Plans to demolish a cottage on the outskirts of Leek that was first built in the 1820s have been refused due to the risk the demolition would pose to bats.

A demolition determination application was submitted to Staffordshire Moorlands District Council by a Mrs Hannah Donnan, relating to 126 Ivy Cottage in Ladderedge, Leek.

But the council says that full planning permission will first be required before the demolition can go ahead as it could potentially harm any bats living in the area.

An application form submitted as part of the plans said that after taking professional advice, the decision was made that the cottage needed to be demolished.

It said: "The core of the building was constructed in approximately 1820 from fieldstone. Subsequent small extensions have been added, the latest being mid 70s.

"Under professional advice it would be impossible to underpin the fieldstone structure to current standards therefore a demolishment needs to take place.

It added: "We have taken advice from a professional demolishment company who will undertake this project. All spoil and rubble will be removed by the demolishment company and handled accordingly. New build plans will be forthcoming as soon as possible."

However, a report by the district council's planning officers says the work cannot currently go ahead as measures first need to be put in place "to ensure appropriate safeguard" of bats.

It says: "In this case the LPA cannot be satisfied that the proposed method of demolition is adequate to ensure appropriate safeguard of species (namely bats) which are protected species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017).

"The guidelines which the applicant's submissions say the demolition method would follow depend on survey of the building to be demolished having first been provided by a suitably qualified ecologist. This has not taken place.

"Furthermore the statement submitted to address protected species does not follow the Bat Conservation Trust Good Practice Guidelines for bat surveys and therefore does not comply with Natural England's standing advice for protected species and development. It is not apparent and has not been demonstrated on what basis the conclusion that species would not be affected has been reached."