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

Such was the state of the papers when the matter came before Ms Ridge who as I have explained, on 12 February 2025 granted partial permission, on the third and fourth grounds only. She did not accept that SPO (1) overcame the difficulties the LPA and the developer faced, commenting at paragraph 21:

“… Condition 1 defines the enabling works for the purposes of this condition as site preparation, remediation works, provision of construction and temporary access roads, diversion and/or laying of strategic site-wide utilities, and works associated with archaeological surveys. The covenants in the supplemental planning obligation are not to begin development or otherwise commence clearance of hedgerows, trees and shrubs, or any other features of potential ecological importance within the Site until the updating ecological surveys and other measures have been completed. The covenant does not promise that the Owner will not commence the enabling works carved out in condition 1 prior to the submission of matters set out in clause 3. For these reasons ground 3 is arguable.”

In relation to the fourth ground, Ms Ridge found it arguable that the LPA had taken into account an inaccurate BNG assessment or issued a decision notice without legally adequate provision to secure BNG; adding, however, at paragraph 23:

“I am not convinced that the BNG figures were inaccurate. The officer’s statement that an updating assessment would be required was effectively an update to the baseline assessment. However, for similar reasons to those set out under ground 3, it is arguable that the BNG requirements were not properly secured by condition or otherwise and I am not convinced that the supplementary planning agreement saves the Defendant.”