📊 Why Treat Developers Like Financial Actors?

---

Developers manage massive flows of capital, shape national infrastructure, and directly influence the cost of living. Yet unlike banks or insurers, they face no systemic regulation of their financial resilience, delivery performance, or risk exposure.

If we regulate financial markets to avoid crashes, speculation, and systemic risk, why not apply similar principles to development?

🔒 How Financial Market Controls Work — and What Housing Could Learn

---

Here are the core mechanisms used to regulate banks and financial institutions, and how each one could be mirrored in the housing and development sector:

1. Licensing & Entry Regulation

---

In Finance: Only firms that meet strict criteria for governance, capital, and operational controls are allowed to operate.

Applied to Developers:

• Mandatory licensing of large developers and land promoters
• Entry thresholds based on delivery track record, solvency, and transparency

🔎 This would prevent speculative or underqualified actors from acquiring strategic land or major permissions.

2. Capital Adequacy Requirements

---

In Finance: Institutions must hold capital reserves proportional to their risk-weighted assets to absorb losses.

Applied to Developers:

• Developers must show they can financially sustain their proposals
• Penalties for long-term land banking without delivery
• Guarantees for infrastructure obligations

🔎 This would discourage hoarding, underfunded schemes, and delivery failures.

3. Stress Testing and Scenario Risk

---

In Finance: Banks are tested against economic downturns and liquidity shocks to check their stability.

Applied to Housing:

• Major developments must pass resilience assessments for:
  • Infrastructure stress (roads, utilities, GPs)
  • Climate readiness (flood risk, emissions)
  • Market failure (recession, rent drops)

🔎 This ensures housing schemes don’t collapse under pressure or overburden communities.

4. Disclosure and Transparency

---

In Finance: Regular reporting of balance sheets, risk exposure, and compliance status is mandatory.

Applied to Developers:

• Required disclosure of:
  • Land ownership and control
  • Delivery schedules
  • Affordable housing and Section 106 performance

🔎 This builds trust, enables scrutiny, and deters manipulation.

5. Conduct Rules and Criminal Penalties

---

In Finance: Misleading investors, manipulating markets, or hiding risks can lead to criminal charges.

Applied to Housing:

• Criminal or civil penalties for:
  • Falsifying viability assessments
  • Strategic land banking to distort prices
  • Coordinated planning manipulation or misrepresentation

🔎 This deters abuse and restores integrity to development.

🌐 International Parallels

---

Countries like the Netherlands, Singapore, and France already use similar tools:

• Land release controls (NL¹, FR²)
• Developer licensing and performance auditing (SG³)
• Public infrastructure guarantees before permission (SE⁴, DE⁵)

These aren’t radical ideas — they’re overdue in England.

📉 Summary Table: Translating Financial Controls into Housing Regulation

Financial Regulation Tool	Developer Regulation Equivalent
Licensing & supervision	Regional/national developer licensing
Capital adequacy	Delivery performance & land-use holding limits
Stress testing	Infrastructure, climate, and market resilience tests
Disclosure rules	Transparency on land control and delivery
Conduct regulation	Penalties for manipulation, gaming, or deception

⚡ The Case for Reform

---

If housing is national infrastructure — and developers are entrusted to deliver it — then they must be held to standards that reflect that power.

Regulating developers like financial actors would:

• Protect the public from market manipulation
• Ensure infrastructure keeps pace with delivery
• Support SME access by levelling the playing field
• Rebuild public trust in planning and growth

It’s time to treat housing delivery as a system — not a gamble.

