. The orchard is shown on Ordnance Survey Maps dating back to the late 19th century and could be considered as an important part of the setting of the grade II listed farmhouse. 

3.8.15 The Applicant recognises the value of the orchard both to biodiversity and to the heritage asset and proposes to restore the orchard to its former glory by propagation from existing apple trees, growing them on and replanting in a grid pattern. Cuttings will ensure local providence and the restored orchard will provide an attractive feature.  
The orchard even featured in Aggregate Industries' error-laden Greenhouse Gas Assessment. As we previously posted, this greenwashing document told us that the "17,200m2 of restored orchard" would be planted "at a density of 2,250 trees/Ha" – a staggering 3,870 trees that would supposedly sequester an impossible "9.3 tCO2e" annually. Bonkers. 

Restoration of this orchard would, Aggregate Industries claimed in its application, involve the following:
2.6 A specialist local nursery will be engaged to graft new trees for the orchard. This involves taking cutting of scion wood from trees in the orchard and grafting them onto the stems of suitable rootstock grown at the nursery. This new grafted tree can be grown on in a pot for 2 – 3 years before being planted out in the orchard. This method guarantees the new tree will produce fruit of exactly the same variety as the tree from which it was pruned. Cuttings will be taken from 10 trees as agreed with the nursery. When grafted trees are ready, they will be planted in suitable gaps around the orchard and protected from stock grazing by individual timber post and rail with stock netting shelters, 1.8m high and 1m square. 
Cuttings will be taken from 10 trees, although but it’s not altogether clear how many would actually be planted. Surely a minimum of 10?

Aggregate Industries' marvellous before and after pictures imply a significant amount more:
The Planning Inspectors, approving the company’s plans to quarry the farm, wrote: 
85. The appellant also proposes restoration of the orchard at the front of Straitgate Farmhouse. Cuttings from the existing apple trees would be propagated and planted. We saw on our visit that tree cover within the orchard is sparse compared with what it would have been historically. Because the orchard is part of the historic layout of the grounds to the farmhouse, its restoration can be given some weight in favour. 
The restoration influenced the Inspectors’ planning balance. 
154. There are also significant material considerations which weigh in favour of the proposal. These include… restoration of the orchard at Straitgate Farm. 
Aggregate Industries has now submitted its Landscape and Ecological Management Plan to Devon County Council for approval in order to satisfy Condition 7 of the permission. How many trees are proposed to be planted? 3870? 100? 10? 
5.4.2 Five new trees from this grafted stock should be planted in the nursery when they are ready. Newly planted trees should be protected by a square, post and rail tree guard with stock netting to protect the tree from sheep grazing, such as the one in the photograph below. 
Five. Isn't Aggregate Industries embarrassed by this sort of thing?
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Thursday, 16 May 2024

Aggregate Industries’ pushback on planning conditions has already started

In all areas of our business, including internal and external interactions, we always act with integrity. 
Why is integrity important? Aggregate Industries tells us: 
High performance with high integrity is key to sustainable success. 
It may only be corporate BS, but doesn’t it sound good? Well done to the company’s PR gurus. 

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

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

Take the two majestic oak trees, trees F and G, which sit either side of the approved site entrance, but outside of any mineral working area. In its planning application, Aggregate Industries admitted: 
the works will potentially interfere with the root protection areas of Trees F, G... and it is likely they will be damaged by the development and need to be felled. 4.1

One of the reasons Devon County Council had refused Aggregate Industries' application to quarry Straitgate Farm was because: 
6. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of mature trees and hedgerows leading to the fragmentation of habitat corridors, contrary to Policies M16 and M17 of the Devon Minerals Plan, Policy D3 of the East Devon Local Plan and Policies NP1, NP2 and NP8 of the Ottery St Mary and West Hill Neighbourhood Plan. 
The Council defended this reason for refusal at the Public Inquiry when the company appealed. 

