Appeal 6003230

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on protected species.

The proposed development includes the demolition of sections of building to the rear of the appeal property and new roofs to the building. Due to the age of the existing roof and the extent of works, information was submitted with the application relating to potential impacts on protected species.

A Bat Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) has been produced by the appellant in support of the proposals. This found no evidence of bats within or on the appeal property. It did, however, identify that some areas in the roof and existing rear extensions had potential roosting habitats with access, such as in the main roof void, and a potential bat emergence or re-entry gap to a soffit to the rear extension. The site was therefore categorised as having low roosting potential in accordance with the Bat Conservation Trust guidelines1.

Those guidelines recommend that for structures with low roosting potential a further single emergence survey is required during the months May to August. However, the PRA considers that further survey work is unnecessary due to the low habitat value of the building, allied to what it regards as the unreliability of the single emergence survey in identifying the presence of bat roosts. It, instead, proposes a Bat Mitigation Plan, involving the installation of a bat box.

Bats are a European protected species and are subject to a high level of legal protection. Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation states that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent to which they may be affected, is established before the grant of planning 1 [name] for [name]: [name], 2023 permission. Whilst the PRA has identified a low bat roosting potential, it does not provide certainty with regards to the presence or otherwise of protected species.

Evidence has been submitted stating that the gap to the soffit to the rear of the building was only temporarily exposed during repair works, and at my site visit I observed that the hole has been subsequently repaired. Whilst the temporary nature of the gap in the rear soffit may reduce the probability of it being a point of access for bats into the building, the potential for the roof void to be in use by bats remains; particularly as the PRA acknowledges that the appeal site is connected to local bat foraging and commuting habitat.

Provision of a bat roosting box, as mitigation, would not remove the risk to any protected species which might be present at the appeal site. Furthermore, I have not been provided with any evidence which leads me to doubt the efficacy of the bat emergence survey advocated in the Bat Conservation Trust guidelines, or that it would not provide a greater degree of certainty than that provided by the PRA alone.

Consequently, I cannot conclude that the proposed development would not cause harm to protected species. The proposed development would, therefore, conflict with Policy E5 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan, (the Local Plan) 2016, which seeks to resist development that would result in the loss, deterioration or harm to habitats of protected species.

Policy COM2 of the Local Plan is cited on the Decision Notice. This relates to the principle of development within different settlement types. However, the principle of development is not at issue, subject to appropriate safeguards for protected species being in place, and therefore Policy COM2 appears to be of limited relevance to the appeal proposals.

Reference has been made to other extensions in adjoining properties where bat surveys were not required. However, I have not been provided with the details of those cases and I am unable to draw any direct comparisons with the proposal before me. Moreover, each case must be dealt with on its own merits.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.