1. 🇳🇱 Municipal Land Ownership + Pricing Control: Many Dutch cities own and prepare land, releasing it only to developers who meet public objectives. Planning obligations are fixed up front — no post-permission renegotiation (like England’s viability games). It’s effectively a licensing model — meet the entry conditions, or you don’t build. ↩︎
2. 🇫🇷 Établissements Publics d’Aménagement (EPAs): These state-backed public planning bodies control land release, infrastructure, and developer entry. Developers must partner with the EPA and deliver to agreed specs, timelines, and affordability targets. Like a financial regulator, EPAs filter which developers may “operate” in strategic zones. ↩︎
3. 🇸🇬 Housing Development Licensing + Delivery Audits: Private developers must be licensed and maintain a record of compliance. If they delay delivery, mislead buyers, or fail quality standards, they are penalised or disqualified from future land sales. The Urban Redevelopment Authority sets clear land use and pricing frameworks, reducing speculation. ↩︎
4. 🇸🇪 Public-Led Masterplanning with Developer Vetting: Municipalities set strict local plans with built-in quotas for social and affordable housing. Developers must pre-qualify and align with sustainability and delivery standards. Infrastructure and zoning decisions are not open to negotiation, reducing rent-seeking behaviour. ↩︎
5. 🇩🇪 Integrated Regional Planning + KfW Development Bank: Germany operates through powerful state (Länder) planning systems that enforce binding spatial frameworks across regions. Developers must comply with infrastructure plans and housing targets. The state-owned KfW bank provides subsidised finance for affordable and energy-efficient housing — acting as both funder and regulator. ↩︎

1. The full calculation methodology used by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) to determine the figure of 1,119 dwellings per year as the minimum housing need for EHDC, as communicated in or after December 2024.

---

The standard method for calculating local housing need is set out in paragraph 004 of the housing and economic needs assessment Planning Practice Guidance, available here: Housing and economic needs assessment – GOV.UK.

The government response to the proposed reforms to the NPPF sets out the rationale for the final standard method, including changes made to the version consulted upon – Government response to the proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system consultation – GOV.UK

2. All underlying data inputs and assumptions used in this calculation, including: Whether the baseline used was household projections or existing housing stock.

---

The baseline is set using the value of existing housing stock for the area of the local authority. This can be found in Table 125: dwelling stock estimates by local authority district, available here – Dwelling stock (including vacants).

3. All underlying data inputs and assumptions used in this calculation, including: The specific affordability ratio used and its source.

---

The affordability data used is the median workplace-based affordability ratios, published by the Office for National Statistics at a local authority level. The mean average affordability over the five most recent years for which data is available should be used. Please note that a new dataset was published on 24 March 2025. In December 2024, the previous version of the dataset (published 25 March 2024) was used, which included data up to 2023.

As set out in the Planning Practice Guidance, the affordability adjustment factor is calculated as: (five year average affordability ration – 5)/5 x 0.95 + 1. This means the adjustment factor used in December 2024 was: 2.56

4. All underlying data inputs and assumptions used in this calculation, including: Any applied uplifts, caps, adjustment factors, or local modifiers.

---

The standard method does not apply any further local modifiers or caps.

5. Any documents, notes, or correspondence — internal or external — outlining the rationale for this figure and its compatibility with current government planning policy, including any exemptions, overrides, or unpublished methodologies.

---

The government set out its justification for a new standard method for assessing local
housing need in the consultation document on changes to national planning policy (30
July 2024). The consultation documents set out that a revised standard method would
better support the government’s manifesto commitment of 1.5 million new homes in this
Parliament, and provide greater certainty to the sector through a more stable and
predictable assessment of housing need. The consultation explained that the standard
method provides the basis for plan making, not the final housing requirement. The
consultation documents are published at: Proposed reforms to the National Planning
Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system – GOV.UK.

The final standard method formula was revised as a result of consultation feedback so
that it is more responsive to housing affordability when assessing housing needs. The
formula change means more housing is directed to where it is least affordable. The
government response to the consultation sets out the final changes, and was published
on 12 December 2024 – Government response to the proposed reforms to the National
Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system consultation –
GOV.UK

• The Public Sector Equality Report, published alongside the government response to the
  consultation, set out the consideration of increased housing supply on the needs of
  people who share relevant protected characteristics.

• Revised Planning Practice Guidance sets out the details of the new standard method
  formula – Housing and economic needs assessment – GOV.UK.

