Appeal 6002744

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are a) the effect on the character and appearance of the area b) the effect on the significance of the non-designated heritage asset c) whether any impact on bats could be suitably managed d) whether [name] (BNG) requirements can be suitably met and if any harm would result from any or all of the above e) whether there are material considerations that would justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

The appeal site, which is in a residential area within [site address] , is bounded by [address] to the south and The Spinney to the north, while a footpath runs down its eastern side. On site is a building that I understand has been 2 dwellings in the past, but is now unoccupied and in a dilapidated and derelict state. Moreover, the plot itself is substantially overgrown, and while a wall runs along the northern frontage, otherwise there are few apparent boundary treatments apart from the temporary safety fencing now present.

The proposal is to build 3 bungalows of the same design. Two of these would face [address], with the neighbouring property to the west being a bungalow, and 11⁄2 storey dwellings being to the east. Otherwise, [address] is lined by houses, mainly 2 storeys high, that are of a range of designs, materials and ages, and sit on their plots in a variety of arrangements. It therefore already has a diverse streetscape, and in such a context, I consider these 2 bungalows would be an acceptable addition to the street scene and would not be discordant.

The third bungalow, Plot 1 would face The Spinney. This road appears to be relatively new, and as it turns through 90o a little to the west, the development will be seen in a relatively short section of streetscape. Currently on the south side of the road there are older one and 11⁄2 storey buildings to either side of the appeal site, again standing on plots of differing sizes, thereby creating a certain diversity. The appeal site’s boundary wall, which is overgrown with ivy, is set back behind a verge and this arrangement is reflected by walling on the neighbouring sites, so resulting in a sense of enclosure to this side of the street. On the north of The Spinney though are closely spaced modern semi-detached houses that stand back from the main carriageway behind either parking spaces or a turning head. Although there is little if any soft landscaping at these properties, the set-back nonetheless means this layout creates a more spacious feel.

Given the heights and diversity of the buildings to the east and west, I raise no objection to the introduction of a bungalow here, considering it has due regard to the scale of existing development to either side. The dwelling would stand behind parking spaces at a slight angle, and would be away from the western boundary with a garden area in between. Although this could be seen as not being fully in accord with the closely spaced 2-storey housing opposite, that of itself does not necessarily mean harm results. Given its height and the side space created by the garden on one side and the footpath on the other I have no reason to find it would appear cramped. Furthermore, its siting would reflect the way that the houses on the opposite side of the road are set back from the main carriageway (as opposed to the turning head), though would have the additional benefit of being softened with planting.

Finally, I have no basis to consider that the arrangement of the proposed dwellings would unreasonably affect the living conditions of neighbours.

[name] conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area unacceptably, and so in this regard would not conflict with [name].20 and DM.24 in the Wyre Forest District Local Plan, which seek new development of a high quality design that protects local distinctiveness.

The building is identified as a non-designated heritage asset, with its significance deriving from its 18th and 19th century origins. However, it has been much altered over time, and these changes have diminished its original scale and design. Furthermore, it is in a poor condition, and while repair may be possible this would no doubt involve much alteration and addition to any remaining historic fabric. These factors inevitably affect its significance as a heritage asset and limit its historic value.

As the proposal would result in the complete loss of the building, I therefore conclude substantial harm would be caused to any significance it possesses.

The appellant has submitted numerous reports that, to a greater or lesser extent, analyse the impact of the development on bats at the site and how it could be addressed. In particular, he accepts that there are hibernation roosts for ‘small numbers’ of bats in the cellar of the property. While the Council states he has not submitted the 3 bat surveys advised by the Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines, that appears to be only necessary to give confidence if a negative result is proposed. The presence of bats though is something the appellant is not contesting.

To this end, he accepts that a bat mitigation licence will be required from Natural England. However, Circular 06/2005 says that the presence of protected species is a material consideration when assessing a planning proposal that would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. It goes on to say 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. Therefore, whilst I acknowledge that, if planning permission is to be granted, certain requirements will need to be discharged with Natural England, it is clear the issue of the effect on bats is also a material consideration that needs to be addressed when considering a planning application.

A number of measures have been proposed to address this issue, and in particular, the appellant’s [name] (Hibernation) (dated May 2025) recommended, as mitigation, a bat house that included a compensatory bat hibernaculum. Other measures comprise wall-mounted hibernation boxes, varied landscaping and controls over lighting.

Advice from Natural England (included in the [name] and attached to the Council’s Appeal Statement) says if the destruction of the bat roost is unavoidable it should be replaced on a like-for-like basis. This is then supported by the [name] (Hibernation), which says any replacement roost must accurately replicate the hibernation roost resource being lost with regard to size, temperature, humidity, air flow, roost availability and so on. Given what is said in the Circular, it is reasonable that some confidence in relation to this advice is established prior to the grant of planning permission.

