Bat roost must be incorporated into extension to Calderdale home

A permanent bat roost must be incorporated into an approved extension to a home in Hebden Bridge, a planning inspector says.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

Planning Inspector K. A. Taylor rejected an appeal by Mr and Mrs Roper who wanted to vary the condition of a planning approval granted by Calderdale Council last December.

One of the conditions of the council granting planning permission for the rear two storey extension to Stone Leigh House, Palace House Road, was that it had to include a single permanent bat roosting feature installed in it.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr and Mrs Roper wanted the condition removed and replaced with one to place bat boxes within their garden or along the woodland edge.

A bat roost must be incorporated into an approved extensionA bat roost must be incorporated into an approved extension
A bat roost must be incorporated into an approved extension

They had provided a report into the issue undertaken after planning permission was granted which concluded no evidence was recorded to suggest bats were roosting within the existing building and it was of negligible potential for roosting.

But the Inspector said this was only undertaken in daylight hours and for one hour within the building itself.

No detail had been provided as to where the bat boxes would be placed and the council had said the proposed lifetime of boxes would be restricted compared to a single integrated box in the development.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Nor did the report set out a case as to why bat boxes would be more suitable.

The Inspector said: “I acknowledge that the appellant has sought a professional paid report and would prefer to follow it.

“However, without such information, justifying a new location or why it is not acceptable for a single bat box to be integrated into the development, I consider the condition is necessary and reasonable in order to safeguard the protected species.

“For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”