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

In their subsequent report, the Inspectors recognised that these 200-year old oaks "are worthy of protection and should be retained". This was secured by Condition 41, which states, unequivocally:
Outside the designated mineral working areas, trees shall not be felled, lopped or topped or have their roots damaged and hedgerows shall not be removed, thinned or cut back without the prior written consent of the Mineral Planning Authority.
What could be clearer than that? 

East Devon District Council also recognised that the trees were worthy of protection and last year put a Tree Preservation Order on both. 
The trees contribute to the amenity and character of the area and they are considered under threat from development and the impact of heavy machinery and vehicles.
The Council was of the view that:  
The detailed plans submitted by Aggregate Industries show both trees being retained but then states that tree F (named as T3 in TPO) and tree G (named as T2 in TPO) ‘will be monitored and only removed if necessary’. This is somewhat ambiguous and raises concern that the trees may not be given the full protection during construction if it’s considered that the trees can be removed ‘if considered necessary’.  

It is noted as stated by the Objection [from Aggregate Industries], that the trees are protected by Condition 6 of The Appeal as they are shown as being retained on the plans (albeit with the caveat of ‘will be monitored and only removed if necessary’). However, with the conditions being only short-term and the rather ambiguous wording, it is considered that TPO will therefore help ensure long-term protection and that they are appropriately managed by current and future owners.
It is a criminal offence to wilfully damage or destroy a protected tree without consent from the local authority. TPOs allow the potential for "unlimited fines" in the case of damage:  
in determining the amount of fine, the court shall take into account any financial benefit which has resulted, or is likely to result, from the offence.
You would think that that would be the end of the matter. But no. At a meeting last month, Aggregate Industries said it would try not to damage oak trees F and G. 

Try. And in writing this month, Aggregate Industries confirmed: 
Our tree and highway consultants are looking at this issue and I will be able to update you in due course. I would refer you to approved plan reference R22/L/3-3-005 which clearly labels Trees F and G as "condition of tree to be monitored and only removed if necessary". 
Removed if necessary. It’s a surprising position to take, not only because of the clarity of Condition 41, and the TPO, but also because – as East Devon District Council recognised – the approved plans (listed below) all show the oak trees retained:
Clearly, Aggregate Industries thinks it’s above planning conditions and TPOs. Integrity?

Posted by
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, 17 January 2024

How far do tree roots extend?

The Woodland Trust says oak trees are among the most loved trees in Britain, can live to over 1,000 years old, and have enormous value for our flora and fauna – supporting 2,300 species, with 326 species depending on the tree for survival, and 229 species rarely found on any other tree. 

Specifically on their roots, the Woodland Trust says: 
Oak roots are usually quite shallow, with most in the top 30cm of soil, and extend well beyond the tree's crown. The root system relies on a complex network of fungi to gather more nutrients beyond the tree's roots. 

But how far beyond a tree's crown do roots extend? 

According to the Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service, in research undertaken for the Department of the Environment, tree root systems: 
... are wide spreading, extending radially in any direction of distances often in excess of the tree’s height. Roots grow predominantly near the soil surface - over 90% of all roots, and virtually all the large structural supporting roots, are in the upper 60cm of soil. Soil disturbance within the rooting area should be avoided, as this can significantly affect tree stability and moisture uptake.
On depth: 
Whilst genetic characteristics of a tree play some part in rooting pattern, soil conditions are of overriding importance. Thus, downward penetration of tree roots can be halted by excessive stoniness, ironpans, compact soil layers (especially compact clays), bedrock, poor aeration and high or perched water tables… Obstructions in the soil at shallow depths are common in the UK, and thus it is not surprising that a survey of root plates of wind thrown trees in southern England after the storms of 1987 and 1990 revealed that 44% of root plates were shallower than 1m, 95% were shallower than 2m and the deepest root plate was only 3m (cutler et al., 1990). This pattern accords well with the large amount of data available from excavations of root systems which indicate that average root depths are typically in the range of 1-2m. 
On spread: 
Root spread is not confined to the area delineated by a downward projection from the branch tips as has often been supposed. Excavation has revealed that roots can grow for a considerable distance beyond the branch spread; typically extending outwards for a distance equivalent to at least the tree’s height, and in some cases (particularly in infertile or compacted soils) up to 3 times tree height. 

