Have you read this part, Bat fans?

[The Great Cornholio]

1.18 In my view neither of the submissions made by FPC has merit. As for the EIA Regulations, on the matter of the cut and fill operations I am satisfied that the additional information presented was sufficient to meet the specified requirements of the Regulation 19 Direction which I issued. Similarly in regard to the overall construction impacts, there is substantial information in the various documents which constitute the ES. Also the question of lighting impact is adequately addressed in the ES and has been amplified in the Applicants’ evidence and thoroughly examined at the inquiry. Bat surveys have been undertaken by the Applicants and the results appear and are assessed in the ES. As I conclude elsewhere in this report under the “Environmental Effects” heading [see paragraph 18.178] their evidence on this topic was convincing and satisfied me that no unacceptable impact would be likely to arise. Lastly, I see no reason under the EIA Regulations why ecological surveys of alternative sites should be required.

 

[The Great Cornholio]

And this

1.19 In terms of the Habitats Regulations, as stated in the preceding paragraph bat surveys have been undertaken and I am satisfied from all the evidence available that it is unlikely that there would be any unacceptable harm (ie disturbance, damage or destruction). And in reaching that conclusion I note that as an additional safeguard it is the Applicants’ intention to carry out further surveys just prior to the commencement of any development, if it were permitted, along with other mitigation measures; that to my mind is consistent with the guidance in PPG9. In these circumstances it appears to me that the question of meeting the requirements of Regulation 44 is unlikely to arise.