Developers routinely ignore nature commitments – study shows

Developers often promise environmentally-friendly features to gain planning approval, but a recent study shows these commitments are routinely ignored once permission is granted. The lack of enforcement by under-resourced planning authorities allows this pattern to continue unchecked.

House-builders exposed for cheating on nature commitments https://t.co/fd7ej8IW1w #bats #biodiversitynetgain #birds #hedgehogs pic.twitter.com/X7N6ZzpUXQ

— Construction Index (@TCIndex) May 12, 2025

A study led by the University of Sheffield’s School of Planning and commissioned by the wildlife charity Wild Justice, examined 42 developments granted planning permission after 2012. The research spanned nearly 6,000 homes and more than 291 hectares of land across five local planning authorities. 

The team searched for 4,654 trees and 868 bird and bat boxes. They surveyed many hectares of what were promised to be wildflower grasslands, ponds, and hedgerows. They found that only 53% of the ecological features that had been a condition of planning permission were present. When they excluded newly planted trees, this fell to just 34%. 

Key findings include:  

* 39% of trees identified in planting plans were either missing or dead 

* 48% of native hedges that should have been planted were missing 

* 75% of bird and bat boxes were not installed 

* 83% of hedgehog highways were absent 

* None of the promised invertebrate boxes were installed. 

The study highlights a lack of monitoring and enforcement due to under-resourced enforcement teams, unable or lacking the skills to monitor the ecology of new developments. 

A summary of the research findings has been published by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) to expose the failings. RTPI’s own research has shown that 80% of planning enforcement officers believe there are insufficient staff to manage the workload, and 41% of local authorities lack the ecological expertise necessary to implement biodiversity net gain policy (BNG) effectively…

A new research summary published by RTPI shows that half of required nature enhancement features are missing in new builds due to enforcement gaps.

🌳 39% of trees identified in planting plans were either missing or dead

Learn more: https://t.co/59Tlt9axph pic.twitter.com/MVlB4aSS57

— Royal Town Planning Institute (@RTPIPlanners) May 9, 2025

What does the South West Aggregates Working Party talk about?

According to the South West Aggregates Working Party Annual Report 2022, published in December 2023, an Aggregate Working Party is: 

A technical advisory group of mineral planning authorities and other relevant organisations who work together to produce data on aggregate demand and supply in their area and to provide advice to mineral planning authorities and to the National Aggregate Co-ordination Group.

Cornwall Council provides the current Chair of the SWAWP. Minutes of meetings and annual reports can be found here. 

David Jarvis Associates, re-awarded the contract to provide ‘Technical Secretariat’ services to the South West Aggregates Working Party, says: 

There are a total of 9 AWPs in England covering London; the South East; the South West; the East of England; the West Midlands; the East Midlands; the North West; Yorkshire and Humber; and the North East.

 What sort of things does the South West Aggregates Working Party discuss? 

While it seems there’s little discussion on individual sites, Straitgate Farm did however merit a mention at the January 2023 meeting: 

10. Straitgate appeal decision – update by EH 

EH gave a brief update on the Straitgate appeal decisions, both of which had been allowed. This followed a refusal, against officer recommendation, of an application for the extraction of 1.5mt of sand and gravel at Straitgate. 7 reasons for refusal were cited and all were defended by DCC at inquiry. However, the inspector found that the application was in accordance with mineral planning policy and there were no unacceptable adverse impacts. The decision notice has 53 conditions. DCC estimates that the Straitgate operations will contribute approximately 2 years’ worth of sand and gravel supply to Devon’s landbank. JW& will circulate a copy of the appeal decision for those interested. 

Events surrounding Straitgate Farm and other sites in the South West seemingly caused a flap at the Minerals Products Association, who – concerned about too much "support for localism" by planning committees – made this comment at the June 2024 meeting: 

The MPA has noticed that over the last 12 to 18 months, a number of sites have been issued with decisions by planning committees which are counter to officer recommendations. Similarly, a number of allocated sites have been refused permission. Those refusals that go to appeal tend to get costs awarded against them. These approaches reflect a worrying trend and cast doubt on the value of the local plan process by demonstrating support for localism at the expense of a regional overview. 

However, Devon County Council did not have costs awarded against it at the Straitgate appeal – despite Straitgate being allocated as a Preferred Area in the Devon Minerals Plan, and despite the Council’s refusal being against officer recommendation. Gloucester County Council on the other hand did have costs awarded against it, as we posted here. SWAWP minutes from February 2024 state: 

The Bow Farm Appeal in Gloucestershire had been allowed; as a result of this, it seems likely going forwards that for climate change to carry weight in the determination of a planning application, it will need to be included in a development plan policy. Any such policy is likely to include a requirement for provision of a carbon assessment.