• It is recognised that there are some specific circumstances in which an alternative
  approach to the standard method could be justified. This is set out in paragraph 014 of
  the housing and economic needs assessment Planning Practice Guidance. For ease, this
  is copied below:

‘Where strategic policy-making authorities do not align with local authority boundaries
(either individually or in combination), or the data required for the model are not available
such as in National Parks and the Broads Authority, or local authority areas where the
samples are too small, an alternative approach may have to be used.

Such authorities may continue to identify a housing need figure using a method
determined locally. In doing so authorities should take into consideration the best
available evidence on the amount of existing housing stock within their planning authority
boundary, local house prices, earnings and housing affordability. In the absence of other
robust affordability data, authorities should consider the implications of using the median
workplace-based affordability ratio for the relevant wider local authority area(s).

For local authorities whose boundaries cross National Parks or Broads Authority areas,
the proportion of the local authority area that falls within and outside the National Park or
Broads Authority area should also be considered – for example where only a minimal
proportion of the existing housing stock of a local authority falls within the National Park or
Broads Authority area it may be appropriate to continue to use the local housing need
figure derived by the standard method for the local authority area.’

6. Any assessments, communications, or evaluations received from or provided to EHDC in which the council raised concerns or requested a further downward adjustment from the 1,119 figure (e.g. to 828 homes per year), including the Department’s response, stance, or position on such reductions.

---

A summary of responses received to the consultation on the standard method, alongside the
Government’s response, are available at: Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy
Framework and other changes to the planning system – GOV.UK.

East Hampshire District Council’s response to the consultation on the standard method is
published here: EHDC response to the Government Consultation on proposed reforms to the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – September 2024.pdf.

All further communications relating to the housing requirement for East Hampshire are
published here: Communications | East Hampshire District Council.

7. Any formal position, legal advice, or internal analysis by DLUHC regarding the validity or acceptability of applying such reductions in housing need within areas affected by significant national environmental designations — specifically the South Downs National Park, which covers more than half of the East Hampshire district.

---

We are clear that land that is safeguarded for environmental reasons, like National Parks
and habitat sites, will retain its protections.

• National Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that where strategic policy-making
  authorities do not align with local authority boundaries (such as East Hampshire – where
  part of the authority falls within the South Downs National Park), or the data required for
  the model are not available (such as in National Parks and the Broads Authority), an
  alternative approach may have to be used.

• Such authorities may continue to identify a housing requirement figure using a method
  determined locally. In doing so authorities should take into consideration the best
  available evidence on the amount of existing housing stock within their planning authority
  boundary, local house prices, earnings and housing affordability.

• Local authorities will have to evidence and justify their approach through local plan
  consultation and examination.

• Each plan is subject to a public examination in front of an independent Inspector, who
  examines the plan impartially to ensure it is legally compliant and “sound”, meaning it
  should be positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy – the
  tests of soundness are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

• In the specific circumstances where an alternative approach could be justified, at local
  plan examination, consideration will be given to whether it provides the basis for a plan
  that is positively prepared, taking into account the information available on existing levels
  of housing stock and housing affordability.

In March 2025, East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) granted planning permission for 62 dwellings on land west of Beechlands Road, Medstead, without conducting a legally required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The site is part of a larger, strategically promoted expansion across South Medstead, delivered in discrete phases by the same promoter since at least 2013. However, EHDC treated the 2024 application in isolation and relied on an expired screening opinion issued to a different developer for a different scheme.

This constitutes unlawful “salami-slicing” — the artificial division of a larger development into multiple smaller applications to avoid environmental scrutiny — contrary to the EIA Regulations 2017 and established case law.

📘 Why Intent Matters Under EIA Law – And How It Applies to Medstead

---

1. EIA Obligations Arise from Projects, Not Just Applications

The duty to carry out EIA screening arises not only from formal planning applications, but from the existence and intent of a project. The EIA Regulations 2017 define a “project” broadly to include construction or land interventions — whether or not a planning application has been submitted.

