# Burnham Grammar School, Hogfair Lane, Burnham

- **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
- **Tags:** condition-appeal, bng-beyond-statutory, n2-3, swift-bricks, costs-application

## 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
- **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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f7410970-7ea2-436c-9379-13c3654a54e4
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008170

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008170.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.