Issues surrounding the Straitgate planning application were the cause of another discussion topic at the SWAWP, after a Freedom of Information request was made to Devon County Council in January 2022, in relation to spurious landbank figures, as we posted about here and here. The FOI request, which was eventually only granted in part after a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, was: 

Please provide copies of all correspondence between Devon County Council and aggregate companies between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021 concerning the Devon sand and gravel landbank, and concerning Devon reserves of sand and gravel...

The request eventually produced this response in August 2022, which was in turn disclosed to the Straitgate Public Inquiry. SWAWP discussed the issue in November 2022: 

9. FOI Update EH gave a short presentation on a FOI matter which had affected DCC earlier this year. A summary will be circulated separately from the minutes. However, the matter generated concerns amongst members who thought that there could be significant ramifications from it as operators need to be confident that data which they supply to authorities can remain confidential. PH referred to the standard statistical rule that data should be combined with a minimum of three operators. However, he noted that the BAA encourages its SME members to be as open as possible and he queried whether major problems would result from publication of operator data. SD suggested that the BAA and MPA might wish to make clear that data supplied to authorities is unlikely to remain confidential. PA commented that he was more concerned about the potential for financial viability assessments (fva) to be made public as a result of FOI requests as it was essential that these viability assessments should be protected by confidentiality rules. This had actually happened in one case following an FOI in connection with an LAA which led to forced disclosure of an fva despite assurances from the mineral planning authority that the fva would remain confidential. KP added that GCC usually managed to resist FOI requests, often by pointing towards data that is already in the public domain. However, this is something which industry may want to consider further. CD acknowledged industry concerns on this matter but pointed out that survey returns are critical to the functioning of MASS, especially at the moment in the absence of AMRI. She hoped, therefore, that operators would continue to submit returns as required. CD also noted that a similar situation to that experienced in Devon had last occurred in Staffordshire in 2012, hopefully indicating that it is a rare occurrence. MR and SD agreed that this was something that industry should be aware of and consider addressing at corporate level. 

SWAWP also discussed the UK Supreme Court’s decision to rule in favour of Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group in their fight against oil drilling plans in Surrey. Greenpeace described the decision as "game-changing": 

This decision should mean that any new fossil fuel projects in the UK must consider all emissions, including those from burning the fuel, not just from getting it out of the ground. This could change how future oil and gas projects are approved across the UK.

Draft minutes from the October 2024 meeting state: 

In terms of the Finch case, DP advised that the MPA’s stance is that this should not have the same application to minerals as they are distinguishable from fossil fuels on the basis that they will not automatically generate a release of CO2 when they are used. Nonetheless, he acknowledged that some authorities are taking a very cautious approach and requiring consideration of downstream effects. DP suggested that the best approach is to acknowledge the Finch case in EIAs but not to overplay it as it does not necessarily apply to every development. A climate change assessment would usually be included in most applications anyway. Government guidance on the Finch case is expected in the new year. EIW had recently attended a useful webinar on Finch, link available here. CH had had some initial discussions with Devon CC regarding Finch and the Council acknowledged it may not be possible to assess scope 3 emissions when aggregate was being produced for multiple sources. The suggested approach was to explain that the Finch case had been acknowledged and considered. 

Planning staff retention was another issue raised at the SWAWP. Minutes from November 2022 state: 

EI-W explained that it would be useful for attendees of other groups, such as the Planning Officers Society (POS), to share updates with the AWP. EI-W is part of a POS working group looking at the issue of recruitment and retention of staff within the public sector minerals planning arena. The working group is gathering evidence and is looking at potential solutions to this issue. This concern was echoed by other members; indeed, it had been raised as a matter for discussion at a recent BAA meeting. PH referred to a course on mineral planning for mineral planners run by IQ. Details of this course will be circulated to members. AG commented that whilst recruitment was a big issue, SCC had benefitted from running its own graduate scheme and had recruited Ellie Maxwell this way. EH added that at DCC, 5 members of staff were at different stages of an apprenticeship which seemed to be working well. 

With regard to land won sand and gravel in the South West, the SWAWP 2022 Annual Report states: 

In 2022, sales of land won sand and gravel in the region totalled 2.75mt, a slight decrease on 2021’s sales figure of 2.92mt and dropping below both the 10 year sales’ average of 3.03mt and the 3 year sales’ average (2.80mt). Dorset continued to be the main production area with a sales figure of 1.21mt, accounting for just over 44% of the region’s sales. Sales in both Devon and Wiltshire were down compared with 2021 with Wiltshire experiencing quite a significant drop down from 0.69mt in 2021 to 0.46mt in 2022. Gloucestershire’s sales figure rose to 0.56mt from a low of 0.45mt in 2021 (which represented the second lowest level of sales in the past 10 years and less than half the decade’s highest level of sales which was achieved in 2019 (0.91mt)). 

