Loss of ancient woodland 'clearly outweighed' by benefits of 500 homes in area of housing need

Developer Croudace Strategic applied in October 2013 for outline permission to redevelop a 31 hectare site near the built up edge of Maidstone, including fields, several belts of trees and part of an orchard.   

A parameters plan submitted with the allocation included areas of housing, open space, and community facilities and proposed the retention and future maintenance of most of an area designated as ancient woodland. The applicant's most developed option for access routes through the site included the loss of 1.8% of the ancient woodland to allow for a road and a route for pedestrians and cyclists.

The application was refused by Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) and Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and the developer's appeal was recovered by the communities secretary due to the size of the site and the number of homes proposed.

Planning inspector Paul Clark recommended that the appeal be upheld and outline permission be granted for the scheme. A letter (95-page / 1.0 MB PDF) on behalf of the communities secretary said Greg Clark agreed.

The letter noted that MBC was unable to demonstrate a five year supply of land available for housing development and that retained housing policies from its 2000 local plan, which had in fact allocated parts of the site for development of up to 380 homes, should be considered out of date.

The planning inspector had given in depth consideration to the effects of the proposals on the ecology of the area, noting that paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss of ancient woodland unless "the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss".

The inspector had suggested that "more note is taken of the distribution of ecological interest … than of the nominal boundary of the designated ancient woodland". He had concluded that "the absolute loss to ecology from [the most detailed access option] would be even less than" the 1.8% loss in designated area. Taking into account proposed mitigation measures; the proposed future management of the ancient woodland; provision of facilities to encourage fauna and new woodland ten times the area lost; and provision of a community orchard, parkland and grassland under the plans, the inspector was satisfied that the ecological harm caused under this option would be adequately mitigated and compensated.

The inspector had also noted that the most detailed access option presented by the developer was one only one of several illustrative options that had been considered. "It may well be found that when some of the other road link options are evaluated during the submission of detailed proposals, that the balance could be even more favourable to the proposal", the inspector had said.

The communities secretary agreed with the inspector's reasoning on the ecological balance under the plans and that the "significant" social and economic benefits of allowing the development "clearly outweigh the loss". Whilst the removal of any trees technically contravened a retained local plan policy, the communities secretary was satisfied that the harm to the landscape of the neighbourhood would be acceptable and that there would be "a positive overall environmental balance".

"Overall, the significant benefits of the proposal would not be outweighed at all, let alone significantly or demonstrably, by the limited adverse impacts," concluded the letter. "It follows that the scheme should benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development."

Planning expert Sophie Walter of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said: "This is a positive decision for developers, whereby paragraph 118(5) of the NPPF was engaged and the benefits were considered to outweigh the harm. The extent of the ‘significant’ benefits and the fact that loss of 1.8% of ancient woodland was considered to have a ‘limited adverse impact’ on ecology will not go unnoticed. The decision acts as yet another reminder to local planning authorities of the importance of having a deliverable five-year supply of housing."