“Once more, Nick’s creative modus operandi was brought upon us, and yea, the balance was tilted. Creativity is a fine mindset — essential even — if you’re a fashion designer. But if it’s your foundation in accountancy, you’d be done for it. Apply with caution — if you’re a public servant!”
🧭 What’s Going On?
Let’s rewind to the end of 2013. Something very deliberate began to take shape in Medstead — and a decade later, it’s still playing out.
decade later, it’s still playing out.
📆 TIMELINE: EHDC’s EIA Slipstream Strategy
📍 November 2013
Bargate Homes, in a joint venture with VIVID, submitted an EIA screening opinion request for a 60-dwelling development at Boyneswood Lane, Medstead — now known as the Ashwood estate, an upward extension of Beechlands Road.
- The site triggered mandatory EIA screening under the 2011 Regulations due to its size.
- EHDC issued a “No EIA Required” opinion in November 2013.
📍 12 days later
Foreman Homes – another developer – submitted a separate EIA screening opinion request for a different plot to the side of the same village edge — referred to by EHDC as Land East of Cawk House, Stoney Lane, later known as Land West of Beechlands Road.
This was not adjacent in a technical sense, but it proposed a sideways expansion of the same rural boundary — turning Beechlands into a development spine.
📍 37 days after that
EHDC case officer Nick Upton issued another “No EIA Required” opinion — this time for 144 dwellings, nearly 2.5x larger than the Bargate site.
Despite this size, proposed density closer to urban infill levels, and proximity to another major proposal, EHDC did not consider cumulative impact.
📍 15 days later
Bargate/VIVID submitted their full planning application for 60 dwellings at Boyneswood Lane (now Ashwood).
📍 5 months later – June 2014
The application was refused by EHDC, but subsequently allowed on appeal, meaning the development proceeded not through local political support — but through planning inspectorate approval.
⚠️ But Something Else Was Happening Behind the Scenes
- In early 2018, Bargate secured an option to purchase the neighbouring land (the one Foreman had screened years earlier).
- At the time, Ashwood (Plot 1) was only partly complete. Yet the next move was already in play.
- In 2019, Bargate published a developer-facing document framing Medstead’s South-East quadrant as a target for coordinated expansion.
🧠 These actions show this wasn’t spontaneous. It was phased, coordinated, and pre-planned.
📍 May 2024
Bargate/VIVID applied to build 62 new homes on the very site that Foreman Homes screened a decade earlier.
- But this time, EHDC did not issue a new EIA screening opinion.
- Instead, they said: “The site has already been screened in 2014 — and this application is for fewer dwellings.”
📍 20 March 2025 – Planning Committee Report
Nick Upton justifies the lack of screening:
“The Local Planning Authority received a request for an EIA Screening Opinion for a scheme of up to 144 dwellings in 2014… This application represents a reduction…”
What he didn’t say:
- The 2014 screening was for Foreman Homes, not Bargate/VIVID
- It had expired in 2017 under Regulation 9(2) of the 2017 EIA Regs
- A new screening was legally required
🧾 Legal Reality — Not Optional
🔹 EIA Regulations 2017, Regulation 6(1):
Only “a person who proposes to carry out development” may request a screening opinion.
✅ So: screening opinions are not transferable.
❌ You can’t use another company’s 10-year-old opinion to justify skipping screening today.
🔹 Regulation 9(2):
Screening opinions expire after 3 years, unless followed by a planning application.
❌ So: A 2014 opinion used in 2024 is legally void.
🔹 Schedule 3:
The LPA must consider:
- The characteristics of the site
- Its location
- Cumulative impacts
📌 Medstead had already absorbed 8.36% of EHDC’s housing between 2011–2021, despite being only 1.76% of the population. That’s 475% more than proportional share — clearly significant.
🔹 Case Law:
R (Burridge) v Breckland DC [2013]
You cannot split up related developments to avoid EIA (“salami slicing”).
R (Mageean) v Sec of State [2010]
Screening opinions are not portable. New developer = new screening.
Delena Wells (C-201/02, ECJ)
You can’t avoid EIA through procedural gymnastics. The test is real-world environmental impact.
🎯 EHDC’s Misrepresentations
Nick Upton told the Planning Committee:
“EIA regulations have been tightened to reduce burdens on businesses…”
This is false.
The 2017 update actually:
- ✅ Made Schedule 3 assessment mandatory
- ✅ Introduced screening expiry
- ✅ Expanded the scope of environmental review
- ✅ Increased transparency and accountability
So no, Nick — the rules weren’t watered down. They were strengthened.
🧱 What EHDC Did Wrong
| Error | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Reused expired 2014 screening | ❌ Unlawful under Reg. 9(2) |
| Used screening issued to Foreman Homes | ❌ Not valid under Reg. 6(1) |
| Ignored land control and phasing from 2018 onward | ❌ Violates Schedule 3 and Burridge |
| Claimed 62 homes ≠ significant impact | ❌ Scale is not the only test — cumulative burden and rural setting are key |
| Officer under scrutiny handled the complaint | ❌ Procedural unfairness |
🧨 This Is Not a Technical Error
It’s not about red tape. It’s about democracy, legal compliance, and environmental protection.
Would you accept a developer building 62 houses next to your home using a decade-old environmental exemption granted to a completely different company, in completely different planning law, for a larger, unrelated scheme?
Then why should Medstead?
🔚 Final Word
EHDC’s decision:
- Breaches legal duties under the EIA Regulations
- Fails to treat a multi-phase expansion as a single cumulative project
- Bypasses environmental safeguards through procedural repurposing
- Undermines trust in planning as a fair, transparent system
If this stands, it sends a message:
“You can avoid environmental scrutiny by changing developers, waiting a decade, and claiming you’re just doing a bit less than someone else once proposed.”
That’s not lawful. That’s not planning. That’s strategy — at public expense.