Mitigating the effect of development on bats in England with derogation licensing

Published source details Stone E.L, Jones G. & Harris S. (2013) Mitigating the effect of development on bats in England with derogation licensing. Conservation Biology, 27, 1324-1334.
Share Tweet Email

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

	Action	Category
	Legally protect bats during development Action Link
	Create alternative bat roosts within developments Action Link
	Provide bat boxes for roosting bats Action Link

Legally protect bats during development

A review of 389 bat mitigation licences issued in 2003–2005 in England, UK (Stone et al 2013) found that overall the effect of licenced activities on bat roosts was negative and the majority of roosts for which licenses were issued were destroyed during development. Overall, bat roosts were more likely to be destroyed (68%) than damaged (20%) or disturbed (12%). Most licensees (67%) failed to submit post-development reports, and post-development monitoring was conducted at only 19% of sites. The licences analysed related to 1,776 roosts of 15 bat species and were issued for three types of development (renovation, conversion, and demolition). A total of 2,536 structures for bats, of 10 types, were installed under the licences including bat boxes (1,690), bat lofts (362), bat barns (12), bat houses (10), bat towers (2), cellars/caves (18), building enhancements for bats, e.g. crevices and cavities in roofs and walls (437), a covered shed (2), a light sampling canopy (1) and a grille (1).

(Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)
Create alternative bat roosts within developments

A review of 389 bat mitigation licences issued in 2003–2005 in England, UK (Stone et al 2013) found that 26 of 35 bat lofts and barns and three of 24 bat boxes were used by bats after development. Bats were found to be present in 26 of 35 (74%) bat lofts or barns after development, and in 3 of 24 (13%) bat boxes. The roost status, bat species and number of bats using the roosts before and after development were not reported. Most licensees (67%) failed to submit post-development reports, and post-development monitoring was conducted at only 35 of 374 (9%) bat lofts/barns, and 24 of 1,690 (1%) bat boxes. The licences analysed were submitted to Natural England between 2003 and 2005 and were issued for three types of development (renovation, conversion and demolition).

(Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)
Provide bat boxes for roosting bats

A review of 389 bat mitigation licences issued from 2003 to 2005 in England, UK (Stone et al 2013) found that only three of 24 (13%) bat boxes were used by bats after development. The roost status, bat species and number of bats using the roosts before and after development were not reported. Most licensees (67%) failed to submit post-development reports, and post-development monitoring was conducted at only 24 of 1,690 (1%) bat boxes. The licences analysed were submitted to Natural England between 2003 and 2005, and were issued for three types of development (renovation, conversion and demolition).

(Summarised by: Anna Berthinussen)