| 2025-01-12 |
Mark |
Whether or not the application is exempt from the BNG obligations, it is still subject to the requirements of the NPPF which state at NPPF 193: 'When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the
following principles: ... while opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments should be integrated as part of their design, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity ...
This has recently been interpreted by Holgate J in the Vistry case:
'Where a development is required to provide a measure in order to overcome or mitigate, or compensate for, a harm caused by that project, ordinarily that measure could not rationally be described as a benefit. So, for example, where a development would result in a loss of biodiversity, the provision of additional biodiversity on the same site or on other land nearby in order to completely offset that loss, so that in overall terms there is no net reduction in biodiversity attributable to the development, is not a benefit. It is simply the development "consuming its own smoke" [paragraph 152].'
Position : Objects
|
| 2025-01-12 |
Mark |
I agree. The applicant has carefully limited the size of the site to just under the 0.5 ha limit, even though much more land that they control is available. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to avoid their BNG obligations. My measurements suggest the site is just over 0.5 ha but it is not worth arguing the point, I think.
Is it really also a self-build? The covering letter says it will provide 'an additional family home in a sustainable location.
The Site is an Important Open Space under SADMP DM17 but it will lose its protection if the proposed LP is adopted. The site will not be given LGS or ROGS protection.
Position : Objects
|
BTF Planning Awareness Centre