What are the implications of this? The research note puts this passage in bold: 
Tree roots may extend radially a distance equivalent to at least the height of the tree and are located primarily in the upper 60cm of soil…. Thus, any soil disturbance within the rooting zone will damage tree roots and should be avoided. 
Adding:
Within the rooting area the following should especially be avoided:-
  • trenching, even a shallow (<150mm) trench
  • soil compaction by movement of vehicles or storage of materials...
   

One year ago, we wrote another post about The roots of an oak tree…, saying:
Aggregate Industries’ proposed scheme to quarry Straitgate Farm would result in the loss of a large number of mature trees, according to the company’s own consultants, including two 200-year old oaks, Trees F and G.
The company's consultants had said:
Devon County Council Highways have confirmed that they would not accept a “no dig” construction, due to HGV vehicles that will be using the road to access the proposed development... [which] means that the works will potentially interfere with the root protection areas of Trees F, G and H and some of G15A as illustrated by Drawing R22/L/3-3-005 and it is likely they will be damaged by the development and need to be felled. 4.1 
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.  
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.
How close are Aggregate Industries' construction works to trees F & G? This drawing couldn’t be clearer:

Posted by
Labels:

Saturday, 28 October 2023

‘Trees galvanise people. Mature trees are irreplaceable, priceless gift from the past’

Posted by
Labels: ,

Wednesday, 27 September 2023

TPO on Straitgate trees confirmed

Aggregate Industries’ consultants had previously recognised that site entrance works and deep-dig road construction at Straitgate Farm could cause the loss of two majestic 200 year-old oak trees, writing: 
the works will potentially interfere with the root protection areas of Trees F, G... and it is likely they will be damaged by the development and need to be felled. 4.1  
They produced a photomontage to show the result:
 
The Planning Inspectors, in their report permitting mineral development at Straitgate Farm, conditioned that all trees outside the mineral working area "shall not be felled, lopped or topped or have their roots damaged", and that specifically trees F and G, either side of the permitted site entrance, "are worthy of protection and should be retained". 

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

Today, EDDC has confirmed the TPO, providing these trees with permanent protection, because: 
The trees contribute to the amenity and character of the area and they are considered under threat from development and the impact of heavy machinery and vehicles.
Aggregate Industries – seeming to confirm the trees were indeed at risk – objected to the TPO:
... on the grounds that it is not necessary and that the mechanism for protecting these trees is already secured by condition 6 of the Appeal Decision for sand and gravel extraction at Straitgate Farm and that the only works that may impact on these trees are those that are necessary to implement a planning permission.
However, EDDC were of the view that: 
The detailed plans submitted by Aggregate Industries show both trees being retained but then states that tree F (named as T3 in TPO) and tree G (named as T2 in TPO) ‘will be monitored and only removed if necessary’. This is somewhat ambiguous and raises concern that the trees may not be given the full protection during construction if it’s considered that the trees can be removed ‘if considered necessary’. 

It is noted as stated by the Objection, that the trees are protected by Condition 6 of The Appeal as they are shown as being retained on the plans (albeit with the caveat of ‘will be monitored and only removed if necessary’). However, with the conditions being only short-term and the rather ambiguous wording, it is considered that TPO will therefore help ensure long-term protection and that they are appropriately managed by current and future owners. 
Given that even Aggregate Industries’ own consultants recognised the risk of harm to these trees, there must now be a big question mark over the deliverability of the site access plans. 

TPOs allow the potential for "unlimited fines" in the case of damage: 
Section 210(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that anyone found guilty of these offences is liable, if convicted in the magistrates’ court, to a fine of up to £20,000. In serious cases a person may be committed for trial in the Crown Court and, if convicted, is liable to an unlimited fine. Section 210(3) provides that, in determining the amount of fine, the court shall take into account any financial benefit which has resulted, or is likely to result, from the offence.
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Monday, 3 April 2023

EDDC slaps TPO on Straitgate trees

We posted about the roots of an oak tree earlier in the year. 


