Appeal 6000568

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a front and side office and warehouse extension (Phase 1) and erection of front and side warehouse extension (Phase 2) at [site address] , Telford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2024/0870, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the standard Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) condition set out under paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), and the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of development has been altered by the Council, from that shown on the application form, to a simpler form of words. I have used this revised description as it more accurately describes the scheme.

The Council’s third Reason for Refusal (RfR) relates to protected species. Due to an absence of information, the Council was unable to conclude whether protected species would be harmed by the proposed development. In response, the appellant’s updated preliminary [name] and Roost Assessment [2025] demonstrates that the effected trees do not provide a suitable bat roost. Accordingly, the Council is now satisfied that protected species would not be affected and does not seek to defend RfR3. I am satisfied that the updated Appraisal is robust in this regard and therefore shall not consider this issue further.

The application site is defined by a red-lined plan. The originally submitted block plan (PL-007) and Site Location Plan (PL-001) included the wooded boundaries to the western and southern edges of the site. However, the site plan had to be amended due to ownership constraints. The revised, red-lined Block plan (PL-007 rev B) and Site Location Plan (LP-001 [name]) show a smaller red-lined area with most wooded boundaries now excluded from the site. The revised block plan and location plan align with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name] plans.

Being smaller and in representing a minor alteration to the red-lined boundary these changes are not regarded as substantive. As such, this would not result in a different application as the proposal itself, for erections to the existing building, would be unaltered. Accordingly, I am satisfied that in the acceptance of the amended plans would not result in procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal and would not deprive any party from making representations, they may have wanted to make, based on the nature of the amendment. Consequently, I have accepted the amended plans and the revised red-lined site plan.

A Unilateral Undertaking (UU), dated 21 August 2025 and in counterpart form, has been submitted in support of the appeal. This requires at Schedule 1, for the appellant to submit a BNG Plan prior to the commencement of each phase, submit and implement a Habitat and Monitoring Plan and comply with a monitoring contribution. In terms of Biodiversity credits, the obligation (at Schedule 1, part 10) requires the appellant to demonstrate that the required credits are secured from an approved [name] and Allocated against each phase. I shall return to this later.

The Council’s first and second RfR identify an absence of information with respect to the biodiversity metric and trees, preventing it from concluding on the effects of development on these issues. Accordingly, the main issues are: • Whether suitable information has been submitted to understand the effect of development on trees and if so, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with respect to trees, and • Whether the proposal provides sufficient detail to make an assessment with respect to [name] and therefore the effect of the proposed development on ecological matters.

The originally submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA), February 2025, identified that a number of trees would need to be removed to facilitate the development. The Council was initially concerned that the [name] (BNG) Assessment accounted for the loss of a greater number of trees than those that were assessed within the AIA. The appellant’s revised AIA [August 2025], provided in support of the appeal, now considers all trees that would be affected by the proposal.

The revised AIA shows that four trees are proposed to be removed, consisting of two category ‘C’ trees and two category ‘B’ trees. The category ‘C’ trees are a goat willow and an alder and are of fair and poor condition respectively. The category ‘B’ trees, (within group G15) consist of hybrid black poplar trees, are small specimens that make a limited contribution to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such the detail provided with respect to the loss of trees is now considered to be adequate.

The proposal includes 19 new trees. Although the two category ‘B’ trees have the potential to provide medium to long term visual and ecological benefits to the site, they are a small proportion of the full quantum of trees on the site’s perimeter and make only a modest individual contribution. As such, the replacement trees would, among other benefits, provide a suitable quantum of replacement trees to off-set the identified loss. Replacement tree planting can be suitable secured through the imposition of a suitable worded condition.

Consequently, the proposed development would result in a minimal removal of trees, and this loss would be adequately mitigated by the proposed replacement planting. As such, the proposal would comply with policy NE2 of the Telford & Wrekin Local Plan [Date] (LP). This seeks, among other matters, for development to only allow the felling of trees if acceptable mitigation or compensation measures are secured.

[name] policy SP1, also referred to in the Council’s RfR, is a permissive policy that makes no reference to trees. This therefore weights neither for nor against the proposal.

