Appeal 6000681

The appeal is allowed and the details submitted pursuant to condition No. 18 attached to planning permission Ref 21/00357/FUL granted on 21 February 2022, in accordance with the application dated 5 December 2024 and the details submitted with it, are approved.

The main issue is whether the details submitted in respect of ecology meet the requirements of Condition 18.

As part of the original application to discharge condition no. 18, the appellant provided an Ecological Management Plan (the EMP), produced by E3S Consulting in November 2022. The Council’s ecology officer provided a response and noted three areas where the EMP was considered to be deficient, related to bird boxes, foraging/commuting mammal corridors and reptiles.

As part of this appeal, the appellant has provided an updated version of the EMP (January 2025). Paragraph 6.3.1 now states that integrated bird boxes, including swift bricks, will be provided as part of the proposed development. Paragraph 5.1.2 also notes that the foraging corridor along the northern and eastern boundaries will be protected with heras fencing during construction, and that the corridor will be permanently retained and kept open and clear of equipment.

Finally, I note that the translocation of slow worms took place some time ago. Given the time that has since passed, and the fact that it appears that a reptile fence on site has been breached, further surveys may be necessary to ensure that this species is not harmed. Paragraph 4.1.3 of the revised EMP now sets out that a survey of the site will be required and that, if necessary, a staged clearance will take place or a further translocation. Furthermore, the reptile fence will be replaced or repaired. I am of the view that these actions will ensure that there would not be unacceptable harm to protected species.

On this basis, I am satisfied that the previous deficiencies have been remedied and that the comments made by the Council’s ecology officer have been satisfactorily addressed. As a result, I find that the revised EMP, dated January 2025, is sufficient and condition no. 18 can therefore be discharged.

The Council’s decision notice sets out that, in their opinion, the development has not been implemented lawfully within the statutory time limit. I acknowledge that development has commenced in breach of the ‘pre-commencement’ element of the condition. However, this does not mean that the permission should automatically be considered invalid. Given that the works undertaken on site to date are not extensive enough to prevent the identified ecological measures from being implemented, and that the scope of this appeal is limited to the consideration of the technical details submitted, I am satisfied that there is no reason for me not to allow this appeal. Moreover, allowing this appeal does not prevent subsequent consideration, through the appropriate means, of determining whether or not the planning permission has been lawfully implemented.

For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.