Inspector Refuses Larger Housing Scheme on Allocated Site Due to Bat Mitigation Concerns
Public Law and Judicial Review, Local Government
On Friday 9 May 2025 an Inspector, Owen Woodwards, issued his decision letter following a two-week inquiry held near Wallingford in South Oxfordshire, into two parallel appeals on a parcel of land allocated for new housing in the local plan.
The Proposals: 121 vs 76 Homes
Appeal A was for 121 homes, together with a care home and associated development, whereas Appeal B was for identical development save that the number of homes proposed was reduced to 76. By the time of the appeal, highways matters having been resolved between the main parties, the local planning authority defended its refusal of Appeal A only, and on the basis that 121 homes represented an over-development of the site, causing harm. It did not seek to defend its initial refusal of Appeal B post-resolution of the highways issues.
Focus on Mitigating Bat Habitat Impact
In the end the decision turned on the Appellant’s proposal to mitigate the agreed effect on the endangered Barbastelle bat: the parties agreed that a 10m-deep dark corridor was required from the northern facade of the proposed built development; and the Appellant accepted that it could only achieve this by way of a combination of LTV glazing on all north-facing windows and the use of automated, self-closing blinds on those same windows. The Inspector rejected this suggestion, finding that the effect on the living conditions of residents in those homes was unacceptable. He granted permission for the smaller scheme, which did not rely on any such mitigation measures.
The decision-letter is an interesting reminder, especially in the current political environment, that just because a site is allocated for housing does not mean inappropriate or harmful schemes should be granted permission on such sites: good quality proposals are still required.
Josef Cannon KC acted for the LPA, instructed by Vivien Williams at South & Vale Councils.
