Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo in black and white

UK Planning Law Blog

Real opinions on the alphabet soup of planning and development from s106 agreements to CIL, PDR to DCO, BIDs to UBR, viability to profits for everyone

open menu close menu

UK Planning Law Blog

  • Planning TV
  • Who We Are

Unduly Negative? Nutrient Neutrality Solutions and Negatively-Worded Planning Conditions

By Grace Pinault
December 1, 2022
  • Habitats and Species
  • Nutrient
  • Planning Conditions
  • Planning Policy
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

A recent Inspector’s decision demonstrates that negatively-worded planning conditions are not sure loopholes to avoid Natural England’s nutrient neutrality advice.  It needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, though.

The Appeal

The appeal scheme (49 homes) was hydrologically linked to the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area and Ramsar site (the “Habitat Sites“) which are in an unfavourable condition due to nutrient concentrations. A nutrient budget demonstrated that the scheme would contribute an additional 169.39 kilograms of total nitrogen per year into the Habitat Sites.

Requirements under the Habitats Regulations

Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, a competent authority may only agree to a project after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the national network site; an appropriate assessment is required unless significant effects can be established to be unlikely. A project likely to increase nutrient inputs into the Habitat Sites would likely fail an Appropriate Assessment.

Offsetting Nutrient Impacts

While other watersheds benefit from nutrient trading credit markets or strategic offsetting schemes, no such mitigation measures exist in this scheme’s watershed to offset the Habitat Site. So while the appellant provided some information that nitrate reduction credits may be secured through other national network sites in the area, the options presented were not concrete and sufficiently certain to be secured by legal agreement or planning condition.

The Inspector in this appeal had limited information on what a mitigation solution would look like and was aware that while offsetting solutions were under development, their implementation was estimated to be around 12 to 18 months in the future.

Negatively-Worded Conditions

The appellant proposed a negatively-worded condition to limit the commencement or occupation of the scheme until the scheme’s nutrient impact could be mitigated and secured.

The Inspector had regard to an appeal which concerned a scheme which was likely to have significant effect on a national network site through its nutrient impacts (the “2021 Appeal“). The Inspector allowed the 2021 Appeal subject to a negatively-worded condition which prevented the occupation of any dwellings until a mitigation scheme to offset the nutrient impacts on the integrity of a national network site was agreed with the local planning authority. The Inspector however, refused to apply a negative-worded condition. She noted that the Planning Practice Guidance advises that negatively-worded conditions should only be used in exceptional circumstances.

Unlike in the extant case, in the 2021 Appeal:

  1. there was an absence of a five-year housing supply; and
  2. the strategic offsetting solutions were imminently anticipated in the watershed.

In practice?

On the face of it, looking at negatively-worded planning conditions to mitigate nutrient impacts success may hinge on whether there is an absence of a housing supply and how far off nutrient offsetting solutions are in the watershed.

Digging deeper, a pinch of salt is needed.  The element of the PPG relied on relates to negative conditions requiring planning obligations or other agreements to be entered into. That may have been what the appeal scheme promoter envisaged, but there is no need for negative conditions to require these. In fact, regulation 75 of the Habitats Regulations already imposes a simple blanket restriction on the use of permitted development (“PD“) rights until the LPA has confirmed no adverse effect on the integrity of any relevant site. If Parliament considers this form of restriction as good enough for PD schemes – and it would not unlawfully defer consideration of Appropriate Assessment at the application stage – should it be good enough for non-PD schemes?

Habitats Regulations assessments will be more common at condition discharge stages (see the Landmark Chambers summary of the Jurston Farm (Wellington) appeal decision) and this issue is likely to arise far more frequently as the extent of certainty offered by the new requirement for water undertakers to install adequate treatment capacity by 2030.    

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Grace Pinault

About Grace Pinault

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Fracking
  • Planning Guidance
  • Planning Policy
  • Shale Gas

Shale planning: forward guidance is not new policy

Publication of the Government’s criteria for the 14th Round of Petroleum Exploration Development Licences (PEDLs) has been carefully  choreographed to […]

By Roy Pinnock
  • Coronavirus/ COVID-19
  • Planning Conditions
  • Planning Permission

Flexibility in a time of uncertainty: what have we really learnt from Finney and what could it mean now?

  • Permitted Development Rights
  • Planning Policy
  • Strategic Environmental Assessment
  • Use Classes

Stay Class-E

By Roy Pinnock

About Dentons

Across over 80 countries, Dentons helps you grow, protect, operate and finance your organization by providing uniquely global and deeply local legal solutions. Polycentric, purpose-driven and committed to inclusion, diversity, equity and sustainability, we focus on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site