Regulation 2(1), EIA Regs 2017:
“Project” means the execution of construction works or other installations or schemes… or other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape.”

This includes:

• Phased or parcel-based delivery,
• Preliminary actions like EIA screenings,
• Projects where future expansion is foreseeable or promoted.

📘 R (Catt) v Brighton & Hove CC [2007]:
Screening must consider “whether what is proposed is part of a larger project, even if that project has not yet been formally applied for.”

📘 European Commission v Ireland (C-392/96):
Artificially splitting a project to avoid EIA is unlawful; intent and functional reality must be assessed.

2. The Medstead Expansion Was Strategically Planned Since 2013

The South Medstead expansion traces back to 2013, when:

• Foreman Homes submitted an EIA screening request for 144 dwellings west of Beechlands Road;
• Bargate Homes and VIVID simultaneously brought forward the Ashwood estate (60 dwellings) on Boyneswood Lane.

Though no application followed Foreman’s screening, the proposal — 144 dwellings on 4 hectares in a rural village — was unusually dense. This raises a reasonable inference that the proposal may have been deliberately inflated in scale, not for delivery, but to pre-test environmental thresholds and create a benchmark that would make future smaller applications appear more modest.

Subsequent events confirm this trajectory:

• Bargate acquired the Foreman site in 2018 (title SH12998);
• In 2024, Bargate submitted a 62-dwelling application — relying on the expired 2014 screening opinion issued to Foreman.

⚠️ This sequence demonstrates that the 2013 screening was not speculative, but the starting point of a phased expansion strategy now executed and promoted by Bargate.

3. Foreman, Bargate, and VIVID Acted in Strategic Alignment

• VIVID co-developed Ashwood with Bargate;
• Foreman and VIVID partnered on later projects at Selborne Park (Alton) and Eastleigh (DC/24/98259).

These overlapping partnerships across schemes and districts demonstrate a pattern of coordinated delivery behaviour. While not a formal joint venture, they reflect operational alignment that is directly relevant to cumulative EIA duties.

📘 Baker v Bath [2009]:
What matters is the substance of the development, not whether different entities submitted the applications.

4. EHDC Failed to Treat 2013 Screening and Ashwood Together

In 2013, EHDC:

• Screened Ashwood (60 dwellings) – no EIA required;
• Screened Foreman’s 144-dwelling proposal – also no EIA required.

Yet EHDC did not issue a joint screening opinion or require a cumulative impact assessment, despite:

• Both proposals arising at the same time;
• Sites being adjacent along the rural dead-end corridor of Beechlands Road, where development pressure concentrates along a single constrained access route;
• Shared access via Beechlands Road;
• Links between the delivery parties.

📘 EIA Regs 2017, Schedule 3, para 1(b):
Authorities must assess “cumulation with other existing and/or approved development.”

📘 Strategic Framework – South Medstead Expansion Project (Bargate-led Promotion)

---

In 2019, Bargate Homes published a brochure promoting a 650-home expansion vision for South Medstead. This included:

• The Beechlands site,
• Other linked parcels including those along Beechlands Road (but not Ashwood, which was already built).

✅ This 2019 strategic publication formalised the project and showed that the 2024 application was part of an ongoing programme — not a standalone scheme.

🗂️ Coordinated Parcel Components – Development Timeline

---

🔹 Component A – Ashwood Estate (Boyneswood Lane)

• 2013–2014: EIA screening and planning permission (60 units)
• 2018: Completed by Bargate/VIVID

✅ Functioned as the delivery and infrastructure foundation for subsequent phases.

🔹 Component B – Beechlands Road (Foreman → Bargate)

• 2013: Foreman screening (144 units – no application followed)
• 2018: Bargate acquired the land
• 2024: 62-dwelling application submitted by Bargate, relying on expired screening

✅ EHDC failed to reassess the site under 2017 EIA rules despite changed applicant, scale, and context.

