Front extension to Lance House

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 9 March 2021 by David Murray BA (Hons) DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 March 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/P0119/D/20/3265311. Lance House, Inglestone Common, BADMINTON, GL9 1BS. • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Giles Bleaken against the decision of South Gloucestershire Council. • The application Ref. P20/19020/F, dated 2 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 30 November 2020. • The development proposed is a front extension to Lance House. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed front extension at Lance House, Inglestone Common, BADMINTON, GL9 1BS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P20/19020/F, dated 5 October 2020, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on local biodiversity, having particular regard to bats. Reasons Background 3. The appeal site comprises a two storey property with the upper floor mostly in the roof space lit by dormer windows, which lies in a hamlet of properties in the countryside. It is proposed to add a single storey lean-to extension to the south elevation at the front of the property and a two storey gable feature with glazed front. 4. The Council is satisfied with the design and form of the extension. The outstanding issue is the consideration of the effect on bats. Bats and their roosts are protected by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Effect on habitat of protected species 5. The proposal includes a detailed Bat Survey Report (BSR) undertaken by Smart Ecology in July 2020. This was required because the proposed extensions would involve the removal of a small porch and a gabled dormer and the temporary breach into the main roof space behind the dormer. The Preliminary Roost Assessment identified that a bat roost was present in the main roof space and other parts of the building had features with moderate likelihood of roosting bats. Two dusk emergence / dawn re-entry surveys Appeal Decision APP/P0119/D/20/3265311 2 confirmed that two roosts would be affected by the proposal. Primarily, Roost 1 would be destroyed by the demolition of the front porch; Regarding Roost 2 – the proposed works would damage or destroy the roost by undertaking works to the roof close to a dormer window. Other identified roosts would not be directly affected by the proposed building work. The BSR sets out a mitigation strategy which includes (in general terms) ‘soft’ demolition of features where roosting bats could be present; ecological supervision of the demolition; and provision of compensatory roosts. 6. The Council’s case is that given the presence of bats as revealed in the BSR and surveys, the Council Ecologist advises that the presence and movement of bats have to be appraised in more detail with a third bat emergence/ re-entry survey. Such a survey is seasonally restricted and can only be undertaken between May and August. Moreover, the Council relies on guidelines issued by the Bat Conservation Trust in support of the need for a third survey. 7. However, it is not clear why a third survey is needed. The appellant stresses that the BSR and two surveys were undertaken by a qualified ecologist and refers to the BCT good practice guidance which says that ‘roost characterisation surveys should continue until sufficient surveys have been carried out to gain the information required’ without specifying a minimum number. In the main this is a judgement call for the qualified specialist. Having regard to the evidence submitted on the appeal, including the copies of correspondence with Natural England, I am satisfied that appropriate survey work has been undertaken. Moreover, the building work proposed is relatively limited with specific impacts on the recognised roosts identified and the BSR recommends detailed and necessary mitigation. This mitigation can be required to be implemented by planning conditions as recommended by the Council. 8. I conclude that with the conditions recommended, the development proposed would not be detrimental to maintaining the population of the species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. Subject to a suitable licence from Natural England, the proposal would comply with the regulatory requirements identified above. In terms of the development plan, I find no conflict with the provisions of Policy PSP19 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan – Policies Sites and Places Plan (2017), or Policy CS9 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy. 9. In addition to conditions requiring the implementation of the mitigation specified in the BSR, and the issue of a licence, a condition requiring the submission of a scheme regarding external lighting is reasonable and necessary given the local presence of bats and I will impose this condition as recommended but modify it to ensure that it is enforceable. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. David Murray INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/P0119/D/20/3265311 3 Schedule of conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2. The development shall proceed in strict accordance with the Mitigation Measures provided in the Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment and a Bat Survey Report (Smart Ecology, September 2020) 3. Prior to the first occupation of the extension approved, details of any external sensitively designed lighting is to be submitted to the local authority for review. This is to include specification and location of any lighting to be installed. Thereafter, only lighting that accords with the approved scheme shall be installed at Lance House. 4. Prior to commencement of works, a copy of the EPS licence is to be submitted to the local authority. It is usual that all ecological conditions must be discharged prior to applying for a licence however under Clause 9.3 and Annex D6.1 of BS42020:2013 Planning conditions and European Protected Species Licences, a condition can be put in place for the request of an EPS licence. 5. Evidence of ecological enhancements are to be submitted to the local authority prior to the first use of the extension permitted, this is including but not limited to a bat box. The enhancements shall be installed within one month of being agreed by the Council and retained thereafter.