A protected species survey can be required even when an owner has spent months at a property without seeing a bat, badger or other protected animal. That is the practical message from a dismissed appeal at The Parsonage House in Watchfield, Vale of White Horse.
The appellant pointed to around 11 months of occupation and building work without any personal sighting of protected species. Inspector Alexander O’Doherty found that this did not answer the real planning question: whether there was a reasonable likelihood of protected species being present and affected by the development.
On the evidence before him, proper bat and badger survey information was needed before planning permission could safely be granted.
Why a protected species survey became decisive
The proposal included extensions to the house, a glazed link and the conversion of an outbuilding to an office and garden room. The appeal followed the council’s failure to determine the application within the statutory period.
The main issue at appeal was not the design of the extensions. It was whether enough ecological information had been provided to understand the possible effects on bats and badgers.
Planning Geek’s guide to protected species and planning explains why this can become a front-end information requirement rather than something left until construction starts.
Personal observation is not the ecological test
The appellant said the property had been intensively occupied and worked on for around 11 months without bats, badgers or other protected species being observed. Photographs were also submitted to support the case.
The Inspector did not treat those observations as equivalent to evidence from an appropriately qualified ecologist. There was no detailed corroborated survey evidence showing who had looked, when they had looked, what methodology had been used or whether the people making the observations were qualified to identify the relevant signs.
That distinction is important. Natural England’s standing advice on bats says that the absence of a record does not mean bats are absent. A survey may be needed where buildings contain features capable of providing roosting, foraging or commuting opportunities.
The building had features bats could use
The council’s Senior Ecology Officer had considered photographs of the site. The Inspector gave weight to that professional assessment because it was the only qualified ecological opinion before him.
Potential bat features identified from the buildings included lifted or broken roof slates, gaps and holes in masonry and deteriorated built-in timber. The age and condition of the buildings also mattered.
The question was therefore not whether a bat had already been seen flying from a particular hole. It was whether the building contained features which created a reasonable likelihood of bats being present and whether the proposed work might affect them.
Badgers were also about habitat, not a confirmed sett
A similar point applied to badgers. The site had a large garden and vegetated boundaries capable of providing suitable habitat for foraging or sett construction.
The appellant relied on the lack of any personal observation of a badger or sett. The Inspector found that this did not remove the reasonable possibility of badger activity, particularly without qualified survey evidence.
The council’s evidence also explained that badger setts can extend laterally underground, so building foundations may have effects even where the visible entrance is some distance away.
Natural England’s wider protected species advice identifies large gardens, rough grassland, scrub, woodland and hedgerows among the habitats where protected species may need to be considered.
Why a planning condition was not enough
The council had suggested a construction method statement condition, raising the question of whether the ecological issue could be dealt with after planning permission had been granted.
The Inspector rejected that route on these facts. Paragraph 99 of Circular 06/2005 says that where there is a reasonable likelihood of protected species being present and affected, their presence and the likely effects should normally be established before permission is granted.
The Circular says surveys should be deferred to conditions only in exceptional circumstances. No such exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated here.
That approach is also reflected in current Natural England standing advice, which says councils should not usually use planning conditions simply to require the surveys needed to understand the effects of the proposal in the first place.
Photographs can help, but they do not replace expertise
Photographs were relevant evidence, but the weight attached to them depended on what they could establish. The Inspector distinguished between photographs being considered by a qualified ecologist and an applicant drawing their own ecological conclusion from the same images.
That is a useful practical warning. An applicant may be able to photograph a roof, wall, garden or outbuilding perfectly well, but identifying whether features are suitable for protected species and what survey work is proportionate is a different professional task.
Our ecological survey calendar is worth checking early because some species surveys can only be carried out reliably at particular times of year. Discovering the need for a seasonal survey late in an application can create a much longer delay than dealing with ecology at the outset.
The practical lesson from the Watchfield appeal
The lesson from appeal 6008736 is not that every old roof or large garden automatically requires bat and badger surveys. The threshold remains whether there is a reasonable likelihood of the species being present and affected by the proposal.
But where suitable habitat or access features exist, the answer cannot safely be based on a homeowner saying they have never seen the species. Proper ecological evidence may be needed before the council or Inspector can determine the application.
On this appeal the absence of that evidence meant the Inspector could not be satisfied that the proposal would protect biodiversity in accordance with the development plan. The appeal was dismissed.
Read the appeal decision
The appeal is 6008736, concerning The Parsonage House, 90 High Street, Watchfield, Vale of White Horse. The decision was issued on 4th September 2026.
Planning Geek hosts the appeal decision 6008736 in our own library. You can also view the appeal on the Planning Inspectorate service.
Created: 6th September 2026 | Protected species survey
0 Comments