Appeal 6004421

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development provided in the banner above is different to that used on the planning application form. The amended description was agreed between the Council and appellant on the 6 October 2025 during consideration of the application. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the amended description.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on protected species.

The Council’s ecology officer advises that the surrounding landscape comprises numerous waterbodies, including a reservoir to the east and the [name] located 1km south-west, open grassland, arable land, and mature, leafy gardens. Further, that no ecological information has been provided as part of the planning application and that the existing building may have the potential to support roosting bats, which could be affected by the appeal proposal.

All species of bat are [name] (EPS) protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Paragraph 99 of Government Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – [name] and [name] the Planning System states: “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. The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances, with the result that the surveys are carried out after planning permission has been granted.”

Similar guidance is provided in BS 42020:2013 which states that the presence or absence of protected species and the extent to which they could be affected by the proposed development should be established before planning permission is granted.

The Council’s ecology department considers that it is possible that the development may be harmful to roosting bats and this is reflected by the evidence before me. The presence or absence of bats and the extent to which they could be affected is a material consideration in determining this appeal. In the absence of a bat survey undertaken by a suitably experienced and qualified ecologist I cannot conclude that the appeal proposal would not give rise to significant harm to bats or that any such harm could be avoided, adequately mitigated or compensated for. No submissions have been made to demonstrate exceptional circumstances exist and consequently in this case the matter cannot be dealt with by planning conditions.

The appellant refers to planning permission being granted at [address], for development including roof works, where a bat survey was not required by the Council. However, there is limited information before me regarding this development. Consequently, it has not been established that it is directly comparable to the appeal scheme. In any event the potential for harm to a protected species must be considered in advance of planning permission being granted notwithstanding an alternative approach being adopted on another site.

For the reasons outlined above I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the scheme would avoid harm to bats, which are a protected species. The scheme would therefore conflict with Policy NR2 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Local Plan (2022) which safeguards protected species and habitats from harm or loss. It is also contrary to Section 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework regarding appropriate assessment of habitats sites.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.