Refusal for a missing bat survey and the season problem

A refusal for a missing bat survey is usually correct in law, which is the uncomfortable part. Where a building has roost potential and no survey has been submitted, the authority cannot judge whether the licensing tests could be met, so it has no lawful basis to grant permission and no sensible way to condition the problem away. The season then compounds it: if you were refused in November, the earliest you can complete emergence surveys is the following summer, and a householder appeal deadline will have passed long before that.

Why authorities refuse rather than condition

The duty sits in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Bats are European protected species, works affecting a roost require a mitigation licence from Natural England, and the licence is only granted where three derogation tests are satisfied: an overriding public interest or other permitted purpose, no satisfactory alternative, and no detriment to the maintenance of the population at favourable conservation status.

The authority is not the licensing body. But it has to have regard to those requirements when deciding the application, and the courts have confirmed that an authority must engage with the derogation tests where a European protected species is likely to be affected. Morge v Hampshire County Council in the Supreme Court is the decision usually cited on how far that duty goes.

Engaging with the tests requires knowing what is there. Without a survey, the authority cannot say whether a roost exists, what species, what the roost status is, or whether mitigation could maintain the population. A refusal for insufficient information is the conventional outcome, and it is not a sign of hostility to the scheme.

Two things make it worse in practice. Ecology consultation responses often arrive late in the determination period, so the first warning comes in week six. And an extension of time only helps if the survey window is open.

Policy and guidance on survey timing

National policy requires the authority to refuse permission where damage to a protected species habitat cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated, and the practice guidance on the natural environment is clear that the presence of a protected species is a material consideration which should be established before determination where there is a reasonable likelihood of it being present.

Natural England's published guidance and standing advice set out the expected survey approach. The sequence is a preliminary roost assessment first, then emergence and re-entry surveys where the building is assessed as having low, moderate or high roost suitability.

Where suitability is negligible, authorities commonly determine on the preliminary assessment with a precautionary condition. Where it is moderate or high, expect them to wait. That distinction is the single most useful thing to establish early, because it tells you whether you are facing a four week delay or a nine month one.

Preliminary roost assessment as a bridge

The preliminary roost assessment is available in any month, and it is the document that converts an unanswerable objection into a defined scope of work.

A thorough assessment records the building's construction and condition, the roost features present, any evidence of use, the results of a local records search, and an assigned suitability category with reasons. Where the ecologist finds no features and no evidence, that conclusion carries real weight.

Where the ecologist finds droppings, staining or accessible crevices, the assessment at least tells you how many survey visits you need and when. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal covering the wider site can be commissioned at the same time, and the two together usually settle the scope of everything else the authority will ask for.

A negative assessment is not a guarantee of a condition. It is the best evidence available outside the season, and most officers will engage with it.

When a condition is lawful and when it is not

The line is about what the condition defers.

A condition deferring mitigation detail is normal and lawful: a precautionary working method statement, supervision by an ecologist during soft strip, a lighting scheme designed to avoid roost features, bat boxes and their locations, timing restrictions on roof works.

A condition deferring the survey itself is different. If the survey might reveal a roost that cannot be mitigated, the condition defers the question the authority had to answer before granting permission. That is why survey conditions on moderate and high suitability buildings are vulnerable, and why some authorities refuse to impose them even when asked.

There is also a practical reason to avoid one. A permission with a survey condition attached is a permission you cannot implement until the survey is done, and if the survey finds a maternity roost, you have a permission for a scheme that needs redesigning. The condition moves the risk rather than removing it.

Appeal evidence gathered after refusal

Appeals accept new evidence, so a survey carried out after refusal can be submitted with the appeal, and an inspector can complete the assessment on that material. Whether that route works depends entirely on the calendar.

For a householder appeal the twelve week deadline usually closes the option. Refused in October, your appeal is due in January and the surveys cannot happen until May.

The alternative is almost always better. A fresh application is free of charge where it is submitted within twelve months of the refusal and is for substantially the same development on the same site, subject to the conditions in the fee regulations, and it goes back to the officers who already know the scheme. Where you do appeal, read the relevant decisions first, using the approach set out in using appeal decisions in a planning application.

Programming around the May to September window

Emergence and re-entry surveys need bats using summer roosts, which limits them to May to September with May to August carrying the most weight. Visits have to be spaced, so multiple surveys occupy weeks rather than days.

Work backwards. For a submission in September, surveys need to run from May to July, which means booking the ecologist in February or March and holding the preliminary assessment in the winter before that. Ecologists with bat licences are fully committed by early spring in most of England.

Then allow report time after the final visit, and allow for a licence application after permission if a roost is confirmed. Natural England determines the licence on the basis of the permission, so the licence period sits after the planning period rather than alongside it. The survey itself must be carried out by a suitably licensed ecologist, and a bat survey report drafted from any software is a structure for that person to complete rather than a substitute for the fieldwork.

Avoiding the problem at submission

The cure is dull and it works.

1. Commission a preliminary roost assessment before the design is finalised, not after the application is drafted.
2. If the result is moderate or high suitability, treat the survey programme as the critical path and set the submission date from it.
3. Submit the survey report with the application, not in response to a consultation comment.
4. Where the result is negligible or low, submit the assessment with a proposed precautionary condition already drafted, so the officer has something to attach.
5. Set out the ecology position plainly in the Planning Statement rather than leaving it to an appendix, because ecology objections are what delay these decisions.

One honest uncertainty worth stating in your own documents: survey results are a snapshot, and a building with no roost in June 2026 may have one in June 2028. Authorities know that, which is why mitigation conditions and precautionary method statements exist, and why offering them voluntarily reads well.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which ecology documents a conversion or demolition is likely to need.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. For specialist technical reports, qualified professional input may be required.