the conservation of habitats and species regulations 2010 . consolidate all the various amendments...

ECOLOCATION

Protected Species Surveys for Development

Ryton Organic Gardens Wolston Lane Ryton-on-Dunsmore Rugby Warwickshire CV8 3LG 02476 217727 www.gbae.co.uk [email protected]

Bat Assessment Report

for

West Haddon Endowed C of E Primary School

The Green West Haddon

Northamptonshire NN6 7AN

for

West Haddon Primary School (7th January 2014 - Revision A)

2013-09(04)

ECOLOCATION is a trading style of George Burton ARCHITECTURE & ECOLOGY Ltd. Incorporated in England, Registered No. 6458127.

Bat Assessment Report 2013-09(04) West Haddon Endowed C of E Primary School

Contents Summary

1. Instructions 2. Purpose and Scope 3. Legislation 4. Timing and Conditions 5. The Site 6. Habitat Assessment and Connectivity 7. Data Search 8. Walkover Survey and Analysis 9. Intrusive Survey and Results 10. Survey Conclusions 11. Recommendations 12. Mitigation and Enhancements 13. References

ECOLOCATION


Summary

• An initial walkover survey for bats was carried out on the Hall building at West Haddon Endowed C of E Primary School, The Green, West Haddon, Northamptonshire on 15th October 2013.

• The proposed development included extending the existing sports hall at its south-eastern elevation. • There were only a small number of potential access points for crevice-dwelling bats under hip tiles and

also behind fascia boards where they met brickwork columns on both the south-west and north-east elevations. No access was gained into the small roof void of the sports hall as this was too high for the surveyor to access and had a suspended ceiling. There were also a small number of potential bat access points into the neighbouring, detached building to the north, however it was considered that the proposed extension to the sports hall would not adversely impact any possible flight lines should these access holes be in use by roosting bats. There was no evidence of roosting bats recorded externally or internally of the building.

• The void above the sports hall is considered too small for bat species which tend to fly around in the

roost before emergence, such as long-eared bats, but there remains some potential for crevice-dwelling bats via the access behind the fascia at the brickwork columns. There are many records for crevice-dwelling bats, including Pipistrelle, nearby which are often recorded roosting in soffits, behind fascias or in cavity walls.

• It is therefore considered that if such areas are in use by roosting bats, this would be the case during the summer months of May-August and bat droppings would be evident below the access, externally of the building. The approach to bat mitigation was discussed in detail with Tina Cuss, Senior Environmental Planner at Northamptonshire Council on 6th December 2013. Consequently, an updated daytime inspection, specifically of these access points and the brickwork below should be undertaken during the bat active months of May-August in the summer immediately preceding the proposed works. Should evidence of bats be found, detailed bat activity surveys would be needed; nevertheless, there is plenty of potential to accommodate bats within the scheme and a cavity roost suitable for use for crevice-dwelling bats will be included within the proposed extension and will act as either mitigation (should bats be found) or an enhancement (if they are not found). Any disturbing works to bats can also be timed to be undertaken when the roost is not in use (between autumn and spring).

ECOLOCATION


1. Instructions

1.1 ECOLOCATION were appointed by JJB Chartered Architects Ltd on behalf of West Haddon PrimarySchool to undertake a bat assessment of the Hall building at West Haddon Endowed C and E Primary School, West Haddon, Northamptonshire.

2. Purpose and Scope

2.1 The purpose of the survey and report was to assess the likelihood of presence or use of thebuilding by bats in order to support a future planning application for an extension to the hall submitted to Daventry District Council.

2.2 The scope of the survey was to encompass the building and a reasonable amount of working space around it but to concentrate on the built structure.

3. Legislation

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) protects bats and their roosts in England, Scotland andWales. Some parts have been amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW)which applies only in England and Wales, and by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 whichapplies in Scotland.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 consolidate all the various amendmentsmade to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 in respect of England and Wales.The 1994 Regulations transposed Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitatsand of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive) into national law. The Regulations came into forceon 30 October 1994.

The Regulations provide for the designation and protection of 'European sites', the protection of'European protected species', and the adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection ofEuropean Sites. All bats are listed as ‘European protected species of animals’.

It is an offence for any person to:

Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat. Intentionally or recklessly disturb bats, where that disturbance may affect the ability of those bats to

survive, breed, rear or nurture their young, or is likely to significantly affect the local distribution orabundance of any bat species, whether in a roost or not.

Damage or destroy a place of shelter (roost) of a bat, be that a resting or breeding place. Possess a bat, whole or in part, alive or dead. Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a roost Sell or offer for sale or exchange whole or parts of bats, alive or dead.

4. Timing and Conditions

4.1 The site was visited on Tuesday 15th October 2013 commencing at 16:00 hrs

Parameter Recorded Figure Temperature 14ºC Cloud cover 70% Precipitation 0 Wind speed

(Beaufort Scale)

2 - Light breeze

ECOLOCATION

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/uksi_20100490_en_1

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/protect/bird-habitat/habitat2010.htm

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1994/uksi_19942716_en_1.htm


5. The Site

5.1 The site (Grid Ref SP 62872 71904) was part of West Haddon Endowed C of E Primary School, in the village of West Haddon, located some 10km to the east of the town of Rugby, Warwickshire. The site was situated along The Green and amongst both detached and semi-detached residential properties as well as the school playing fields. Surrounding countryside of agricultural land could be found 100m to the west and 150m to the north. The A428 trunk road could be found approximately 500m to the north.