The relevance at Straitgate concerns the modifications required – let’s not call them improvements – to Birdcage Lane to allow up to 200 44-tonne HGV movements a day in and out of the site. Devon County Council recognised: 
It is clear that the size of vehicles involved in the application render a ‘no dig’ solution inappropriate for the depth of road construction that would be required. 
Devon County Council Highways have confirmed that they would not accept a “no dig” construction, due to HGV vehicles that will be using the road to access the proposed development... [which] means that the works will potentially interfere with the root protection areas of Trees F, G and H and some of G15A as illustrated by Drawing R22/L/3-3-005 and it is likely they will be damaged by the development and need to be felled. 4.1 
The visual impact that would be caused by the loss of these majestic 200 year-old oaks is clear:
 

The Planning Inspectors, in their report permitting mineral development at Straitgate, wrote: 
91. The proposed site access would be located in between trees F and G. There was some debate over whether trees F and G should be categorised as A or B using BS5837:2012. In our view, both categories A and B would indicate they are worthy of protection and should be retained. 
The Inspectors imposed the following conditions: 
39 All existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows within the site and on its boundaries shall be retained and protected from damage during the process of extraction and subsequent restoration unless they are identified to be removed as part of the current phase or a succeeding phase of mineral working or restoration as set out in the approved plans. 

41 Outside the designated mineral working areas, trees shall not be felled, lopped or topped or have their roots damaged and hedgerows shall not be removed, thinned or cut back without the prior written consent of the Mineral Planning Authority. 
Earlier this week – coincidentally the same week TPOs were slapped on HS2 – East Devon District Council, having recognised the importance and threat to the three oak trees around the proposed site access, imposed Tree Preservation Order 23/0014/TPO stating: 
The trees contribute to the amenity and character of the area and they are considered under threat from development and the impact of heavy machinery and vehicles.
The legislation governing Tree Preservation Orders can be found here. The Woodland Trust says "usually TPOs are placed on a tree or wood that’s deemed to be a local amenity": 
A Tree Preservation Order, or TPO, is usually made by a local planning authority (often the local council) to protect a specific tree or woodland from deliberate damage and destruction. This could include felling, lopping, topping, uprooting or otherwise wilful damage.
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, 7 March 2023

Aggregate Industries’ Moorcroft Quarry in the news again

In 2021, we posted that Moorcroft Quarry in Plymstock, was yet another AI quarry in Devon failing to control dust emissions. This time it’s a story in the Plymouth Herald, by the paper’s crime reporter: 


Whatever the rights and wrongs of the story, Aggregate Industries has clearly failed to effectively communicate its intentions to the local community. One angry resident told PlymouthLive: 
The trees along the border have been there for decades - they're really tall and lush in summer and create a natural curtain which muffles a lot of the noise from the quarry. There's a big operation just on the other side and they start work early and it can be really noisy sometimes, so the curtain of trees has been a real benefit to the street. 

But when we saw how many trees they were cutting down, we've been utterly appalled. It's an absolute haven for wildlife. At night you can hear owls hooting, I've seen rabbits and foxes and a few years ago I even saw a herd of deer racing along the top. You even see birds of prey on the upper branches. We all know there's a great big quarry on the other side, but for most of the year you can look at it an imagine it's the edge of a vast beautiful forest. 

They didn't even bother to let the residents know and it looks like they've gone berserk with chainsaws, chopping down perfectly healthy trees. Of course, they'll claim they're all sick or something, but if you look at Google Street View's images of it in May 2022 you can see the majority are perfectly healthy and lush. It's just vandalism - plain and simple. It's the absolute arrogance of these big firms to steam in and hack away at nature which is so galling.
The firm must restock the felled area before June 2029. Another angry resident said: 
We'll be watching very closely to see if they do what they've been told to, because they've left it looking like a battle scene out of Apocalypse Now. They've ripped the guts out of the woods and it looks bloody awful. It'll take decades to return to the lush state it was in before the chainsaws came and the wildlife may never return. 
Aggregate Industries once bragged about its community engagement around Moorcroft Quarry: 
No other quarry of our 87 across the UK needs to have active and effective community engagement more than Moorcroft.  