⚖️ Summary of Legal Failures

---

The planning authority’s approach fell short of legal requirements in four critical respects:

1. Improper Reuse of Expired Screening Opinion

• The 2013 screening expired in 2017.
• It was issued to a different applicant and governed by outdated law.
  📘 R (Loader) v Rother DC [2015] – Material changes require a fresh screening.

2. Failure to Assess Cumulative Impact

• EHDC treated the 2024 application as isolated.
• It failed to account for cumulative impacts from Ashwood, Beechlands, and foreseeable parcels.
  📘 R (Burridge) v Breckland DC [2013]

3. Unlawful Project Fragmentation

• Bargate promoted the development in multiple phases.
• The schemes share access, phasing, and developers.
  📘 European Commission v Ireland (C-392/96) – Unlawful salami-slicing.

4. Foreseeable Growth Ignored

• The 2019 brochure and land ownership made further development foreseeable.
• EHDC failed to treat it as such in screening.
  📘 R (Catt) v Brighton [2007]

🧾 Relief Sought

---

Therefore, in light of the factual chronology, legal framework, and the planning authority’s failure to comply with its screening duties, we believe we are entitled to respectfully request that the Court.

• Quash the planning permission granted in March 2025 for 62 dwellings on land west of Beechlands Road;

• Declare that East Hampshire District Council acted unlawfully by failing to carry out a compliant Environmental Impact Assessment screening;

• Order EHDC to undertake a fresh and legally sound EIA screening that fully accounts for:
  – The completed Ashwood development;
  – The currently proposed Beechlands scheme;
  – All other foreseeable or promoted parcels forming part of the South Medstead expansion corridor.

📂 Core Evidence

Document	Description / Relevance
2013 EIA Screening – Foreman Homes	Screening opinion for 144 dwellings on Beechlands Road. No application followed. Later reused by Bargate in 2024.
2013–2014 EIA Screening + Approval – Ashwood Estate	Adjacent 60-dwelling scheme promoted by Bargate/VIVID. Screened separately, no EIA required. Built in 2018.
Land Registry Title SH12998	Confirms Bargate’s legal control of the Beechlands site as of 2018.
2019 Bargate Brochure – South Medstead Vision	Shows 650-home coordinated expansion plan including Beechlands and other linked parcels.
2024 Bargate Application Documents	Application for 62 dwellings on Beechlands site, relying on expired Foreman screening.
Planning Application DC/24/98259 (Eastleigh)	Foreman and VIVID co-application, evidencing repeated collaboration beyond Medstead.
Selborne Park (Alton) Scheme	Current collaboration between Foreman and VIVID, reinforcing active regional delivery coordination.

The Planning Committee granted permission without providing clear, recorded reasons for doing so during its deliberation, despite multiple legal and procedural factors that trigger a duty to justify such a decision. These include departure from the development plan, application of the tilted balance under paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, absence of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and high public opposition. This failure renders the decision procedurally unfair and unlawful under established case law.

Annotated Fact and Case Bundle

🧾 Triggering Factor	📌 Evidence in Record	⚖️ Legal Obligation to Provide Reasons
Departure from Development Plan	Conflicts with CP10 (countryside), CP14 (transport), CP19 (infrastructure) acknowledged by officer report	PPG Para 036: “Reasons must be stated where a proposal is approved contrary to the development plan.”
Tilted Balance Applied (NPPF §11d)	Officer invokes 2.7YHLS and paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF to justify approval	Oakley v SCDC [2017]: Reasons are required when permission is granted using the tilted balance, particularly where harm is acknowledged.
180+ Public Objections	Public objections raised by residents and both Medstead & Four Marks Parish Councils	CPRE Kent v Dover [2016]: Where public interest is high, reasons must be given to ensure transparency and accountability.
Sustainability and Infrastructure in Doubt	Committee members questioned walk distances, lack of lighting, infrastructure stress	NPPF §7–8: Sustainable development must be properly evaluated; failure to explain contradicts guidance.
EIA Exemption Based on Expired Screening	Officer relied on 2014 screening for different applicant; no fresh screening under 2017 Regs	Berkeley v SSCLG [2001]: Where EIA is bypassed, rigorous reasoning is required to ensure proper environmental consideration.

