Appeal 6003856

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission was granted at appeal on 21 February 2025 for development described as ‘change of use of land to a private gypsy and traveller caravan site’1 (‘the original decision’). That permission was subject to a number of conditions, of which condition 7i) required approval of details as part of a Site Development and [name], within a specified timeframe. Both main parties have noted a discrepancy in the condition numbers on the original decision. For the avoidance of doubt I have similarly treated the final condition, relating to land contamination, as number 8.

On 20 May 2025, the appellant made an application to discharge conditions 7 and 8 of the planning permission. The Council subsequently discharged condition 8, and parts of condition 7. The Council’s decision sets out that some parts of condition 7i) were not approved and these are the subject of this appeal.

The decision notice sets out that the parts of condition 7i) that were not approved were: c) hard and soft landscaping for the entire red line site area, including details of how existing trees and hedges will be protected and details of proposed planting (species, plant sizes and numbers and planting densities); d) biodiversity enhancement measures to provide net gain to biodiversity relative to the site’s condition prior to the development taking place. The 1 Appeal reference APP/E3715/W/24/3344241 extent of the enhancement measures shall be informed by an assessment that has established the likely biodiversity baseline prior to the commencement of development, and; e) full on and/or off site compensation measures for the loss of the 0.2 hectares of suitable terrestrial [name] habitat that was in place prior to development commencing.

The original decision sets out the reasons for the imposition of those requirements, referring to the need to protect trees and hedges, secure the necessary compensation for the loss of potential [name] (GCN) habitat and enhancement measures to ensure a biodiversity net gain against an appropriate baseline.

The main issue is whether the submitted details are sufficient to discharge the above parts of condition 7i), having regard to the reasons they were imposed.

The original decision discussed the potential importance of hedges on the site to [name], for example by providing connectivity to a nearby pond. In paragraph 37 the decision discussed the retention and improvement of the hedgerow and paragraph 38 refers to discussion in the hearing that a scheme could be devised that would safeguard the trees and perimeter hedges. Part c) of the condition is specific in requiring those details.

A planting list has been provided, which correlates broadly to the proposed site plan, and a timetable for planting has been detailed. The proposed plans also show the retention of parts of the perimeter hedgerows, adjacent to new boundary fencing and hard surfaces. However, there are no details before me to demonstrate how existing trees and hedges would be protected, which is specifically required by the condition. The requirements of part c) of condition 7i) have not been met.

In establishing the baseline prior to the commencement of development, the appellant has used a Preliminary Ecological Assessment relating to part of the site in 2019. The Council accept that the evidence provides a likely baseline for 2019 and find it to be comparable to aerial imagery of the site in April 2018. Therefore, based on the information before me, I have no strong reason to doubt that this provides a reasonable reflection of the site’s former condition prior to development, and an appropriate baseline for the purposes of part d) of the condition. While a Defra or other biodiversity metric can be a useful way to establish the baseline, I consider the appellant’s approach to be reasonable for the purposes of the

The Council do not raise objection to the proposed biodiversity enhancements which would include native planting and landscaping to reinstate grassland, as well as log stacks, bird and bat boxes. The evidence demonstrates that these would be enhancements from the pre-development baseline. While lacking a 30 year commitment to management, it is not apparent that it is necessary here given the requirements of the condition and since it requires retention of the enhancements thereafter. Policy NE1 of the Rugby Local Plan expects biodiversity net gain. However, it does not stipulate the necessity for use of a metric or 30 years of maintenance, nor does it reiterate the requirements of the statutory net gain framework, from which I understand the development to be exempt.

For the reasons given, the appellant’s [name] 2025 (the EDS) adequately addresses part d) of condition 7i).

Part e) of the condition is specific in stating that compensation is required for the loss of the 0.2ha of suitable GCN habitat that was in place before the development was carried out. The original decision discussed this matter in depth and how the need for the condition was derived, noting the seriousness of the potential harm to GCN as a protected species and the agreement between the main parties that adequate compensation could be secured.

The EDS sets out measures for GCNs, including shelters, shrub planting, and scrub areas. However, these are set out as site enhancements and it is not apparent that they would translate to the extent of compensation required by the condition, particularly given the EDS refers instead to a loss of 0.098ha of habitat. While the appellant considers the extent of GCN habitat loss to be less than stated in the condition, it is not within the scope of this appeal to alter the wording of the condition. For this reason, based on the evidence, the requirements of part e) have not been met.

The appeal documents before me focus primarily on the dispute surrounding part d) of condition 7i), relating to biodiversity enhancements. During this appeal both main parties were invited to comment on the adequacy of the documents in satisfying parts c) and e), however no assurances have been provided which would amount to a reason to alter the above assessment.

I note the Council’s concerns that the disputed parts of condition 7 are partially linked. I agree with that approach here and, given a partial approval of details may prejudice the measures which could be used to satisfy other parts of the condition, I have not issued a split decision.

The appellant suggests that additional conditions would be accepted if necessary. However, this is not within the remit of this appeal since it follows an application for the approval of details reserved by condition, rather than an application to alter the conditions or to revisit the merits of the original decision.

I am mindful of the implications of this decision, which could have serious consequences for the appellant and their family, given the timescales and consequences for non-compliance set out in condition 7. The appellant has reiterated their personal circumstances which were acknowledged by the previous Inspector and which informed the original decision and its conditions. However, having regard to the scope of this appeal, these considerations do not alter the above assessment, which must focus on whether sufficient evidence has been provided to meet the requirements of the conditions. The steps which follow this decision, and the implications of such actions having regard to the public sector equality duty, are a matter for the parties.

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.