Checklist: evidence pack for a bat mitigation licence

A bat mitigation licence evidence pack is assembled to satisfy three statutory tests, not to describe a mitigation scheme. The mitigation design is usually the easiest part. Applications are refused or returned because the survey effort was thin, because the no satisfactory alternative test was answered with a sentence, or because planning permission was not in place in the form the licence requires.

Bats are European protected species, and the licence is issued under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Survey work and the licence application require a suitably licensed ecologist, which is a legal requirement rather than a preference, and an AI-assisted draft is a starting point for that ecologist rather than a substitute for them.

What the licence authorises

The licence permits acts that would otherwise be offences, including damaging or destroying a breeding site or resting place, capturing or disturbing bats, and obstructing access to a roost. It is specific to a site, a named ecologist, a method statement and a timetable.

It does not authorise the development. Planning permission does that, and the licensing authority expects a full permission to be in place, with relevant conditions discharged, before it will issue. An outline permission without reserved matters approval generally will not do, because the licence has to be assessed against a development the applicant is actually entitled to build.

Build the licence into the programme as a consequence of permission, not as a parallel activity.

Survey effort expected before an application

The effort has to match the assessed suitability of the structure or tree, following the recognised good practice guidelines for bat surveys. The sequence is a preliminary roost assessment first, which grades the building or tree for its potential to support roosting bats, and then a number of emergence and re-entry surveys proportionate to that grade.

• Negligible suitability: no further survey, with the reasoning recorded.
• Low suitability: a single emergence or re-entry survey in the appropriate season.
• Moderate suitability: two surveys, separated in time.
• High suitability: three surveys, separated in time.
• A confirmed roost: further work to characterise the roost type, species and numbers, which may include internal inspection, static detectors or radio tracking.

But timing is the constraint on the programme. Emergence surveys are carried out in the active season, with the central summer months giving the most reliable results, and surveys outside that window are routinely discounted. A preliminary roost assessment can be done at any time of year, so get it done early, because it tells you whether the scheme has a 12-month survey problem or none at all. Order it alongside the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal at the same time as the other baseline work.

The three derogation tests and the evidence for each

Every licence application turns on these, and each needs its own evidence rather than a shared paragraph.

The purpose test is normally evidenced by the planning permission itself, with the officer report and the development plan policies that supported it. Attach them rather than referring to them.

The alternatives test is where applications are weakest. It needs real alternatives considered at the right stage: a different scheme layout, retention of the roost structure, a different construction method, a different phasing, and doing nothing. Each has to be described and rejected for a stated reason. An answer that says the applicant needs to build the approved scheme is not an answer, because the approved scheme is the thing being licensed.

The conservation status test is an ecological judgement about the local population and about the roost's role within it. It depends directly on the survey work, which is why thin survey effort undermines this test as well as the first two.

Method statement and mitigation design

The method statement is the operative part of the licence, and the works have to follow it exactly. It should set out the timing of each operation against the bat calendar, the sequence of soft strip and demolition with hand working where roost features are present, supervision arrangements and who attends each stage, exclusion methods and the period over which they operate, the compensatory roost provision with drawings and specifications, the lighting regime during and after works, and the contingency if a bat is found.

Compensatory provision has to be like for like in function rather than in appearance. A maternity roost in a warm ridge void is not replaced by three bat boxes on a north elevation, and licensing officers know the difference. Roost dimensions, thermal performance, access point size and position, and the materials used all matter, and the Protected Species Survey and roost design should be produced by the same ecologist.

The reasoned statement and the planning requirement

The reasoned statement is the document that ties the pack together and argues the three tests. It should cross-refer to the survey report, the method statement, the drawings and the planning permission, and it should be written for a licensing officer who has not seen the site.

Include the decision notice, the approved plans, and the discharge of any condition that must be settled before works start. Where a condition requires the mitigation scheme to be approved by the planning authority, get that approval first, because a licence issued against an unapproved scheme creates a conflict nobody can resolve on site.

Monitoring commitments

Monitoring is normally a condition of the licence, with a schedule of post-development checks over a period of years, reported back to the licensing authority. The commitment has to be deliverable by someone after the contractor has left, so name the party responsible and secure the funding, usually through the planning obligation or a management company arrangement.

Write the monitoring schedule to produce usable information. A visit that records whether a box is still attached tells nobody anything. A visit timed to the season, recording occupancy, droppings and emergence counts, does.

Timescales and the build programme

Allow for the preliminary assessment at the start of the design stage, the emergence survey season, the planning determination period, the discharge of relevant conditions, and then the licence determination period, which is measured in working weeks rather than days. Where a low impact class licence route is available through a registered consultant, the timescale is shorter, and whether the site qualifies is a judgement for the ecologist.

The failure that costs most is discovering a roost after permission is granted and the contractor is mobilised, because the survey season may be nine months away. A preliminary roost assessment early in the design stage costs little and removes that risk, and the professional directory is the route to an ecologist who can carry out the assessment and later hold the licence.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Licensing procedures, survey guidelines and determination periods change, so confirm the current requirements with the licensing authority and a licensed ecologist before relying on anything here. For specialist technical reports, qualified professional input may be required.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.