Appeal 6007127

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref DM2025/00953 for “erection of a detached two storey dwelling including car parking spaces, electrical vehicle charging points, refuse and cycle stores to the front, new boundary treatments including side access gates and associated hard and soft landscaping” at [site address] , Banstead, Sutton [postcode] granted on 20 October 2025 by the Council of the London Borough of Sutton, is varied by deleting condition 7.

I recently allowed an appeal at this site (reference 6003280, decision dated 5 May

for the deletion of conditions 11 and 16 of planning permission reference DM2025/00953, which is also the subject of this appeal. I carried out a site visit on 14 April 2026 in connection with appeal reference 6003280. Given the nature of the appeal before me and the short period of time since my site visit, on this occasion it is not necessary for me to carry out a further site visit. The main parties have not objected to this approach.

The appeal is accompanied by a signed and dated [name] (UU) which secures the proposed dwelling as self/custom build for [name] (BNG) exemption purposes. I have taken it into account in my decision.

The main issue is whether condition 7 is reasonable and necessary, having particular regard to biodiversity and the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

Schedule 7A of the Act introduced a statutory framework for BNG, and it applies to all planning applications for non-major development submitted on or after 2 April 2024. Under the statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the [name] (BGC), which requires that at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met.

There are three tests that must be met to qualify for an exemption to the BNG requirements. These are that the development must consist of no more than 9 dwellings, be on a site no larger than 0.5ha, and consist exclusively of dwellings that fall within the definition set out in section 1(A1) of the Self-build and [address] Building Act 2015.

The proposal was advanced on the basis that it would be a self-build dwelling and would meet the three tests listed above. The UU secures the dwelling as self-build. I am satisfied that the UU is necessary to secure the BNG exemption, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Condition 7 appears to have been added to the planning permission to secure the mandatory 10% BNG in the event that the self-build exemption ceases to apply. As the application was made on the basis that the dwelling would be self-build, which has been secured by UU, Condition 7 is not necessary with regards to BNG.

The reason for the condition also refers to Sutton Local Plan 2016-2031 (Local Plan) Policy 30. Policy 30 relates to heritage and is not relevant to the condition. I have been provided with a copy of Local Plan Policy 26, which supports developments that create, conserve or enhance biodiversity. Even if this had been referred to in the reason for the condition, there is no absolute requirement in the policy for biodiversity improvements and does not indicate that the condition would be necessary.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting Condition 7.