I was delighted to read your article this week on “Dangerous creatures” (30 May, page 34). You highlighted the effect of having a bat present on site. Do you realise that in reality the law goes much further?

The surprising thing is that if there is evidence that a bat has visited the site in the past, even if there is no proof that it is there at present, then that building is classified as a “bat roost”. That classification brings in all the restrictions of the legislation and the additional costs. It does look like a high cost for a low probability issue. Is it really a sensible imposition? It probably won’t save any bats and it’s unlikely to gain any supporters from the construction industry.

Neville Semple