Background
The London Borough of Enfield granted planning permission to Tottenham Hotspur Football Company Ltd (THFC) to develop a football training centre and parkland on the site of the former Whitewebbs Park Golf Course, which is in the Green Belt. The permission was based in part on THFC’s claim that the project would deliver a very large Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) of over 27%, which was cited as a “very special circumstance” justifying the development.
A community interest company, Guardians of Whitewebbs Park, brought a judicial review challenge to quash the planning permission. The challenge was brought on multiple grounds, centrally arguing that the planning authority unlawfully failed to disclose key documents and that its planning committee was materially misled about the project’s promised environmental benefits. Shortly before the hearing, the Borough of Enfield withdrew its defence, though the challenge was still strongly contested by THFC as an interested party.
The Court’s Holding
The judgment outlines the core of the dispute: a sharp disagreement between the developer’s ecologists and the council’s own independent expert. The developer’s consultant, Logika, submitted reports claiming the project would achieve a BNG of between 27% and 33%. This figure was crucial for justifying the development in the Green Belt. However, the council’s retained ecologist, Mr. Giles Sutton of GS Ecology, strongly disagreed with this assessment in internal reports.
Mr. Sutton advised the council that the developer’s baseline habitat assessment was flawed, particularly regarding the classification of existing woodland. He concluded that the developer’s claimed 33% gain was “counterintuitive,” that the true figure may not even achieve the statutory 10% minimum, and could potentially result in a net biodiversity loss. Mr. Sutton’s advice was that the council “cannot be satisfied” that the BNG requirements would be met.
These critical reports from the council’s own expert were not made public or provided to the planning committee. Instead, the council’s planning officer arranged for a third-party “peer review” to be conducted by another consultancy, Plumb Associates, with the fee paid for by the developer, THFC. The legal challenge contends that this failure to disclose the expert disagreement and the subsequent handling of the issue rendered the planning permission decision unlawful.
Key Takeaways
- A planning authority cannot ignore or conceal its own expert’s advice, especially when that advice directly contradicts a developer’s claims regarding critical planning considerations like Biodiversity Net Gain.
- The calculation of BNG, including the establishment of an accurate ecological baseline, is a fundamental part of a planning application and is open to legal scrutiny if its methodology is flawed or contested.
- Arrangements where a developer pays for an “independent” review to resolve a dispute between its own experts and the planning authority’s experts can raise significant questions about the fairness and impartiality of the decision-making process.
Why It Matters
This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of transparency and procedural fairness in the planning system, particularly for contentious developments on public Green Belt land. It highlights the legal risks for a local authority that fails to present its elected planning committee members with a full and balanced picture of expert evidence, including significant internal disagreements. For developers, it underscores that claimed environmental benefits used to justify development, such as Biodiversity Net Gain, must be robust and defensible, as they will be subject to rigorous scrutiny by both councils and objectors.