Conservation Evidence strives to be as useful to conservationists as possible. Please take our survey to help the team improve our resource.

Providing evidence to improve practice

Individual study: 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


This study is summarised as evidence for the intervention(s) shown on the right. The icon shows which synopsis it is relevant to.

Legally protect bats during development Bat Conservation

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 Bat Conservation

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 are 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 Bat Conservation

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 are 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)