Permitted reserves in the South West at the end of 2022 were 18.79mt representing quite a drop from the 2021 figure of 21.18mt and amounting to another all-time low across the region. When based on the average of 10 years’ sales, this reserves’ figure generates a landbank of just 6.2 years which is less than the NPPF’s minimum requirement of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and, as was the case last year when the landbank was 6.9 years, continues to be a cause for concern. Once again, of the sand and gravel producing authorities within the region, Dorset maintained the highest level of reserves at 10.4mt (though down from 2021’s 11.2mt) whilst Wiltshire holds the lowest with just 1.43mt representing a landbank of just 2.7 years based on the 10 year sales’ average. 

As far as things stand currently, in October 2024, the MPA provided a forecast to the SWAWP for the aggregates market in the South West: 

NEW! MPA MINERAL PRODUCTS MARKETS FORECAST - 2024-26, GB Sales volumes of mineral products in Great Britain have fallen more sharply than expected in the first half of 2024, leading to significant forecast downgrades for the year. With no recovery over the summer, ready-mixed concrete is now expected to decline by 12% compared to 2023, sand and gravel by 8%, and mortar by 13%. These adjustments reflect a postponement of the expected market recovery, now shifted from late 2024 to 2025. Smaller revisions have been made for crushed rock and asphalt, which are projected to drop by 3% this year. A return to growth across all mineral product markets is expected to begin in 2025, but from a lower base than originally predicted. This is likely to be driven by a gradual rebound in the housing market, and demand from major infrastructure projects which is expected to continue supporting the market in 2025 and 2026. DP added that sand and gravel sales endured a steep 13.8% decline in 2024H1 compared to the same period in 2023, while sales of crushed rock dropped by 2.3%. The MPA had also recently produced its annual survey report and this revealed that replenishment rates were less than 50% which was a particular issue for sand and gravel. Multiple reasons had been suggested for this – it wasn’t solely the fault of the planning system as most applications were ultimately granted – including a lack of applications being submitted. 

Of course, the MPA has been shouting about replenishment rates of sand and gravel since at least 2010, as we posted here.

Lower Hare Farm, Whitestone: Judicial Review – Pre-commencement Conditions

Before any soil can be removed at Straitgate Farm by Aggregate Industries in relation to its permission to quarry the site, a number of pre-commencement conditions must first be discharged by the company and approved by Devon County Council.

Anyone interested in that process might want to note Item 7 of Devon County Council's Development Management Committee agenda for Wednesday, 23rd October, 2024, concerning a short report produced by the Council relating to the approval of two controversial planning applications (DCC/4101/2018, DCC/4293/2022) for a waste disposal site at Lower Hare Farm, Whitestone, EX4 2HW, and the judicial reviews that followed, filed by Whitestone Parish Council in connection with the discharge of pre-commencement conditions. 

In the Whitestone Parish Council minutes, (more details here, here, and here), it was claimed: 

The DCC seem to have entered wholeheartedly into the spirit of the NPPF and determined that “7 phases” has the same meaning as “3 phases”, that working from West to East is exactly the same as working from North to South, that “inert soils” are exactly the same as “engineering fill” also known as quarrying, mining, demolition and construction waste, that a gradient of “1 in 5” is exactly the same as a gradient of “1 in 10”, etc, etc. 

The Parish Council submitted a judicial review claiming the decision to discharge certain pre-commencement conditions was unlawful on a number of grounds, including: 

the decision to grant approval to carry out further development not authorised in the original permission by way of discharge of condition was ultra vires; 

and:

the Council erred in law by asking whether submitted details were ‘acceptable’ rather than considering whether the submitted details met the requirements of the conditions;

Devon County Council conceded on both of those grounds, and says in the report: 

4.4 In the light of this claim for judicial review, the following steps have been implemented within the Council’s Planning team: 

 • training has been provided to the County Council’s planning officers on procedural requirements for the discharging of planning conditions; and 

 • the relevant officer’s report template has been amended to require clearer consideration of the requirements of the EIA Regulations and the need to consider whether the submitted details meet the requirements of the condition.

The full report can be found below:

 

EDIT 29.1.25 Permit 'likely' for new countryside landfill site

What Straitgate and 5 other mineral appeal decisions tell us – says AI’s KC

Richard Kimblin KC, of No5 Barristers’ Chambers, represented Aggregate Industries at the 8-day public inquiry in October 2022, instigated by the company following Devon County Council’s decision to refuse the company's application to quarry Straitgate Farm. 

It had been a busy 12 months for Mr Kimblin. 

In November 2021, he attended a 9-day planning inquiry representing Brett Aggregates in its attempt to overturn the decision of Hertfordshire County Council to refuse an 8 million tonne extension at the former Hatfield Aerodrome located between St Albans and Hatfield. 

