Citation: [2026] EWHC 422 (Admin)
The court dismissed a challenge to a planning inspector decision granting outline planning permission for up to 350 dwellings. The inspector had not misunderstood a policy of the development plan; he gave adequate reasons for limiting the weight given to a masterplan and had not breached his duty when considering the impact of the development on protected species of bat.
Background
This claim challenged a decision of a Planning Inspector to grant of planning permission to Waddeton Park Ltd (“the Second Defendant”) for the demolition of existing buildings and structures and the phased development of up to 350 dwellings, together with associated infrastructure and open space, on land at St Bridget Nursery in Exeter. The Inspector held a local inquiry into the planning appeal on 11 December 2024.
In granting planning permission, the Inspector took into account a number of planning obligations contained in a deed of agreement dated 18 December 2024 made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”), the parties to which were the owners of the appeal site, the Second Defendant as developer, the Third Defendant and Devon County Council.
The focus of the claim was on two matters: (1) the access arrangements for the development authorised by the planning permission; and (2) the impact of the development on protected species of bats which roosted in buildings on the appeal site whose demolition was authorised by the planning permission.
In summary, the Claimants raised three grounds of challenge:
- (1) The Inspector based his decision to grant the planning permission on a misunderstanding of a relevant and important policy of the statutory development plan, namely policy CP19 of the Exeter Core Strategy (2012) (“the Core Strategy”).
- (2) The Inspector failed to give legally adequate reasons for limiting the weight which he gave to the Newcourt Masterplan (2010) (“the Masterplan”) as a material consideration. Alternatively, his conclusion that the Masterplan was a material consideration of only limited weight was irrational.
- (3) The way in which the Inspector considered the impact of the development on protected species of bat was in breach of his duty as competent authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“the 2017 Regulations”) and failed to accord with the strict system of species protection under article 12 of Council Directive 1992/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (“the Directive”).
Decision (Mould J)
Claim dismissed.
- Misinterpretation of policy: Ground 1 did not succeed. The Inspector had not misunderstood policy CP19 of the Core Strategy in concluding that the access arrangements for the development accorded with that policy when interpreted objectively and in its proper context. Properly understood, it was consistent with policy CP19 to propose an alternative primary access arrangement for residential development of the appeal site to that promoted in the Masterplan. Policy CP19 did not preclude an access arrangement for development at Newcourt which would introduce additional development traffic onto Old Rydon Lane. Rather, it required that such an arrangement should not preclude Old Rydon Lane from fulfilling its function of providing a safe and convenient route for walkers and cyclists as part of the green infrastructure framework for the Newcourt area. Whether the proposed access arrangement had that effect was a matter for the Inspector to judge, and it was reasonable for the Inspector to conclude that the proposed access arrangement would not have that adverse effect.
- Weight to the Masterplan: Ground 2 did not succeed. The Inspector gave proper and adequate reasons for giving limited weight to the Masterplan, and the explanation given could not fairly be criticised as flawed in its logic. In assessing the relative weight to be given to the Core Strategy and the Masterplan, it was not irrational for the Inspector to give greater weight to development plan policy and lesser weight to informal guidance. It was reasonable and understandable for the Inspector to diminish the weight given to the Masterplan because it lacked the status of a development plan or supplementary planning document.
- Protected species: Ground 3 did not succeed. It was for the Inspector to decide whether the ecological impact assessment (“EIA”) provided a sufficiently informed and reliable basis for the discharge of his duty as the competent authority in accordance with regulation 9(3) of the 2017 Regulations. It was clear that the Inspector considered the EIA to be sufficiently reliable for that purpose, notwithstanding the advice note emphasising the importance of planning decisions being based on up-to-date ecological reports and survey data. The Inspector had not acted irrationally in reaching that view and was entitled to proceed on the basis that, in light of the EIA, he had sufficient information to discharge his duty.
- Impact on bats: The impact of the development on protected species of bats active on and across the appeal site was not a main issue in dispute in the planning appeal. The Inspector had regard to the fact that implementation of the planning permission would disturb existing patterns of bat activity, including travelling, foraging and roosting on and across the appeal site. The Inspector concluded that the mitigation proposed in the EIA, which was to be secured by condition, would avoid long-term impacts on protected species of bats shown to be active on and across the appeal site. There was no arguable basis for the adverse inference advanced by the Claimant that the Inspector had overlooked that conclusion, or any temporary disturbance to bats likely to arise from implementation of the planning permission, when carrying out the overall planning balance.
Representation
Richard Kimblin KC & James Corbet Burcher (No5 Barristers’ Chambers) for the Claimant, instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP.
Ashley Bowes (Landmark Chambers) for the First Defendant, instructed by Government Legal Department.
Lord Banner KC (Keating Chambers) and Nick Grant (Landmark Chambers) for the Second Defendant, instructed by Ashfords LLP.
The judgment can be found here.
