Councillors expressed significant reservations about the proposal, with the debate highlighting clear and consistent planning concerns despite the eventual outcome. A central issue was the loss of mature woodland, which many members felt could not be meaningfully offset by replacement planting. The distinction between simply planting new trees and losing established habitat built up over decades was repeatedly emphasised.
There was also unease about insufficient ecological information, particularly where key details had been deferred. Some councillors questioned whether they were being asked to approve the scheme without fully understanding its environmental impacts. This raised concerns about whether the decision met national planning requirements for robust and complete evidence.
Doubts were also expressed about the reliability of mitigation measures, including the strength and enforceability of the S106 agreement. Several members were not convinced that proposed protections and compensations would be delivered effectively or in time to prevent harm. Taken together, the debate revealed a strong basis for objection grounded in ecological harm, uncertainty, and lack of confidence in mitigation.
We await to see if Danone appeal the application.