In June 2022, he attended a 7-day planning inquiry representing Hanson in its attempt to overturn the decision of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council to refuse a 10 million tonne extension at Craig yr Hesg Quarry in Pontypridd. 

In August 2022, he attended a 7-day planning inquiry representing Aggregate Industries in its attempt to overturn the decision of Dorset Council to refuse a 930,000 tonne extension at Chard Junction Quarry in the Dorset AONB. 

Trying to overturn local mineral decisions is seemingly Mr Kimblin's thing.

Two appeals went Mr Kimblin's way – Craig yr Hesg and Straitgate – and two didn't – Hatfield and Chard Junction. It was a 50% success rate for Aggregate Industries too, winning Straitgate but losing the ability to continue quarrying at Chard. 

Last year, Mr Kimblin gave a presentation about the four appeals, plus two others at Ware Park (Bengeo Field) and Lea Castle*, at the Minerals Planning Conference, an event where members of the Mineral Products Association – the trade association representing Aggregate Industries et al. – get the chance to rub shoulders with council planners and others. 

More than 300 delegates, in person and on-line, attended the 2023 MPA/RTPI conference ‘Minerals Planning at a Crossroads’ on 15 June in London to hear from a range of expert speakers about the challenges facing minerals planning and how these may be met. 

The programme tells us the aim of Mr Kimblin's talk:

Richard Kimblin KC returns to the Minerals Planning Conference this year to provide the legal update. Richard will offer insight on legal issues arising from recent minerals planning appeals, issues which developers and decision-makers can help each other to avoid and a way to avoid lawyers.

Clearly, those poor multinational mineral companies need as much help as possible. 

 

  

The Straitgate Farm decision was picked out by Mr Kimblin specifically in relation to Climate Change • Growing concern for Committees and public, and the used-chip-fat solution advanced by Aggregate Industries in an attempt to mitigate its 2.5 million mile haulage plan. He quoted the Planning Inspectors who had said: 

"...we are satisfied that a condition requiring the use of hydrotreated vegetable oil as fuel would meet the tests in the Framework. On this basis the proposal would accord with Policy M20 of the DMP which requires development to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, climate change resilience and mitigation, including through minimising the atmospheric release of greenhouse gases" Straitgate at §138 

Mr Kimblin also alluded to a pattern. We've made it easier to spot: 

You'd be forgiven for thinking that it didn't matter who turned up at mineral appeal inquiries, how many days they sat, who represented whom, what reports were written, which experts were called or not called, or what was seen on site visits. For these six decisions at least, landscape designation trumped everything – a warning to action groups and mineral companies alike.

* The Lea Castle decision has since been quashed in the High Court and will be re-determined by the Planning Inspectorate, as posted here.

EDIT 3.3.25 

Lea Castle Farm Quarry plan 'has finally failed,' campaigners say 

Inspector's Report

Judge quashes inspector’s green belt quarry refusal over biodiversity net gain ‘error’

Last year, campaigners at Stop Lea Castle Farm Quarry action group suffered a setback in their efforts to stop a controversial quarry plan. 

In 2022, Worcestershire County Council had refused permission for NRS Aggregates to quarry 3 million tonnes of sand and gravel over a period of about 10 years at Lea Castle Farm, near Kidderminster. In 2023, the company appealed the decision. Following an 8-day public inquiry, the inspector rejected the company's appeal concluding the scheme would "not preserve the openness of the green belt". The company applied for a judicial review of the inspector's decision NRS Saredon Aggregates Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor [2023] EWHC 2795 (Admin). In November, the judge found in favour of the minerals company, saying that the inspector had "erred in law" by referring to future legislation on biodiversity net gain. The inspector's decision was quashed. 

You have to feel for the campaigners, who will now face another Public Inquiry. In February, the Planning Inspectorate wrote: 

Following a High Court challenge to our Inspector’s decision on this appeal dated 5th May 2023, the Court has ordered that the appeal be re-determined. This does not necessarily mean that the Inspector will reach a different overall decision.

Fighting mineral applications is not for the faint-hearted.

Judge quashes inspector’s green belt quarry refusal over biodiversity net gain 'error'https://t.co/N6pbOmHAVD pic.twitter.com/nzKawLcbtK

— Planning Magazine (@PlanningMag) November 20, 2023

EDIT 3.3.25 

Lea Castle Farm Quarry plan 'has finally failed,' campaigners say 

Inspector's Report

Gloucestershire CC ordered to pay £180k after losing quarry appeal

The costs to Councils – and taxpayers – of defending themselves against mineral companies appealing against local democratic decisions became apparent this week. 

