The first supplementary planning obligation
The first supplementary planning obligation
That first supplementary planning obligation is dated 19 December 2024 (SPO (1)). It is a further section 106 agreement. Clause 3 contains supplemental covenants of the developer, as follows:
“3.1. The Owner [developer] covenants with the Council [LPA] that notwithstanding Clause 3.2 of the Original Agreement the Owner shall not begin the Development (within the meaning of Section 56 of the 1990 Act) or otherwise commence clearance of hedgerows, trees and shrubs, or any other features of potential ecological importance within the Site, until:
3.1.1. up to date and comprehensive ecological surveys (including surveys of protected species) as required by condition 24 of the Planning Permission have been carried out and submitted to the Council; and
3.1.2. details of measures to protect any habitats to be retained within the Site during construction works (including site clearance and enabling works) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council; and
3.1.3. the Biodiversity Assessment required by paragraph 2.1 of Schedule 5 of the Original Agreement has been undertaken and submitted to the Council and approved by the Council in writing.
3.2. The Owner covenants with the Council to comply with the measures approved pursuant to paragraph 3.1.2 of this Deed.”
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Facts
- Objections to the proposals
- The 8 December 2022 committee meeting
- Events after the meeting of 8 December 2022
- The Greenfields case at first instance
- The section 106 agreement
- The decision challenged
- Publication of the section 106 agreement
- Pre-action correspondence
- The present challenge
- The first supplementary planning obligation
- The order granting permission on the third and fourth grounds
- The second supplementary planning obligation
- The combined provisions of SPO (1) and SPO (2)
- The Greenfields case in the Court of Appeal
- The application to add a fifth ground of challenge
- The Issues, Reasoning and Conclusions
- Third ground: taking future ecological surveys into account without sight of the relevant condition; or that the ecology conditions which were imposed were ineffective
- Fourth ground: taking into account an inaccurate Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) assessment and/or issuing a decision notice without legally adequate provision to secure BNG
- Fifth ground (subject to permission to amend): failing to publish the section 106 agreement in accordance with article 40(3)(b) of the 2015 DMP Order, rendering the grant of planning permission invali
- Conclusions
![AC-2024-LDS-000251 - [2025] EWHC 2256 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)