Bat protections 'at risk' from plan for 270 homes near their roost claims campaigner

Concern protections for an endangered bat species near a potential housing development could be lost have been raised by a local campaigner. 

Jonty Pearce has claimed the replacement local development plan that has identified a possible site for up to 270 homes in Monmouth has weakened protection for the Greater Horseshoe Bat that are a European protected species. 

He said the development plan which Monmouthshire County Council has consulted on replaced wording that set out specific measures to assess the impact of any development on the small flying mammals without specifying actions that should be taken. 

Paul Griffiths, the council’s cabinet member responsible for the development plan that is intended to identify potential housing sites through to 2033 and land for employment use, said it doesn’t believe it has removed any ecological protections. 

The plan has included a greenfield site, known as Leasbrook, off Dixton Road, which it identifies as potentially suitable for 270 homes. 

Campaigner Mr Pearce said Newton Court, a site of special scientific interest, where the bats roost is only 950 metres from the Dixton Road site and also within the three kilometer “core sustenance zone” from which they feed. 

He said: “Greater Horseshoe Bats rely on dung insects from grazing cows and hedgerows. Building housing would remove 20 football pitches of grazing land, rip out established hedges add artificial light and interrupt bat commuting lines.” 

Newton Court is one of only three sites in Wales where the species breed and Mr Pearce said they are already considered extinct in the Netherlands and Germany. 

He said Monmouthshire council had removed references suggested protections, such as bat activity and roosting surveys from a development plan document , as it considered the wording “too prescriptive”. 

Cllr Griffiths said: “A balance has to be struck between polices which are necessary for the protection of all interests including environmental interests and whether that balance has been achieved with the potential need for development.” 

He said he will give “further consideration” to whether the council has “the right balance” as it considers responses to the consultation on the development plan, which closed in December. 

The councillor said the concerns raised by Mr Pearce would also be reported to the planning inspector who will have to consider the development plan and whether it can be approved as “sound” and fit for use. 

Cllr Griffiths said it should also be remembered that any proposals to build on any sites in the development plan would still have to be subject to a full planning application that would require detailed ecological surveys and proposed mitigations and enhancements. 

He said the council doesn’t have the legal power to remove any species or site protection.