In 2023, Gloucestershire County Council refused an application 23/0001/REFUSE by Moreton C Cullimore to extract 1.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel at Bow Farm near Tewkesbury, contrary to planning officer advice. According to Gloucestershirelive: 

...the proposals which also included a concrete batching plant, the creation of clean water ponds, silt ponds and stock piles at the 160-acre site were met with strong opposition from hundreds of residents. A total of 257 people objected, raising concerns over noise, the health and environmental impact of dust generated at the site and the impact it would have on nearby businesses such as Hilton Puckrup Hall Hotel. Some 72 people wrote in support. 

The company appealed. A one-day hearing took place in December. The main issues were: 

• the effect of the proposal on the local economy with regard to dust and noise; and 

• whether the proposal is contrary to the Council’s declared climate emergency and the national planning policy objectives for transitioning to a low carbon future.

In January this year, the inspector allowed the appeal and also ruled that the Council must pay the company's costs. The inspector explained:

The PPG makes it clear that a local planning authority is at risk of an award of costs if it fails to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal and/or makes vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact which are unsupported by any objective analysis. Other examples of unreasonable behaviour include preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted having regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material considerations, and refusing planning permission on a planning ground capable of being dealt with by conditions, where it is concluded that suitable conditions would enable the proposed development to go ahead.

And concluded: 

In the planning judgement, it appears to me that having regard to the provisions of the development plan, national planning policy and other relevant considerations, the proposed development should not have reasonably been refused. The refusal of permission therefore constitutes unreasonable behaviour contrary to the guidance in the PPG and the applicant has been faced with the unnecessary expense of addressing these matters.

This week, at a Planning Committee meeting, it was announced that the Council is to pay £180,349 to cover Cullimore's appeal costs. Punchline-Gloucester reported:

Council officers revealed yesterday there was no budget for a loss of this kind and the payment would result in an overspend in the budget.

But councillors on the planning committee said they had "no regrets" and would make the same decision again to try and protect residents and the planet...

Cllr Bernard Fisher (LD, St Paul's and Swindon) said: "It was a majority decision of the committee and that is our prerogative. "If you want to do away with democracy you can have a rubber stamp to go along with all officers recommendations. Like us, they are human and they get it wrong. "People who can afford the most expensive lawyers often win. But not pursuing a case because you can't afford to pay the costs is not the way we should operate. "The people of that area will have to live with this decision. I have no regrets." 

Cllr Susan Williams (C, Bisley and Painswick) said: "I totally agree. I voted against it because I felt it was morally right for me to make that decision. "Without us standing up there won't be change in the future. It needs to start at county level. I stand by my decision."

The £180k the Council must pay is obviously in addition to its own costs for defending the appeal.

  

For comparison, the appeal mounted by Aggregate Industries in 2022 against Devon County Council's decision to refuse planning permission for a quarry at Straitgate Farm resulted in an 8-day public inquiry. The Council defended each of the seven reasons given for refusing permission. At the inquiry, the main issues were: 

i) the effect of the development on water supplies and human health; 

ii) its effect on drainage and flood risk; 

iii) its effect on heritage assets; 

iv) its effect on trees and hedgerows; 

v) its effect on highway safety; and 

vi) its effect on biodiversity. 

vii) The sustainability of transporting sand and gravel by road from Straitgate Farm to Hillhead Quarry. 

No application for costs was made by Aggregate Industries. No costs were awarded by the Inspectors. 

The Council's reasons for refusing the company permission to quarry Straitgate Farm were – despite going against planning officer advice – wholly reasonable.

EDIT 12.4.24 "A hard-fought victory for the quarry everyman"

Judge quashes Cornwall planning condition sign off

Aggregate Industries’ permission to quarry Straitgate Farm is subject to a plethora of conditions, a number of which will need to be discharged before any soils can be stripped. 

How should councils grapple with the discharge of planning conditions? 

A judgement, handed down last month by the High Court (Barbara Laing, R (on the application of) v The Cornwall Council [2024] EWHC 120 (Admin)), in relation to the replacement of a length of Cornish hedgerow, gives an insight into the interpretation and discharge of planning conditions. 

Judge Jarman KC summarised the legal principles involved, writing: 

There are no special rules for the interpretation of planning conditions. The test is what a reasonable reader would understand the words to mean in the context of the other conditions and of the consent as a whole. This is an objective exercise in which the court will have regard to the natural and ordinary meaning of the relevant words, the overall purpose of the consent, any other conditions which cast light on the purpose of the relevant words, and common sense: DB Symmetry Ltd v Swindon Borough Council [2022] UKSC 33 at [66]. 

In the particular case he was presiding over, linked to a permission for a nine-home development, the judge quashed Cornwall Council’s decision to discharge a planning condition linked to an ecological plan. That plan had stipulated that double the length of hedgerow to be lost must be constructed elsewhere on-site. The developer applied to discharge the condition, submitting that 23m of lost hedgerow would be replaced by 25m of new. A principal planning officer for the Council considered this acceptable, reporting: 

The condition can therefore be discharged as the [ecological plan] is deemed to be acceptable and in accordance with the general requirements set out in the originally submitted [ecological appraisal]. 

