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

2.10.2 The above applications had not been implemented when the Planning Officer
visited the site, however having examined the plans for the proposals they are not
considered to materially impact on the application proposals due to the separation
distances involved between the application site and the above named applications.
It is therefore considered that in respect of planning applications on or around the
site there is nothing in this respect that would lead to a different decision than that
originally made.
2.11 Changes in Policy
2.11.1 The policy context for this application is set out earlier in this report and it should be
noted that the Selby District Local Plan Policies and Regional Spatial Strategy
Policies against which the application was originally assessed would still be relevant
as they are consistent with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2.11.2 Since the previous approval the National Planning Policy Framework has been
published and is clear that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through
both plan making and decision taking.
2.11.3 Having taken into account the relevant parts of the NPPF there is not considered to
be any significant changes in policy that would lead to a different decision than that
originally made as the NPPF supports a mix of housing based on current and future
demographic trends and the needs of groups such as older people or people with
disabilities, supports high quality design and sets out similar tests in relation to
appropriate development in the Green Belt, conserving the natural environment and
historic environment.
2.11.4 For members convenience a copy of the original Committee Report and Resolution
setting out the original assessment is attached as an Appendices to this report.
2.12 Other considerations arising from Consultations
2.12.1 The Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and Natural England commented that the original bat
survey is outdated and as such the agent has submitted an up to date bat survey by
John Drewett Ecology dated 7 August 2012.
2.12.2 The survey acknowledges that poor weather conditions during the summer of 2012
has had adverse impacts on bat activity and this has resulted in some roosts being
abandoned or being occupied at unpredictable times which may affect the survey
results. The survey states that the 2009 survey showed bats emerging from a
roost, however during the current survey only one single bat emerged indicating
that bats are still aware of this location but that a maternity roost was not present.
The bats may have moved to an alternative location to roost this year or may have
temporarily abandoned the roost due to the generally poor weather. The 2012
surveys have not indicated the presence of any further roosts not located in
previous years. The report states that it should therefore be assumed that the
previously identified Common Pipistrelle maternity roost is still in use and will be
used again in the future and the report therefore recommends that a further survey
should be carried out prior to the start of any development work. The report also
sets out mitigation and compensatory measures and these should be conditioned.
354