Legal Notes – Supporting Case Law

---

🧷 Oakley v South Cambridgeshire DC [2017] EWCA Civ 71

The Court of Appeal held that failure to provide reasons for granting permission, especially where there is conflict with the development plan and the tilted balance is engaged, constitutes a breach of the legal duty of fairness and transparency.

🧷 R (CPRE Kent) v Dover DC [2016] EWCA Civ 936

Confirmed that controversial or publicly opposed decisions require reasons to be recorded, even when there is no statutory obligation, because of the principles of natural justice and the right to understand administrative decisions.

🧷 Berkeley v Secretary of State [2001] 2 AC 603 (HL)

Where EIA is not conducted despite likely significant environmental effects, the decision-maker must explain why, and failing to do so renders the decision procedurally unlawful.

✅ Summary

---

The Committee failed to provide any clear reasons for granting permission despite multiple legal triggers that required them to do so: conflict with the development plan, application of paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, high public objection, questions over sustainability, and the absence of an EIA. The decision notice and deliberation transcript do not contain any record of how the harms were balanced against benefits. This lack of reasoning breaches the legal principles articulated in Oakley, CPRE Kent, and Berkeley, and deprives the public and the courts of the ability to scrutinise the basis for approval. The decision is therefore unlawful.

Members openly admitted approving the application not on planning merit, but out of fear that a refusal would be overturned at appeal. This constitutes unlawful consideration, as the risk of appeal or costs is not a valid planning ground. The committee therefore failed to exercise proper judgment, violating principles set out in R (Wright) v Resilient Energy and Morge v Hampshire CC.

Annotated Quote Bundle – Reliance on Appeal Risk

🧾 Quote	🎯 Why It Matters
“I actually think that if this was to go to appeal, we would probably lose that appeal. Because I think that this would be deemed to be acceptable, whether sustainable or not.” – Cllr Angela Glass	Confirms vote was influenced by expected appeal outcome, not the site’s planning merit or sustainability.
“We are faced again and again with applications that are not within a settlement policy boundary… But we haven’t got the housing land supply… basically, we have to give it permission.” – Cllr Anthony Williams (Chair)	Suggests planning judgment is bypassed due to housing land supply shortfall and fear of refusals being overturned.
“With the tilted balance in the state that we are in at the moment… I think that if this was to go to appeal, we would probably lose…” – Cllr Glass again, reinforced during debate	Reveals “tilted balance” is used not as a balancing test but as a reason to abandon discretion.
“If this is a sustainable development in this location… then I’d like the inspectorate to tell me why.” – Cllr Ashcroft	Indicates members were deferring to the Planning Inspectorate instead of deciding independently.

⚖️ Legal Notes – Supporting Case Law

---

🧷 R (Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd [2014] EWHC 3136 (Admin)

This case affirms that planning decisions must be made through a fair and transparent process. It is unlawful for decision-makers to rely on irrelevant factors, including administrative convenience or speculative outcomes (e.g., appeal risks). The court criticised a process where decision-makers failed to engage with the merits in good faith and instead acted with an eye to avoiding future consequences.

Relevance: The committee’s repeated references to appeal outcomes—rather than assessing the unique and cumulative planning impacts of the proposed development—suggests a breakdown in lawful decision-making.

🧷 R v North Yorkshire County Council ex parte Brown & Co [2000]

This ruling makes it explicitly clear that fear of an appeal or associated costs is not a material consideration in the planning process. A local planning authority must not permit or refuse an application based on perceived legal or procedural risks but must assess it on planning policy, local impact, and evidence.

