AC-2024-LDS-000251 - [2025] EWHC 2256 (Admin)

At the public meeting of the committee on 8 December 2022, its seven members were present, as were numerous objectors and other members of the public. The debate must have been lively, but the transcript records only the members’ contributions. The chair and two other councillors spoke in favour of the proposals; three other councillors spoke against them.

The LPA’s head of planning and development, Mr Matthias Franklin, spoke near the end in favour of the proposals, insisted that biodiversity was “a matter very close to my heart” and expressed a commitment “to ensuring we get 10% net gain on all development sites”. The reserved matters scheme would “ensure that there are planning conditions that deliver this”. The developer had been “very clear that their intention is to secure that on-site”.

Councillor Pinnock was among the three who had spoken against accepting the recommendations in the report. He responded that the proposal should be deferred until relevant questions had been answered: “[o]ne of the problems with having the list of conditions like this is that it summarises the conditions doesn’t tell you what’s in them”. He cited the example of condition 19 on ecological mitigation; they did not appear to be up to date enough, he said.

Mr Victor Grayson, the LPA’s development management masterplanner, responded at the chair’s invitation, arguing that in relation to “ecological mitigation and enhancement, those details really should come forward at reserved matters stage when we know more about the layout and other aspects of the proposals”. It would not be appropriate to specify “where bat and bird boxes go until we know where the buildings would precisely go…”.

He accepted that some of the survey information was out of date but not that the vote should be delayed on that account:

“… yes the applicant surveys ecological survey information is now fairly old it's over four years old it has been supplemented by a walkover survey carried out in October of this year which is of some use but, officers and the applicants as well do accept that full detailed surveys would need to be redone to inform the proposals brought forward at reserved matters stage and that would be an appropriate point to do it, you would then have bang up-to-date information that will take into account all the information that we have so far - new on-site observations, if need be the council's biodiversity officer can accompany the applicant’s consultants on site, if there's any disagreement as to how certain ecological features need to be categorised in as an input into the biodiversity net gain calculations, if that needs to happen that can be done. And of course, reference can be made to the significant volumes of information that local residents have gathered regarding sightings of it was mentioned Kingfishers and Red Kites and other species that have been seen on site that there is evidence of.”

The vote was to adopt the officers’ recommendations, by four votes to three. Broadly, the majority accepted the arguments in the report, while the minority accepted the arguments of the objectors, were dissatisfied with the absence of up to date information or believed the site should remain as a working farm. The resulting resolutions relating to both sites were lengthy. The head of planning and development was given delegated power to complete the list of reserved matters conditions and secure an appropriate section 106 agreement.