It is a strange situation when two different environmental factors fighting against each other sandwich local and national planning policy. However, that is seemingly what happened in a recent planning appeal concerning a patch of countryside to the north east of Crawshawbooth near the Pennines.
On one side of the planning battle, we have a development proposal for a five-bedroom house that would be built to Passivhaus standards (ensuring high energy efficiency and low ecological impact), and would also be off-grid, increasing its environmental credentials. In a world which is increasingly conscious of its environmental impact, such a development would surely be a bonus.
On the other side, is a badger sett on the proposed development site, occupied by a single badger. Under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, it is an offence to interfere with a badger sett, unless a licence has been granted to do so by Natural England. Breaching this law can lead to a prison term of up to six months and/or an unlimited fine. Wildlife protection is also a serious environmental consideration and so protecting the badger from the development would also be a bonus.
Then, in this case, right down the middle of this battle are the planners, who have strict policies and laws to follow in making a planning decision, and must consider only material planning issues when making that decision.
The original planning application for the house was rejected by Rossendale Borough Council because of the potential impact of the development on the rural setting and character. Following the appeal, planning inspector Katie McDonald concluded that the location was suitable. However, the inspector agreed that the impact of the development on the character would be substantial, although because of the design of the proposed house and proposed mitigation, it would actually be acceptable.
However, in the planning appeal, the main consideration went to the lonely badger. The inspector had no indication from Natural England as to whether a licence would be granted to interfere with the sett should planning permission be granted. Due to local and national policies, combined with protection given in UK law, this sett cannot be ignored.
As a result of the lack of information the inspector had regarding the badger sett, alternative provisions or whether proposed measures would lead to a negative impact, the inspector applied the precautionary principle and decided the proposal would harm the badger.
Balancing the planning issues before her, the inspector decided that the environmental benefits of the proposal and also some key policy considerations, such as a lack of demonstrable housing supply, would be outweighed by the potential harm to the badger which has the full protection of the law. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