The claimant, who lives next door to the site, challenged the Council’s decision. The Judge ruled: 

The authority interpreted condition 6 too narrowly, and consequently did not grapple with the noncompliance of the ecological plan in two important respects, namely the length of new hedge and direct connectivity with retained hedge... The decision on the application must be quashed and resubmitted to the authority for redetermination.

Judge quashes planning condition sign off over council’s failure to meet environmental appraisal requirements #planning #environment #development https://t.co/PVtbOZjlma.

— Planning Magazine (@PlanningMag) February 5, 2024

MPA urges next Government to streamline planning

The country is in a mess, but the Mineral Products Association, the trade body representing Aggregate Industries et al., is calling on the next government to spare some time for minerals, and streamline the planning process to make it easier for operators to trash our green and pleasant land, lamenting: 

Planning is hugely onerous for quarry operators putting pressure on the availability of resources. For example, for every 100 tonnes of sand and gravel extracted for use in UK construction, permission is granted for just 62 tonnes of new reserves – an unsustainable replenishment rate. The availability and supply of domestic mineral resources must not be assumed. Streamlining the planning system for minerals will be essential in the next Parliament, especially if parties include ambitious housing targets and infrastructure commitments in their manifestos.

The problem with that old chestnut, the unsustainable replenishment rate argument, is that the situation has been the same for years, yet we don’t hear builders crying that they’ve run out of sand or gravel. 

According to BGS figures, during the 10 year period from 1995 to 2004, 27% of sales of sand and gravel in England were not replaced by new permissions.

Why has construction not collapsed between then and now? Because sales of primary or virgin sand and gravel are in decline, and have been so for years – as the figures for Devon bear out, where annual sales are less than a third of what they were in 1990.

‘Half of councils lack the capacity to monitor compliance with planning enforcement’

Half of councils do not have the capacity to monitor compliance with conditions after taking enforcement action, according to new research.#planning #planningenforcementhttps://t.co/yXsYmZsM6O pic.twitter.com/cf3Ati4o4A

— Planning Magazine (@PlanningMag) November 29, 2022

The finding comes from a Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) survey into the scale and nature of resourcing challenges faced by council enforcement teams. 

The RTPI collected responses from 133 enforcement officers representing approximately one third of local authorities in England.  

It reported that, “while 50 per cent of survey respondents answered their local authority did monitor compliance of conditions, almost all of the interviewees reported difficulties in doing this”.   

It concluded: ”[Authorities] are now largely reactive, relying on members of the public to alert them to non-compliance”.  

“Many councils experience people repeatedly carrying out serious unauthorised development, but these cases are dissimilar and warrant different responses. Lack of resourcing inhibits local authorities from taking direct action, unless there is a political will, and a central government pot of money is widely supported as a means to resolve this”. 

The RTPI survey found that funding and staffing were two of the biggest issues facing councils. The RTPI found 80 per cent of respondents reported not having enough enforcement officers to carry out their workload, 89 per cent said their councils currently experienced a backlog of enforcement cases, and 70 per cent that their authority struggled to recruit enforcement officers in the past five years. 

The results chime with data Planning collected as part of our research into the 50 biggest planning authorities, when we found a 12.2 per cent median drop in the number of enforcement notices issued in the two years to March 2022 compared to the two previous years. 

This problem came to a head in Gloucester this week with reports that the city council has 38 ongoing cases and no dedicated enforcement officers. 

The report’s author, Madeleine Bauer, said: “Long term under-resourcing combined with the accumulation of cases during the pandemic has resulted in backlogs and low staff morale.  “Moreover, the lack of resources both within enforcement teams as well as in the appeals system and the courts systems is responsible for large delays within the system. 

“The service provided to the public has significantly deteriorated”. 

Bauer added: “This undermines the planning system as a whole and negatively affects members of the public who rely on its integrity.”

Tackling climate emergency should be ‘top priority’ for planning system

That’s according to new guidance issued this week from The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA): 

The RTPI and the TCPA believe that climate change should be the top priority for planning across the UK. This is simply because the impacts of flooding, overheating and other consequences of climate change stand in the way of everything else we want to achieve in terms of the creation of vibrant communities and a sustainable and just society. We are particularly concerned that the damaging outcomes of climate change continue to have the most severe impacts on the most vulnerable and those least able to respond.