Relevance: Statements like “we’d lose on appeal” and “we basically have to give it permission” show that the decision was improperly influenced by non-material factors.

🧷 Morge v Hampshire County Council [2011] UKSC 2

The Supreme Court held that elected members must apply their own minds to the planning question at hand, not simply defer to officer recommendations or hypothetical decisions by other authorities. Councillors cannot outsource their responsibility by assuming an inspector would decide differently.

Relevance: Councillors here expressed reluctance, yet voted to approve out of belief that the Planning Inspectorate would allow it anyway. This undermines the core duty to make independent, policy-based planning decisions.

The planning officer relied on a 2014 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening opinion—issued to a different applicant under a now-superseded regulatory framework—as justification for not requiring EIA in 2024–25. This opinion was legally expired, non-transferable, and inappropriate due to radically changed environmental and cumulative circumstances. The Planning Committee was not informed of these critical limitations, despite the officer having issued the original screening himself. This constitutes a serious procedural failing.

Annotated Quote Bundle

🧾 Quote	🎯 Why It Matters
“The Local Planning Authority received a request for an EIA Screening Opinion for a scheme of up to 144 dwellings in 2014. The Local Planning Authority’s Opinion was that the scheme was not EIA development.”	Confirms officer’s justification relies on a 2014 screening opinion under older law.
“This application represents a reduction in housing numbers from the EIA of 144 dwellings…”	Officer argues fewer homes = less EIA need without re-screening or considering new context.
Original screening opinion issued on 17 Jan 2014 under 2011 Regulations to Foreman Homes.	Shows the opinion is over 10 years old, expired in 2017, and was issued to a different applicant.
“May be subject to change if cumulative or in-combination effects arise…”	Even the original opinion warned of the need to reassess if conditions change — which they have.

⚖️ Legal Notes – Supporting Case Law and Regulations

---

Under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017:

• Regulation 6(6): A screening opinion is only valid for 3 years unless development has commenced. The 2014 opinion expired in January 2017.
• Schedule 3: Authorities must consider the cumulative impact of the development with other nearby projects. In this case:
  • Medstead’s population increased by 48.14% (2011–2021)
  • The village absorbed 8.36% of all EHDC housing supply
  • This represents significant cumulative urbanisation

Yet:

• No formal screening opinion under the 2017 Regulations was produced or mentioned
• No cumulative effects assessment was conducted
• The Committee was not informed of these legal obligations

🧷 R (Loader) v SSCLG [2012] EWHC 869 (Admin):
Failure to update environmental screening in the face of new conditions renders the permission unlawful.

🧷 Berkeley v SSCLG [2001] 2 AC 603 (HL):
EIA is required not just for formality, but to enable full public and decision-maker engagement with the environmental consequences. Bypassing it violates procedural law.

🧷 PPG Para 018 (ID: 4-018-20170728):
“Each application must be assessed individually. Prior screening decisions do not substitute for the need to re-screen if circumstances change.”

❌ Officer Conduct and Professional Omission

---

Mr. Upton — the planning officer recommending approval — was also the officer who signed the 2014 screening opinion. He:

• Did not inform the Committee that the opinion had expired
• Did not disclose that it applied to a different applicant and layout
• Did not mention Regulation 6(6), Schedule 3, or the need for re-screening
• Presented the opinion as if it remained valid and applicable

This raises serious procedural questions about whether the officer:

• Misled the Committee by omission
• Failed in his statutory and ethical duty to disclose legal constraints
• Enabled the Committee to make a decision without proper environmental safeguards

✅ Summary

---

The Planning Officer relied on an expired, applicant-specific screening opinion issued under the 2011 Regulations without conducting a new EIA screening. He failed to disclose material facts to the Committee, including expiry rules, cumulative growth, and legal non-transferability. As the original signatory of the 2014 opinion, he had a clear duty to ensure legal compliance under the 2017 Regulations. His failure to do so represents a breach of process, resulting in a decision that was procedurally unfair, environmentally unsound, and legally vulnerable