Appeal 6003178

The appeal is dismissed.

The scheme has multiple elements, including a ground-floor rear extension and first-floor side extension. However, the main issues in dispute are: • the effect of the first-floor side extension on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposal on protected species, specifically bats.

[address] is predominantly characterised by detached two-storey dwellings which vary in their style and appearance. One of the distinguishing features of the street is the generous gaps between the first-floor side elevations of the dwellings and the side boundaries of their plots. These combine to give the area a spacious feel.

The proposed side extension would be positioned close to the side boundary. The parties disagree regarding the distance but regardless of whose measurement is taken, the proposal would significantly reduce the gap between the first-floor side elevation and the boundary of the site. The separation would be less than that suggested in the Householder Applications Supplementary Planning Guidance (2004) which advises that proposals should aim to retain a separation with the side boundary of at least 1m. In failing to maintain an adequate separation to the boundary, the proposal would be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in [address].

I conclude that the proposed first-floor side extension would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy CS5 of the [name] (2007); and policies DM9 and DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015). These policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in seeking to ensure that new development is sympathetic to local character.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) impose a statutory duty on me to consider whether [name] (EPS) would be affected by the proposal. All bat species are afforded EPS status and are protected under these Regulations. 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 planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the

The appellant submitted a Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) which evaluates bat species potential at the site. It explains that whilst no known evidence of bats was observed during the internal inspection, the external inspection noted potential roosting features in the form of slipped tiles and degraded soffits along multiple elevations. The PRA further notes that the site has good connectivity to good bat foraging habitat. Accordingly, it recommends that further bat emergence/re-entry surveys should be carried out to determine whether roosting bats are using the property.

Without the information provided by the additional surveys, I cannot be certain of the effect of the proposed development on bats. Surveys should only be secured by condition in exceptional circumstances; there are no exceptional circumstances before me which would justify imposing such a condition.

I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not give rise to adverse impacts on protected species, specifically bats. The scheme conflicts with Policy CS3 of the [name] (2007); and Policy DM4 of the Development Management Policies Document (2015). These policies are consistent with the Framework in seeking to ensure that new development minimises adverse impacts on biodiversity.

The Council’s evidence refers to the site being located within a [name] impact zone but does not explain the significance of this. [name] am dismissing the appeal for other reasons there is no need for me to seek clarification on this matter. It does not affect my overall conclusions on this proposal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.