In our situation we wouldn’t be here if we didn’t listen to our neighbours. Community engagement is a long process of talking, listening and presenting a known face. Even if it’s bad news, we tell them because, if we don’t, they’ll just make up their own stories. 
Hollow words.

EDIT 13.3.23
 
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, 4 January 2023

The roots of an oak tree...

Aggregate Industries’ proposed scheme to quarry Straitgate Farm would result in the loss of a large number of mature trees, according to the company’s own consultants, including two 200-year old oaks, Trees F and G: 
Devon County Council Highways have confirmed that they would not accept a “no dig” construction, due to HGV vehicles that will be using the road to access the proposed development... [which] means that the works will potentially interfere with the root protection areas of Trees F, G and H and some of G15A as illustrated by Drawing R22/L/3-3-005 and it is likely they will be damaged by the development and need to be felled. 4.1
   

Indeed, "an unacceptable loss of mature trees" was one of the Reasons for Refusal advanced by Devon County Council when the application was rejected in December 2021. The arboricultural evidence advanced by the Council at the subsequent Public Inquiry 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. 
And no wonder – when you consider how far the roots of an oak tree extend:

Posted by
Labels: ,

UK’s old trees critical to climate change fight

The value you have in large mature trees is almost incalculable, and so you should avoid losing that at any cost - regardless of how many trees you think about planting
Posted by
Labels: ,

Sunday, 16 May 2021

We need to be preserving English oaks, not cutting them down

This oak tree is what Aggregate Industries’ consultants call T5. 


It is the smallest of the oak trees likely to be lost by a quarry at Straitgate Farm.

Aggregate Industries claims: "Three mature oak trees will be lost to the development, two of which grow within hedgerows and one located within a field". This ignores Trees F, G and H which are "likely [to] be damaged by the development and need to be felled." 

In all, six mature oaks are likely to be lost, as well as two substantial beech trees and other mature trees during site access works. Aggregate Industries’ consultants dismiss these trees as having “little impact on the amenity of the area”. 

What will replace them? In Aggregate Industries' alternative universe, the land of smoke and mirrors, the ripping out of 1.5km of ancient hedgerow up to 4m wide – habitat for protected dormice and bats – and the felling of 6 mature oak trees, replacing natural history hundreds of years old with saplings and tree tubes, will show a net biodiversity gain! It defies logic and common sense. 

Posted by
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, 6 September 2018

AI has been massaging figures again


We posted:
The company claims "The number of trees we plant is always rising". But it's always worth checking AI's claims. Because, if the company's sustainability reports are to be believed, AI planted 16,800 trees in 2013 (p21) and 3,400 in 2014 (p24).
So... not 4,500 in 2014, and not "always rising".
... at Straitgate, this is what's left of some of those 3,400 trees AI planted in 2014:


But not content with that, AI has done it again:


In 2015 we completed... 110 meters of hedging.
So again, the numbers do not keep growing.

And what AI fails to mention, of course, is the amount of ancient hedgerow that the company grubs up in the first place, and that the hedgerows the company plants are mere saplings – that will take decades to reach anywhere near what was removed.

At Straitgate Farm, for example, AI wants to remove nearly 1500m of 'important' hedgerow – hedgerows dating back hundreds of years – hedgerows that provide habitat for protected bats and dormice – hedgerows up to 4m wide.

So spare us the greenwash AI. Most people will still regard your business as primarily habitat destruction.