However, despite these 2 areas of strong guidance, the appellant has not then gone on to demonstrate clearly that the bat house now before me, and for which planning permission is now sought, is of sufficient size to accommodate the bats hibernating at the property, or indeed of a design that replicates the cave-like atmosphere in the cellar. Indeed, the size and design of bat house shown on the submitted plans appears to have been taken from the appellant’s [name] (dated 7 July 2025), where it follows a sentence that says ‘an example of a bat house with cooling tower is provided here for reference’. To my mind this does not imply it is a proposed structure that has been specifically tailored to the circumstances of the case as advised by the [name] (Hibernation). As such, I am not satisfied that the extent to which the proposal would affect the bats at the site has been suitably addressed.

The bat house would be some distance away from the parking space for Plot 2 and so car headlights associated with that bungalow should not be a nuisance. However, it would be right next to a bend in the drive that serves the 2 properties immediately to the west. Whilst the traffic associated with these would not be great, there is a strong likelihood that the bat house could nonetheless experience light nuisance from vehicles as the approached along this lengthy drive. Noting advice from Natural England concerning a like-for-like basis, I consider these headlights mean that what is proposed may well not be comparable to the dark cellar environment and its approaches now used by the bats. As a result, its attractiveness as a satisfactory hibernaculum could well be compromised. While it was said that there would be landscaping around the bat house to offer further protection in this regard, I have few details of the nature of that planting, when it would be planted, how it would be managed or how effective it would be from the outset. As such, the weight I can afford it is limited. I also have little concerning the management of the bat house itself.

Therefore, despite the advice in his [name] (Hibernation), I find the appellant has failed to show the proposed bat house would replicate the hibernation roost in the cellar with regard to size, temperature, humidity, air flow, roost availability and so on, and this, of itself, is sufficient for me to conclude the scheme’s effects on bats has not been adequately addressed. However, had I found differently the issues of car headlights from traffic approaching the neighbouring properties, and the management of the bat house, are further concerns that would need to have been satisfactorily resolved before I could have supported the scheme.

Moreover, when comparing the proposed and existing site plans it would appear that the position of the bat house overlaps with the footprint of the existing property. If this is in fact the case, it would mean the bat house cannot be provided before demolition started, and that would further support my concerns on this issue.

In assessing this matter I am aware of the derelict state of this pair of houses, and appreciate that there is a possibility it may collapse or need to be demolished at some time in the future. However, I have little further information on this point and consider it is not a basis for me to allow a scheme where it has not been shown harm would not be caused to any hibernating bats.

Turning to the issue of lighting in the wider context, and especially the loss of dark corridors, although I visited in the morning of 13 [name] also returned after dark on that same day to view the site from the public domain and appreciate the character of the surroundings at that time. As this sizeable property is uninhabited and as there is much dense planting around it, the site is at present very dark. However there are streetlights on The Spinney and [address], and there were also light columns along the footpath to the east (though these were not lit when I was there). Furthermore, there is light spillage from the windows of the houses all around the site. However, neither the streetlights nor the light from within the houses is particularly bright or dominant. Given these factors, I accept the appellant’s contention that any bats using the property must have adjusted to the low level of lighting in the area at present.

Consequently, putting aside the effect of headlights from cars on the drive to the west discussed above, I consider that with appropriate controls on lighting the development could allow for corridors of sufficient darkness to be maintained for any bats that were living at [address].

Accordingly, as it has not been shown that the bat house would replicate the hibernation roost resource being lost, I conclude it has not been demonstrated that the scheme would suitably manage the effect on the bat population that the parties accept is now present. As such, the development would not accord with Local Plan Policy SP.23, which seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity.

BNG is an approach to development that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was beforehand.

The appellant accepts that, if granted, the development would be subject to the BNG condition. As clearance of some of the vegetation on site has already occurred, he has offered an earlier survey from 2022 that confirmed the site was in poor condition, mainly being unmanaged scrub and containing a high percentage of non-native planting. I am aware there is a slight discrepancy between this data and that of more recent assessments, but overall I am prepared to accept that 2022 survey, considering it sufficient to comply with the minimum information set out in Article 7 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. In the appellant’s [name] of July 2025 he accepts that off-site units will be required to achieve the necessary BNG targets. I recognise that given the size of the site and its overgrown nature at present, delivering BNG on-site is not likely to be possible, and so this is an appropriate approach.

In the light of this information I consider the BNG condition is capable of being successfully discharged, and so in this regard it accords with Local Plan Policy SP.23.

I have found development plan conflict in relation to the scheme’s effect on bats while there would also be substantial harm to the significance of this non-designated

I am aware of the national emphasis on the delivery of housing and, coming to a balanced judgement and taking into account the limited historic value of the property, I consider this would outweigh the substantial harm to this non-designated asset. As such, the scheme would not conflict with Policy DM.23 in the Local Plan that accepts harm to a heritage asset if there is clear and convincing justification. However, even taking this emphasis on housing with other benefits such as the removal of an overgrown site in this residential area that is a focus for anti-social behaviour, and any economic growth in the construction phase or from future residents, I consider these would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the failure to show the scheme would not harm any bats hibernating at the site.

Accordingly, having regard to the development plan when taken as a whole I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.