Campaigners opposing the proposed Hamsterley Forest development (DM/24/02979/FPA) have identified a critical legal failure at the heart of the application.
Under the Environment Act 2021, all major developments must deliver a minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain. This is not guidance — it is a statutory requirement. However, the developer’s own ecological assessment tells a very different story.
The submitted Watercourse Biodiversity Net Gain report confirms: * Baseline biodiversity units: 19.01 * Post-development units: 19.02 This equates to a net gain of just 0.06% — a fraction of what the law requires. To meet the legal threshold, the scheme would need an additional +1.901 units, a substantial shortfall that remains completely unresolved.
Campaign representatives state: “This isn’t a minor technical issue — it’s a clear legal failure. The law requires a 10% biodiversity gain. The developer has delivered virtually nothing. On their own figures, this scheme fails.”
The report also confirms that key mitigation measures: * Have not been defined * Have not been secured * Will be “discussed” at a later stage. This approach has been described as speculative and unlawful, as biodiversity gains must be guaranteed before permission is granted, not promised after the fact.
Further concerns include: * Direct harm to priority habitat watercourses, including Euden Beck
* Exclusion of ecological losses from the official metric, understating the true impact
* Reliance on unsupported assumptions that watercourses will not deteriorate despite construction works
Campaigners argue that the application is therefore in direct conflict with both the Environment Act 2021 and national planning policy.
“You cannot approve a development that fails a basic legal test. This isn’t about opinion or balance — it’s about compliance. The requirement is clear, and it has not been met.”
Opponents are now calling on the Local Planning Authority to:
* Recognise the failure to meet statutory Biodiversity Net Gain
* Reject reliance on undefined future mitigation
* Refuse the application on legal grounds “If this application is approved, it sets a dangerous precedent — that developers can ignore biodiversity law and fix it later. That is not what Parliament intended.”