The new guidance warns: 

Climate change is the greatest challenge facing our society. Every decision we take must count towards securing our long-term survival. The science of climate change is now well understood, and we know that we must limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels if we are to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. A recent report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) made clear that drastic action to reduce carbon emissions is needed now if we are to have any hope of achieving that target. But we know that severe climate impacts are already locked in even if we do limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C. These impacts require urgent re-design of our communities to make them safe and liveable for future generations. We have to face up to this challenge now if human society is to have any chance of a long-term future. 

Indeed. What must planners do?

Clearly, this has not happened with the planners at Devon County Council. 

If they were seeking development options resulting in the biggest carbon reductions, they would not still be working tirelessly behind the scenes trying to make Aggregate Industries' scheme to quarry Straitgate Farm hang together; they would not still be entertaining Aggregate Industries' 2.5 million mile haulage scheme if climate change were their top priority. 

Neither, are they taking climate change seriously when thinking about future risks, because when it comes to the important matter of flooding a worst case scenario has not been applied. 

 

EIA, planning conditions, and the law

When the planning application to quarry Straitgate Farm is determined, it will be accompanied by a raft of proposed conditions – conditions that, in the case of flood risk, would attempt to sort out after determination what Aggregate Industries and Devon County Council have failed to resolve over the past 6 years before determination, conditions that would negate any further public scrutiny.

As previously posted, the Council's Flood Risk Team, in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority, has withdrawn its objection to Aggregate Industries’ proposal on the proviso that a pre-commencement planning condition (sometimes referred to as a 'Grampian' condition) is imposed – a condition that would amongst other things include procuring a design for how surface water would be managed on the restored site i.e. in perpetuity. 

It is unclear whether the LLFA fully understands what is proposed. 

What is clear is that the LLFA does not know whether a scheme to control flooding – whilst maintaining stream flows, whilst maintaining groundwater recharge for drinking water supplies, whilst avoiding the creation of permanent bodies of water and an airport safeguarding hazard – would even be feasible: 

The conditions should be pre-commencement since it is essential that the proposed surface water drainage system is shown to be feasible

Nevertheless, the LLFA has clearly decided that it wants no further public involvement in the matter, and that the significant, thorny and as yet unresolvable issue of flood risk management should be sorted out behind closed doors at some future date. 

However, reliance by the Local Planning Authority on the LLFA’s recommendation would not only be reckless, considering the number of problems local people have already highlighted, but according to legal advice would also be unlawful. 

Let’s look behind that advice. 

Aggregate Industries’ planning application has been the subject of Environmental Impact Assessment. According to government planning guidance: 

The aim of Environmental Impact Assessment is to protect the environment by ensuring that a local planning authority when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a project, which is likely to have significant effects on the environment, does so in the full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and takes this into account in the decision making process... The aim of Environmental Impact Assessment is also to ensure that the public are given early and effective opportunities to participate in the decision making procedures. Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 4-002-20140306

Why is that important? The EIA contains the applicant's own assessment of the environmental impact of the proposal, which may be – and definitely has been in Aggregate Industries’ case – inaccurate, inadequate or incomplete. According to R (Blewett) v Derbyshire CC [2004] the EIA regulations: 

...recognise that an environmental statement may well be deficient, and make provision through the publicity and consultation processes for any deficiencies to be identified so that the resulting ‘environmental information’ provides the local planning authority with as full a picture as possible. 

If the LPA considers that further information is required, planning guidance says: 

...they must ask the applicant, in writing, to provide it (regulation 25). All information provided must be publicised, and consulted on. Paragraph: 047 Reference ID: 4-047-20170728

The legal advice we have received points to the recent case of R (Swire) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2020] which itself draws on other cases. Here are three paragraphs from that case: 

...the underlying purpose of the Regulations in implementing the [EIA] Directive is that the potentially significant impacts of a development are described together with a description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, where possible, offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. Thus the public is engaged in the process of assessing the efficacy of any mitigation measures... 70

...it was not right to approach the matter on the basis that the significant adverse effects could be rendered insignificant if suitable conditions were imposed. The proper approach was to say that potentially this is a development which has significant adverse environmental implications: what are the measures which should be included in order to reduce or offset those adverse effects? 70

...It is clear that a planning authority cannot rely on conditions and undertakings as a surrogate for the EIA process. It cannot conclude that a development is unlikely to have significant effects on the environment simply because all such effects are likely to be eliminated by measures that will be carried out by the developer pursuant to conditions and/or undertakings. 78

Of course, it’s not just the public that should be "engaged in the process of assessing the efficacy of any mitigation measures." Such a condition also deprives councillors on the planning committee of the opportunity to assess mitigation measures. In R (Jones) v Mansfield District Council [2003]: 

The purpose of the Regulations was to allow an opportunity to debate the environmental impact of a proposal so that full account of both the impact and the proposed mitigation could be taken into account in the eventual decision. 

