Unfortunately this is not the case for "ecological impact" where the response from Horsham District Council's consultants - Place Services - is completely at odds with those from the Environment Agency, Sussex Wildlife Trust, Woodland Trust, and Sussex Ornithological Society. While these organisations list their concerns or state that they can't make an assessment due to a lack of information, Place Services say little about impacts and conclude that "We are satisfied that there is sufficient ecological information available to support determination of this application."

This conclusion isn't credible given the list of documents they say they've reviewed has glaring gaps, such as the Arboricultural Impact Assessments and the Tree Removal Plan, which probably explains why they make no reference to House Copse SSSI, ancient woodland, hedgerows and the loss of a veteran Oak tree. And why do they not identify information gaps such as the lack of data on aquatic ecology cited by the Environment Agency as a reason why they can't assess the application?And the total lack of botanical data other than trees?

In fact the Place Services response is very short, mainly focussed on the need for standard licences and conditions, and says almost nothing about impacts or the specifics of this site. No reference to the River Mole running across the site. Nor to the impact of the multi-lane carriageway that will span it. And no mention of the "red list" species, or the fact that the bat population, and the range of invertebrates observed across the site, are both of regional if not national significance.

Is there a risk that Horsham planning officers and councillors will assume that Place Services have accurately summarised the application material, and, given the enormous volume of material for this application, will place zero weight on the emerging consensus from the conservation groups and government bodies such as the Environment Agency?

Fenella Maitland-Smith

Save West of Ifield (Chair)