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

The submitted bat report states that the buildings have hanging tiles, fascia boards and
small pitched roof. There are gaps behind hanging tiles. These features on a building set
amid parkland and close to lake make the site ideal for roosting bats’.
However there are severe limitations to the report. The report concludes that ‘because the
survey started very late in the season it is not possible to determine whether the identified
roost sites are maternity roosts’ and that ‘this requires further survey work next summer’.
The tests of the Habitat Regulations require a weighing exercise to be undertaken
between the significance of the protected species and the public interest. In order to give
appropriate weight to the protected species, in thi instance bats, it is necessary to have
information on the type of roost and the species and numbers of bats occupying a
particular site. This information is also required in determining the nature and extent of
mitigation works that may be required and to give weight to the ‘conservation status of the
species’.
Although Natural England has not objected to the proposal, the County Ecologist
recommends that ‘a further full bat survey is carried to determine the type and extent of the
roost(s) present’.
It is therefore advised that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to allow
the Local planning Authority to make a full and proper assessment of the proposal on bats
and to undertake its duties under the Habitat Regulations. The applicant has been
informed of the situation in respect of potential impacts on European protected species
and may submit further information between the writing of this report and the meeting of
Planning Committee. Should this be the case Planning Committee will be updated.
9. Other Considerations
There are other matters relating to, for example, surface and foul water disposal, the
removal of four protected trees, the applicants’ intention to control the direction of access
to the site and to limit it to from the A162 only. These are matters over which there is no
significant dissent from statutory bodies, and, if necessary may be controlled by condition
on any approval and would not be contrary to national guidance or local policy.
CONCLUSION:
The proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the Green belt. Inappropriate
development in the Green Belt is, by definition, harmful and should only be allowed where
very special circumstances exist. Furthermore such circumstances would only exist
where the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed
and it is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted.
It is considered that the proposed benefits arsing form the scheme do not outweigh the
harm resulting by reason of inappropriateness and to the actual harm to the openness of
the Green Belt. As such it is considered that the proposal is unacceptable in principle.
However in matters of detail it is considered that the proposal would preserve the setting
and character of the both the listed church and the historic Scarthingwell Park and would
not be to the detriment of highway safety or the amenities of nearby occupiers.
375