Appeal 3361627

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on protected species, with particular regard to bats.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling in a suburban area where houses have been altered and extended. There are gaps in the eaves, roof coverings and vertical hanging tiles which the preliminary bat roost assessment (PBRA) indicates offer access and roosting features of moderate value to both void and crevice dwelling bats. The proposal would involve significant alterations to the roof.

Bats are a [name] protected by law1. [name] 06/2005 states that the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a development proposal is being considered which would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. It further states that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision.

No evidence of bats was found during the visit by the appellant’s ecologist in October 2024, but the PBRA was unable to rule out or confirm the use of the roof coverings by roosting bats. Therefore, it recommends that two emergence surveys should be carried out from May to September, with at least one of these during the 1 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 optimal time of May to August, to establish whether roosting bats are present. No such survey information has been submitted.

In the absence of any bat emergence surveys, and based on the information before me, the presence of bats cannot be ruled out and I cannot be certain as to the extent to which they may be affected. Furthermore, if protected species were affected, I cannot be certain as to what mitigation, if appropriate, may be required.

The appellant states that the bat emergence surveys could be secured via a suitably worded condition. However, this would not be appropriate in light of the legal protection given to bats and the need to determine potential impacts on them in advance of any permission.

Consequently, I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not harm protected bats. This would conflict with Policies CS1 and CS3 of the Council’s Core Strategy 2007 and Policy DM4 of the Council’s Development Management Policies Document 2015. Together, these require the natural environment and biodiversity to be conserved, including appropriate mitigation and compensatory measures for development affecting any building that supports protected species, amongst other things

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including character and appearance and living conditions. Nevertheless, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the proposal.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.