30th May 2026
One of the most astonishing aspects of the current Padden Brook planning application (DC/097786) is the timing of the ecological survey that now forms part of the applicant’s case.
After more than two years of what local residents describe as a sustained assault on this much-loved Local Wildlife Site, the landowner finally commissioned an Ecological Appraisal last December and January. The report’s conclusion? That the ecological condition of the site is now “Poor”.
The obvious question is: what did they expect?
For years, residents have watched with growing alarm as habitats have been disturbed, vegetation removed, and the character of the site altered. Yet only after this prolonged period of change was a formal ecological assessment commissioned. It is rather like demolishing part of a historic building and then claiming it has little heritage value because it no longer looks as impressive as it once did.
Even more remarkably, the survey was carried out during the depths of winter, when many plant species are dormant, wildlife activity is reduced, and ecological features can be far harder to identify. Any experienced naturalist knows that winter surveys provide only a partial picture of a site’s biodiversity.
Padden Brook was designated as a Local Wildlife Site for a reason. Generations of residents have valued it as a haven for wildlife and an important green corridor in an increasingly developed landscape. Yet the planning application now relies upon a report that assesses the site only after years of alleged degradation and at arguably the least informative time of year.
Many local people are therefore asking whether this survey reflects the true ecological value of Padden Brook, or simply the condition of a site after it has already been subjected to years of disturbance.
The timing matters. Planning decisions should be based on an honest assessment of what a site is, not what it has become after prolonged neglect or damage.
As councillors and planning officers consider this application, they should look beyond the headline conclusion that the site is in “Poor” condition and ask a much more important question:
Would that still have been the verdict if the survey had been carried out before two years of disturbance, rather than after it?
For many residents, the answer is painfully obvious.
