Appeal 6002258

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development on the application form includes other elements of development which have subsequently been withdrawn by the submission of revised drawings during the application process. For the purposes of the header, I have therefore, used the Council’s description of development from the decision notice, which more closely describes the development proposed.

Section 79(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) allows me to allow or dismiss the appeal or reverse or vary any part of the decision (whether the appeal relates to that part or not) and I may deal with the proposal as if it had been made to me in the first instance. This means that if I determine that a condition should be changed or amended in some way, the appeal is allowed regardless of whether this reflects the amendments sought by the appellant.

The main issue is whether Condition 3 is reasonable and necessary having regard to the appeal site’s proximity to protected [name].

The appeal site is located within the buffer zones of the qualifying protected species of the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bat Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and is around 500m north of the Box Mine Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), one of four component SSSI’s of the SAC. The Habitat Site is a qualifying European site under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (hereafter referred to as the Habitats Regulations). It is recognised for its national and international importance for nature conservation. Its qualifying features are its protected priority habitats and species including important populations of [name], [name], of which the SAC supports 15% of the UK population, together with [name].

The appellant commissioned a detailed Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) for bats, which was submitted with the application. [name] noted no evidence of the presence of roosting bats within the roof space of the building, though I note from the photographic evidence contained within the PRA, that at the time of the survey, the upper floor ceilings had already been removed which would have disturbed any roosting bats, and would have removed much of the evidence of droppings or urine stains that would have been present on the upper surface of the ceiling.

Notwithstanding the above, the PRA concluded that the building provided [name] for bat species, and no evidence of bat activity was found during the survey. The PRA made recommendations for modest post-construction ecological enhancements which should be incorporated in the site or on the building, if possible, and which the qualified ecologist noted as being proportionate with the level of environmental impact from proposed development.

Having visited the site, I found no reason why it would not be possible to incorporate the recommended ecological enhancements either within the site or on the building, particularly given the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) to provide net gains for biodiversity. The appellant suggests that the location of a streetlight in [site address] may make this difficult due to light effects. At my visit, the streetlight was located opposite the principal elevation of the appeal property and was fitted with a directional light head which would limit light spill.

The appellant notes that the best practice guidance from the Bat Conservation Trust recommends bat boxes be located on south, south-east or south-west facing walls to provide exposure to sun for part of the day, above 4m from ground level, away from artificial light sources, sheltered from strong winds, and to be close to bat foraging and commuting routes such as hedgerows and tree-lines. As the appeal property’s gable would comply with all these requirements, I find that it would be possible to achieve compliance with Condition 3.

Having examined Condition 3, I find it accords with the recommendation of the PRA in terms of its extent, and to be reasonable and necessary to prevent harm to protected species, and to ensure compliance with policies CP50 and CP57(ii) of the [name] (WCS) and the Framework.

Whilst the condition requires the installation of the features to be supervised by a professional ecologist, the extent of such supervision would be limited to the recommendation of the type and proposed location of the required bird and bat boxes. I do not find that the photographic recording of this process, and the subsequent submission to the LPA for confirmation of discharge of the condition to be onerous and would be sufficient to demonstrate compliance without the requirement of a site visit by the Council. Nor do I find it would be unreasonable or unnecessary for these features to remain available for wildlife for the duration of the development.

The appeal site is within the south-western section of the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL). Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) amended the duty placed on relevant authorities required by the Countryside and Right of Way Act 2000 (CRoW Act), requiring decision makers to ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of protected landscapes, of which the NL is one. It requires, as far as is reasonably practical, relevant authorities to seek to avoid harm and to contribute to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristics of [name]. This is reflected in the Framework, which requires great weight to be given to protecting the scenic beauty of NL’s.

The appeal proposal is single storey and located to the rear of the property, which is part of a short terrace of similar properties which also have similar single storey extensions to their rear elevations. The proposal would be substantially screened both from close views from the public realm in its immediate setting, and from wider landscape views, by the surrounding development against which it would be read, the stone quarry escarpment and the dense woodland which surrounds the property on two sides. Accordingly, I find the appeal development would not have a detrimental effect on the scenic beauty of the wider CNL.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt (GB). Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the construction of new buildings in the GB is inappropriate. Paragraph 152 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the GB and should only be approved in very special circumstances. However, paragraph 154 of the Framework also lists exceptions to inappropriate development in the GB.

The Council consider that the proposal would meet the exception of paragraph 154(c) of the Framework, and that with reference to the WCS, there are no policies which explicitly restrict the size/massing of extension or alterations to existing buildings in the GB. Accordingly, the Council conclude that the appeal proposal would not be inappropriate development in the GB. Having examined the evidence before me, I find no reason to find otherwise.

I have examined all matters that have been raised, but none would demonstrate that Condition 3 is not reasonable and necessary for the mitigation of potential harms to [name]. Consequently, I find that Condition 3 complies with the tests for planning conditions set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework and the related advice in Planning Practice Guidance concerning the application of these tests in these regards. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.