Agenda with Maps and Applications (21Mb) - pdf - Selby District ...

acceptable in highway safety terms in accordance with policies ENV 1 (2) , H6(3)
T1, T2 and the advice contained within the NPPF.
2.10 Impact upon Nature Conservation Interests
2.10.1 Chapter 11 of the NPPF sets out the Governments approach on how to conserve
and enhance the natural environment.
2.10.1 Paragraph 118 of the NPPF advocates the conservation and enhancement of
biodiversity, advising that local planning authorities should refuse applications that
would have significant, unavoidable harm to biodiversity and their impact cannot be
adequately mitigated or compensated for.
2.10.3 Point 5 in policy ENV1 advises that when considering development proposals the
District Council will take account of the potential loss, or adverse effect upon trees
and wildlife habitats. Point 6 of policy H6 of the Local Plan states that development
proposals should not harm acknowledged nature conservation interests or result in
the loss of open space of recreation/ amenity value or that which is intrinsically
important to the character of the area. These policies should be given weight as
they are in accordance with the aims of the NPPF to protect and enhance
biodiversity.
2.10.4 The development site is occupied by a series of steel frame barns and stone
outbuildings, which are used in association with the adjacent Second Pinfold Farm.
The proposal would not therefore result in the loss of any open space of recreation/
amenity value or that which is intrinsically important to the character of the area.
The buildings do however have the potential to be used by bats, which are a
European Protected Species and nesting birds.
2.10.5 With regards to the impact upon biodiversity an ecological survey has been
submitted with the application. The North Yorkshire Bat Group and the Yorkshire
Wildlife Trust have been consulted on the application. The North Yorkshire Bat
Group have advised that they have no objections to the proposal, however no
comments have been received from the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust.
2.10.6 The ecological survey advises that no bats were found to be roosting in the
buildings and there were no signs of barn owls either. It did however note that two
of the buildings have low to moderate potential for roosting bats with small numbers
of scattered droppings being found in two buildings that are likely to have been
produced by bats flying into the buildings whilst foraging or briefly hanging on
wooden roof timbers. In terms of hibernation, the author of the ecological survey
advised that the buildings on site were not suitable hibernation sites due to a lack of
cavity walls or suitable underground structures. The survey therefore concluded that
the proposed development should not have any short or long term effects on the
population viability of bats or barn owls at the site or in the surrounding area,
advising that no mitigation is required to offset the developments impact. It was
however advised that it would be preferable for demolition to be carried out between
November and March when bats are likely to be hibernating elsewhere.
2.10.7 Swallows were however recorded nesting in one of the buildings that would be
demolished. In order to mitigate loss it is suggested that swallow access gaps are
created at the tops of exterior doors of the garages, however the author of the
261