Posted by
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, 29 July 2018

Ancient woodland and veteran trees accorded more protection under revised NPPF

It’s rare there’s ever any good news in the planning world for nature, but last week:


The revised NPPF comes into effect immediately. It is now such that:
175. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:
c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists;
Whereas previously:
planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss;
On compensation strategies, this LocalGov article Planning and Ecology offers a warning:
In recent months, we’ve seen a raft of new government guidance published...
Taken together, these factors imply an increase in the level of strategic planning the government wishes local authorities to undertake, to ensure that development delivers benefits to the environment. This is evident in paragraph 35, as well as 168d which states that: 'Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: minimising impacts and providing net gains for biodiversity.'
This, like much of the new legislation, bodes well for the environment when it comes to development and planning concerns; the new documents demonstrate an increased inclination towards supporting local authorities to deliver ‘net gains’ for biodiversity.
However, and while this is to be applauded, previous experience suggests that realizing these benefits in practice will prove a greater task.
The government Section 106 agreements currently in place, which require housing developers to deliver social benefits – such as low-cost housing – to local communities, offer an example. These agreements have proved less successful than anticipated, in large part due to inadequate enforcement and a lack of clear delineation.
In addition to this challenge, government pilot schemes have called attention to issues with some of the methodology designed to deliver benefits to the environment.
The eight pilot schemes set up to trial Biodiversity Offsetting from 2012-2014 highlighted some issues with realizing ‘net gains’ in practice. Reviews found that delivery of the offsetting measures was hindered by a lack of both experience and evidence.
Posted by
Labels: , ,

Thursday, 3 August 2017

And the impact on the AONB - if all these trees were removed?


This is the view from Little Straitgate; the East Devon AONB can be glimpsed in the background.

Aggregate Industries' site access plans cut through the middle of the trees shown in the photo. It is likely that the majority of trees seen here would be felled, including those three tall oaks. AI calls these trees F, G and H; Tree H belongs to a third party who objects to the proposal:
The “no dig” construction means that the works will potentially interfere with the root protection areas of Trees F, G and H and some of G15A as illustrated by Drawing R22/L/3-3-005 and it is likely they will be damaged by the development and need to be felled. 4.1
Whilst AI’s plans would afford beautiful unobstructed views towards the East Hill strips, they would also afford less welcome unobstructed views into Straitgate - and the 5m high storage mounds detailed on the plans below - from the AONB.

The visual impact of these trees coming down on views from the AONB has not been assessed.


Posted by
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, 27 July 2017

AI’s site access plans still have a major problem



Aggregate Industries has now had a chance to redraw its access plans onto the B3174 Exeter Road, to avoid the use of third party land, but, buried in the rash of new documents delivered this week, it’s clear the company still has problems.

Because the law of the land is that you can’t go around damaging other people’s property.


AI is relying on Birdcage Lane to access Straitgate Farm. It is also relying on felling 'Trees F, G and H' to do so - see the "photomontage" in the post below. The problem for AI is that Tree H - shown above - belongs to a third party. In SLR's "Landscape related matters" we find out that:
Devon County Council Highways have confirmed that they would not accept a “no dig” construction, due to HGV vehicles that will be using the road to access the proposed development… The “no dig” construction means that the works will potentially interfere with the root protection areas of Trees F, G and H and some of G15A as illustrated by Drawing R22/L/3-3-005 and it is likely they will be damaged by the development and need to be felled. 4.1
It’s bad enough that Trees F and G, two 20m English Oaks, would be lost.

But AI needs Tree H to be felled too. Very predictably therefore, AI’s consultants claim that "Tree H, an 18m high English Oak is already in a poor condition and it is recommended it is felled by the owner on the grounds of health and safety". Of course they would say that. But that’s for its owners to decide.

And, whilst AI’s own trees have been falling down along Birdcage Lane, this tree has caused no problems and will be good for another few decades yet, judging by yesterday's photograph.

In its Reg22 request DCC said:
If the applicant wishes to construct works within the highway that may impact on the neighbouring landowners assets (i.e. the mature oak tree) then the road construction must accord with BS 5837 and the applicant must indemnify the Highway Authority against any claims from the landowner regarding damage to the tree.
BS5837? "... a logical sequence of events that has tree care at the heart of the process":
To avoid damage to tree roots, existing ground levels should be retained within the RPA. Intrusion into soil (other than for piling) within the RPA is generally not acceptable, and topsoil within it should be retained in situ. 7.2.1
So, yet again, we are presented with a proposal that cannot be delivered without the consent of a third party. The views of this third party have been made perfectly clear already - on the ground and to DCC.

Posted by
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)