- Decision
- allowed, 9 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: K Reeves
- Authority
- Buckinghamshire (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6008170
- Application reference
- PL/25/4954/FA
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Appeal against condition 3 (bat and bird boxes) on permission for a freestanding canopy and hardstanding at a school
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- N2(3), N2(1)(f), DM6(1)
- Development plan policies
- South Bucks Core Strategy 2011 CP9
- Main issues
- necessity of biodiversity-enhancement condition
Summary
The appeal was against a condition requiring bat and bird boxes on a school canopy. The condition was deleted. The Inspector applied new Policy N2: a general development plan policy cannot require biodiversity gains beyond statutory BNG (N2(3)). The integrated-features expectation in N2(1)(f) was also displaced by "compelling technical reasons" (DL ¶¶7–11). The condition therefore failed the DM6 tests.
Issues and findings
- N2(3), beyond-BNG gains: PASS (for the appellant). "Core Policy 9 is a general natural environment policy rather than a site-specific allocation, and when read alongside Policy N2 it cannot be relied upon to require biodiversity enhancements beyond statutory net gain" (DL ¶8).
- N2(1)(f), species features. The canopy's "lightweight polycarbonate roof, steel posts, limited height and the level of disturbance and artificial lighting … represent compelling technical reasons why bat or bird boxes would be unsuitable" (DL ¶9). N2 "does not support off-site installation where the development has no material ecological impact" (DL ¶10).
- DM6: FAIL. The condition "is not necessary, as no ecological impact has been identified, and it is not reasonable" (DL ¶12).
Planning balance
No balance was needed. This was a straight test of the condition's necessity under DM6.
What made the difference
The new N2(3) wording removes local-plan leverage for enhancements above statutory BNG unless an allocation policy requires them. Combined with an accepted BNG metric and a structure that physically could not host boxes, the condition had no footing.
Transferable points
- General (non-allocation) natural-environment policies cannot justify biodiversity requirements beyond statutory BNG after August 2026 (DL ¶8, N2(3)).
- N2(1)(f)'s integrated-features expectation yields to compelling technical reasons, and it does not justify boxes elsewhere on a wider landholding (DL ¶¶9–10).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| N2(3) | pass | gains beyond statutory BNG only required via up-to-date allocation-specific policies; general CP9 "cannot be relied upon to require biodiversity enhancements beyond statutory net gain" (DL 7-8) | |
| N2(1)(f) | pass | lightweight polycarbonate canopy is a "compelling technical reason" why integrated boxes would be ineffective; N2 does not support off-site boxes elsewhere in grounds (DL 9-10) | |
| DM6(1) | fail | condition neither necessary nor reasonable — no ecological impact (DL 12) |
Key facts
- Open-sided lightweight canopy, no interaction with buildings or vegetation; Ecology Officer no objection
- BNG metric showed net gain via five trees, accepted by Council
- Condition reason cited 2024 NPPF paras on bat/bird features
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.