The requirement for BNG is sought under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the TCPA 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). Under the statutory framework for BNG, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met. As such, unless specifically exempt, the development would be subject to the mandatory Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) condition, which requires the delivery of at least 10% BNG. This can be achieved through onsite biodiversity gains, registered offsite biodiversity gains or statutory biodiversity credits.

Despite this, the Council refused planning permission on the basis that the submitted BNG metric was based on a flawed baseline, with a boundary that did not conform with the submitted red-lined site plan or proposed block plan (PL-007). This resulted in some areas being included in the BNG assessment that should be excluded to align with the location plan. Other inaccuracies related to the omission of two trees, an area to the west side of the site that had been giving a higher unit value than expected, and the disused roadway that should have had a higher value due to encroachment by early successional plants. Nonetheless, the revised BNG Assessment now aligns with the revised location plan and block plan, creating a baseline that I find to be consistent.

The revised BNG Assessment and Metric demonstrates that the proposal would provide a loss of 4.57 habitat units and create a BNG score of -41.86%. This compares to the originally proposed red-lined site, which while creating only a BNG score of -14.8%, resulted in a substantially greater habitat deficit of 8.35 units. This shows that the revised red-line attempts to minimise biodiversity impacts.

The proposed post development habitat retention and enhancement measures, with the provision of medium distinctiveness habitats, include 2.75 units of mixed scrub and 0.27 of scattered trees. These measures weight in favour of the proposal as on-site gains. These could be suitably secured through a condition for a [name] and Monitoring Plan and the provisions of the submitted UU, securing a 30-year monitoring programme. The purchase of off-site credits, in combination with on-site enhancement, would be necessary to achieve the required 10% BNG.

I recognise that the Council would prefer off-site credits to be in the form of low distinctiveness habitats, for the habitat bank to be registered and ideally be located within the same or adjacent Council’s jurisdiction. These matters can be finessed when the appellant submits its BGP to the Council in due course and such delivery of BNG could be adequately secured through the signed UU and a [name] and Management Plan.

The Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) is clear that planning permission cannot be withheld on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective may not be met. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the development could achieve the required 10% BNG and that the BGP condition, required by paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A of the TCPA 1990, is capable of being successfully discharged through a combination of on-site and off-site units.

As a result, I am satisfied that the proposal would be capable of meeting its BNG requirements. Consequently, the proposal would accord with LP policy NE1 and the Environment Act 2021. This seeks, among other matters, to accept development where any necessary impacts on biodiversity or geodiversity assets can be avoided, mitigated or compensated and where appropriate habitat creation, restoration or enhancement on site, or elsewhere, can be secured via planning conditions and/or obligations.

I have considered the use of conditions in line with the guidance set out in the PPG. I shall take the Council’s suggested conditions into consideration and imposed these with some amendments and adjustments for clarity.

I have imposed the standard conditions with respect to timeframe and approved plans as advised by the PPG for clarity and certainty [conditions 1 and 2]. Conditions are required, with respect to details of a Construction Environmental Management Plan, a phasing plan, a tracking exercise, to provide the proposed car parking and to provide new parking and manoeuvring details (in the event if a new occupier), in the interests of avoiding congestion around local roads and in the interests of highway safety [3, 4, 5, 11 and 12].

Conditions 6, 8 and 10 are required for [name] and Management Plan, soft landscaping and the installation of wildlife features to enhance on-site biodiversity. A condition for details of proposed materials is also required in the interests of the character and appearance of the area [7]. Furthermore, conditions are required to seek details of any external lighting and to comply with the recommendations of the ecological assessment to protect existing on-site biodiversity [9 and 14]. Also, conditions are required to ensure the access drive is installed as proposed and that the submitted drainage strategy is implemented to ensure the site would be suitably drained [13 and 15].

For the above reasons given above the appeal is allowed, subject to conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s PL-001 [name], PL-007 [name], PL-003 Site Constraints, PL-008 [name], PL-009 [name] elevations, PL-010 [name] and [name] [November 2024], BNG Assessment [July 2025], Arboricultural Impact Assessment [April 2025], and the Preliminary Ecological Assessment and [name] [March 2025].

Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan should include the following: • Parking of vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors, • Loading/unloading and storage of plant and materials • Prevention of mud being deposited on highway, • Measure to mitigate against the impact of flash flooding to surrounding properties, • Measures and proposed routes for control of construction traffic within the site and on the surrounding highway network, • Hours of operation of construction works and others works on the site, • Measures for the monitoring and enforcement of the plans (including contact details for Site/[name]), • Details for the erection and maintenance of any security hoarding, and • A Demolition Method Statement for any demolition proposed as part of the approved development. The CEMP shall be in written form, with key features outlined above also being identified on an appended site plan. The agreed CEMP shall be complied with at all times during construction work.

Prior to the commencement of development, a phasing plan (which confirms the proposed phasing of development) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of the points of vehicular access for both HGV’s and other vehicles, internal roads and footways required to serve each agreed phase and the timing of the removal of the fencing across the eastern part of the yard. Construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing plan.

Prior to the commencement of development, a tracking exercise shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, for each phase of the development indicated in an agreed Phasing Plan. The development shall indicate that the relevant parts of the site can be safely accessed by HGV’s without causing conflict with other site users. The development shall be carried out and operated in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the commencement of development, (including demolition or site clearance) a 30- year [name] and Management Plan (HMMP), prepared in accordance with an approved Biodiversity Gain Plan, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved HMMP shall be strictly adhered to and implemented in full for its duration and shall contain the following: a) Description and evaluation of the features to be managed; b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that may influence management; c) Aims, objectives and targets for management - links with local and national species and habitat action plans; d) Description of the management operations necessary to achieving aims and objectives; e) Prescriptions for management actions; f) Preparation of a works schedule, including annual works schedule; g) Details of the monitoring needed to measure the effectiveness of management; h) Details of the timetable for each element of the monitoring programme; i) Details of the persons responsible for the implementation and monitoring; j) mechanisms of adaptive management to account for necessary changes in work schedule to achieve the required targets; and k) Reporting on year 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30, with biodiversity reconciliation calculations at each stage.

No development above ground floor slab level shall take place until details of the types and colours of all external materials, including hard surfacing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development above ground floor slab level shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape proposals have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include: • Means of enclosure, • Planting plans, • Written specifications including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment, • Schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate. The planting scheme shall include a mix of native species of local provenance, berry-producing shrubs and/or nectar-rich flowers, and • Implementation timetables. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that within a period of 5 years after planting, are removed, die or become in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced with others of a similar species, size and number by the end of the first available planting season.

Prior to the erection of any external lighting on the site lighting information shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting information must show a plan displaying the location of proposed external lighting as well as the specification and design of the fixtures to be erected. The submitted scheme shall be designed to take into account the advice on lighting set out in Bat Conservation Trust - Guidance Note GN08/23 Bats and [name] (Institution of [name], 2023). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to first occupation/use of the development hereby approved a suite of artificial wildlife features shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The artificial wildlife features shall include: A total of 3 woodcrete bat boxes or integral roosting features suitable for nursery or summer roosting for small crevice dwelling bat species; and a total of 2 woodcrete artificial nesting boxes or integral nesting features suitable for bird species such as robin, blackbird and tit species. The features shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation/use of the development hereby approved and thereafter maintained for the lifetime of the development.

In the event that the applicant’s own operation of the site should cease, any future operators intending to operate under the current planning permission shall be required to submit their own Parking, Delivery and Service Management Plan, which shall have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to commencement of their own operations. The operations taking place at the site shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with the contents of the approved plan.

The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the car parking shown on the approved plans has been provided, properly laid out, hard surfaced, permanently marked up and drained, and the space shall be maintained thereafter free of any impediment to its designated use.

Before the proposed development is brought into use, the access drive shall be built with surface water drainage inceptors which shall be sited across the access immediately to the rear of the highway boundary.

Development shall occur in accordance with details set out in the [name] and Roost Assessment, dated 14/03/2025 by Arbtech. Works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details, and where appropriate, involving a licensed, suitably qualified and experienced ecologist.

The hereby approved drainage scheme shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details shown on the submitted drainage information (SHE-0099-4100-0800-4100), [name] (93826-[name]), [name] for Planning (J01800) and the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. The drainage infrastructure shall be provided in full, prior to the first occupation of the hereby approved proposal and shall be retained and maintained in perpetuity. End of Conditions