Appeal 6003402

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is whether sufficient information is available to enable a determination to be made in relation to any impact on bats.

The appeal site is a detached bungalow situated within a principally residential area. The appeal proposal includes works to the existing roof structures and barge boards, elements of the building that have the potential to support roosting bats and nesting birds. The site is located within [name], the Council’s Ecologist confirms that this is an area known to provide high-quality habitat for bats, with numerous roost recorded in the immediate vicinity.

Whilst evidence has not been provided, I note that the Council indicates that local bat populations are highly mobile and are known to make use of buildings that might otherwise be considered sub-optimal. I have no reason to disagree with the Council. In these circumstances, there is a reasonable likelihood that protected species may be present and could be affected by the proposed works.

The potential presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a development proposal is being considered. 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 any planning permission is approved, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision.

In the absence of evidence in the form of an Ecological Impact Assessment, a Preliminary Roost Assessment and any subsequent activity surveys where required, it is also not possible to determine whether bats are present and if appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures could be implemented to address potential impacts. In these circumstances, the lack of evidence is such that it would not be reasonable to seek to address the matter by way of planning conditions.

I conclude that I have insufficient evidence to satisfactorily demonstrate whether any bats, which may be present on site, could be adequately protected as part of the proposed development.

There is conflict with Policy ENV 2 of the Northumberland Local Plan 2016-2036 (2022) which seeks to, amongst other things, protect protected species. I also find there is conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), which seeks to minimising impacts on biodiversity.

The appellant contends that the garage is in a poor state of repair whilst this maybe the case this would not outweigh the potential harm to a protected species.

Reference is made to similar alterations at neighbouring properties Nos. 3 and 5 Larchlea; however, each planning application must be considered on its own merits and on the basis of the information before the decision maker at the time the application is determined. The existence of previous permissions does not remove the requirement to assess the specific ecological circumstances of the appeal site, nor does it provide evidence that protected species are absent or would not be affected in this case. In the absence of site-specific survey information, I attach limited weight to comparisons with neighbouring developments.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.