It’s common sense. The LLFA’s condition plainly indicates the Council is without significant information to enable it to make an informed decision about surface water management. In R (Jones) v Mansfield District Council [2003]: 

Without the results of the surveys, they were not in a position to know whether they had the full environmental information.

In the case of Aggregate Industries’ proposal, for example, the LLFA has conditioned that "Soakaway testing must be undertaken... in accordance with BRE 365." Aggregate Industries has already had a go at soakaway tests. What happened? The results were inconclusive, several tests "were not undertaken due to slow infiltration rates." For each one of the six test pits: 

TP1 Unable to calculate infiltration rate 

TP2 Unable to calculate infiltration rate 

TP3 Unable to calculate infiltration rate 

TP4 Unable to calculate infiltration rate 

TP5 Unable to calculate infiltration rate 

TP6 Unable to calculate infiltration rate 

Aggregate Industries' document admits: 

The soakaway tests did not allow an infiltration rate to be determined using the BRE approach...

But there’s another reason why the Council cannot leave something as significant as flood mitigation to be resolved by condition, post determination. A planning application can either be allowed, allowed with conditions or dismissed. There is no power to modify an application other than by condition, but the Planning Inspectors’ Handbook makes clear that:

...care should be taken that a condition does not substantially alter the nature of the development applied for. In the case of Wheatcroft v SSE [1982] JPL p37 the judge formulated a test to define what a "substantial alteration" is. If the change is such that third parties would be likely to want to comment on it then the condition should not be imposed, as to do so would deprive those people of the opportunity for comment. 

Clearly, if the LLFA has no idea whether a surface water management scheme is even feasible, then the proposed condition could obviously throw up a requirement for significant alterations. Since a quarry at Straitgate Farm would permanently alter the landscape, and thereby surface water drainage characteristics, stakeholders should of course be entitled to comment on alterations – particularly if such alterations had the capacity to impact third party land beyond the site for evermore. 

Why would Devon County Council think otherwise, other than to stitch the whole thing up?

UN climate change report sounds ‘code red for humanity’

"The alarm bells are deafening," warns UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

'CODE RED FOR HUMANITY.'

A UN climate panel warned that the world is already certain to face further climate disruptions for decades, if not centuries, to come as global warming is dangerously close to spiraling out of control.

READ: https://t.co/RRwONZo1nZ pic.twitter.com/lu3dZSjV0E

— ABS-CBN News (@ABSCBNNews) August 10, 2021

 

How is this urgency reflected in UK planning? On 20 July 2021, a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework was released. We posted about it here. The NPPF sets out the government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. 

According to this article, the term "climate change" appears three more times than the predecessor document published two years before. The NPPF has not been updated to reflect the UK’s 2050 net zero obligation approved by Parliament in 2019. The section on "planning for climate change" still reads: 

152. The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. 

However, reference to the UN’s 17 Global Goals for Sustainable Development has been added to the NPPF, and the paragraph which defines sustainable development in more detail has been toughened up with "much more binding" language about protecting and enhancing the environment: 

Nevertheless, it seems a meagre response to the crisis we now find ourselves in. This editorial argues: 

Without an accelerated reduction in greenhouse gases during the next decade, the ambition of the 2015 Paris climate agreement to limit global heating to 1.5C will not be met. The price of failure will be a world vulnerable to irreversible and exponential effects of global heating: there will be worse floods more often, more terrible and frequent heatwaves and devastating and repeated droughts. 

The science is irrefutable. Less certain is the strength of political will to act upon it. An awesome burden of responsibility now rests upon this generation of leaders as humanity finds itself at a fork in the road. The actions taken or foregone during the next 10 years will define the parameters of the possible for future generations. A step-change is required, but across the world green rhetoric continues to translate into policymaking at a pace which is fatally slow.

"Today’s #IPCC Working Group I Report is a code red for humanity... Global heating is affecting every region on Earth, with many of the changes becoming irreversible."@UN SG @antonioguterres on today's release of the #IPCC's latest #ClimateReport.

PR ➡️ https://t.co/07lVptiIW2 pic.twitter.com/Q1jqlFv5YI

— IPCC (@IPCC_CH) August 9, 2021

How has Holcim, the world's largest cement producer responded to this dire warning, given that cement is responsible for about 8% of CO2 emissions? Just as if it has played no part at all:

 

Today’s @IPPC_CH report is a code red for humanity:
🏭Greenhouse gas emissions and nature loss are choking our planet
⚡Billions of people are at immediate risk
🌡️We need to take drastic action now to limit the effects of #ClimateChangehttps://t.co/PQjaCkmqFn

— Holcim (@Holcim) August 9, 2021

This of course is the same company that in 2020 alone pumped out 146 million tonnes of those greenhouse gas emissions choking our planet, the same company that would ultimately profit from the multi-million-mile-CO2-belching-haulage-scheme planned for Straitgate Farm. The hypocrisy.