Concerns have been raised over the £166,000 cost of constructing two “luxury” bat houses near junction 10 of the M5 in Gloucestershire, part of a £372 million major road upgrade project.
Gloucestershire County Council is legally required to provide these roosting structures under the Government’s development consent order, as the roadworks will displace around 130 bat roosts.
Reform UK County Councillor Vernon Smith (Tewkesbury West) voiced astonishment at the expense. Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, he questioned the council’s priorities, highlighting other local wildlife such as hedgehogs and squirrels. “They are doing their nut,” he remarked.
READ MORE: Ginger Spice Wins Planning Dispute Over Horse Walker Installation
READ MORE: Dad Horrified to Find Baby Monitor Shows Empty Cot at 1 a.m.
At a full council meeting on March 25, Councillor Smith pressed for details on the expenditure of the “luxury bat houses.” Planning and Infrastructure cabinet member Julian Tooke (LD, Pittville and St Paul’s) shared that approximately £133,000 has been spent so far, with total costs expected to reach £166,000.
Cllr Tooke explained that these measures are statutory due to bats being a protected species, with funding primarily coming from central government and developer contributions. He detailed the scale of the issue, citing 57 confirmed bat roosts in the area—seven in trees, 50 in structures, and one former roost location. Additionally, an estimated 73 more roosts, both in trees and structures, are predicted but yet undetected.
The bat populations represented include 14 species, such as brown long-eared, common and soprano pipistrelle, whiskered, Natterer’s, noctule, lesser horseshoe, barbastelle, serotine, Daubenton’s, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, Leisler’s, Bechstein’s, and Brandt’s bats.
Councillor Smith further questioned the justification of the £166,000 cost and expressed concern about the current habitats of these bats. Though acknowledging the importance of environmental protection, he suggested that a more cost-effective solution might have been possible.
Cllr Tooke concurred, describing the costs as “entirely batty” and stressing that while environmental protection is crucial, it should not come at exorbitant prices. He added that the council solicited four market quotes, all reflecting similarly high costs.
“It’s frustrating because, ideally, that funding could support children’s services, education, libraries—really critical areas,” Cllr Tooke said.
He also referenced a comparable bat-related project underway in Kent, part of the A249 Bearsted road improvements, which carries an estimated cost exceeding £120,000.