5.2 The hall was an almost detached building (attached by a single-storey corridor on its north and south elevation) that occupied a square footprint. It was constructed in cavity brickwork with a shallow pitched, hipped roof finished with concrete tiles. It also had wooden soffits and fascias whilst internally its roof structure was unknown as the hall had a suspended ceiling that was too high for the surveyor to access.

Survey boundary

Hall - extension proposed at its south-eastern elevation

ECOLOCATION


south-eastern elevation north-western elevation

suspended ceiling inside the hall building to south of the hall unaffected by the works

building to the north of the hall unaffected by the works

ECOLOCATION


6. Habitat Assessment and Connectivity

6.1 The site was located amongst both detached and semi-detached residential properties within thevillage of West Haddon. However, the Site was also bordered by the school playing fields and open countryside of pastoral land and arable fields was located within 200m of the site boundary.

6.2 A search of designated sites together with Priority Habitats and Species within 2km of the site's boundaries was undertaken via Nature On The Map as such habitats are likely to provide suitable foraging habitats for bats, typically being rich in invertebrates (bats prey species). The results of the search revealed the following:

Site Name/Habitat Designation Number within 2km of the site Traditional Orchard BAP Priority Habitat 1

Deciduous Woodland BAP Priority Habitat 2 National Inventory of Woodland and Trees BAP Priority Habitat 9

Annotated 2km

6.3 Whilst some species, such as brown long-eared bats, typically forage close to their roost site (usually within 1-2km), other species such as Noctule and Barbastelle (both predominantly tree-dwelling bats) will commute up to and beyond 10km from their roost sites overnight with common pipistrelle and Natterer's bats (roost in both buildings and trees) foraging up to 5km from their roost. A search to a 10km radius of the site indicated a large number of small woodland pockets and traditional orchards scattered throughout

ECOLOCATION


the radius. The nearest SSSI habitat was Calender Meadows SSSI, located some 6.5km to the north-east and designated for its national rare lowland unimproved grassland habitat with its associated rare plant species.

6.4 Overall the local foraging opportunities for bats within the limits of this assessment were considered average, with suitable habitats provided within 2km of the site but with a large amount of more suitable habitat such as lakes, woodland and reservoirs present further afield.

7. Data Search

7.1 A search request to Northampton Bat Records produced evidence of Indeterminate Pipistrelle(Pipistrellus sp.), of which four known roosts were highlighted between 1988 and 2004, brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus) bat of which five know roosts were highlighted between 1983 and 2007 and Natterer’s bat (Myotis nattereri), of which one roost was noted in 1992. All such roosts were located within 1km of the site with the nearest roosts being potentially within 350m of the site.

8. Walkover Survey and Analysis

8.1 An initial walkover of the site indicated only a small number of potential access points that wereavailable to bats on the hall building and on the neighbouring building with a slate roof just to the north. The latter building was assessed for potential bat access points in case it was considered that the extension to the hall could potentially disrupt bat flightlines to their access points. Such access points are illustrated by the insert on the following page.

8.2 Hall - Bats could potentially have gained access to the small gaps under some of the hip tiles, however, the likely use of such gaps by bats is considered to be low as the roof only had a shallow pitch and typically bats prefer to 'drop' out of their roosts upon emergence, something that would be difficult from this location as the gutter would likely get in the way as the pitch of the roof is too shallow. The remaining gaps were on the south-east and north-west elevations where the fascia left a gap between the timber and the brickwork column. This could permit access to small, crevice-dwelling bats into the space behind the fascia and into the neighbouring soffit, a location often favoured by Pipistrelle bats.

8.3 Slate roof building north of the hall - there were some potential bat access points at the eastern gable verge and close to the ridge but it was considered that flightpaths to these potential bat access points would not be obstructed by the proposed extension so there was no need to investigate further.

8.4 Flat roof building with timber cladding to the south of the hall - this building, including the timber cladding was well sealed and did not offer any opportunities to bats.

8.5 Long-eared species are often recorded in large open roof spaces, generally with gable ends, providing sufficient unobstructed space for social flight and light sampling activity at dusk and dawn. The roof space of the hall was sub-optimal as the headroom was likely to be only c1m when such species tend to prefer a ceiling to ridgeboard height of 2m+. In addition to this, there appeared to be no access to the roof void itself unless it was possible for long-eared bats to access behind the fascia, into the soffit and then over the wall plate and into the roof, although this seems unlikely as it would require the bats to crawl some distance only to then enter a sub-

ECOLOCATION

Potential Bat Access Points


optimal roof void. Moreover, the roof void would only have a small length of ridgeboard available, (as it was a hipped, not gabled roof) that would be available to perching bats. Consequently it was unlikely that this species would be present.

8.6 Crevice-dwelling bats such as pipistrelle or small Myotis species are often encountered roosting

within cavity walls of modern properties, within soffits/behind fascias and between the underfelt and tiles on roofs. In this instance, the walls did have a cavity and there was potential for bats to squeeze themselves between the gap behind the fascia and possibly into the soffits or cavity wall.

8.7 Overall, at this stage, the likelihood of bat presence or use of the hall was considered to be low-

medium when taking account of construction and limited access opportunities as well as the proximity of numerous other potentially suitable houses for roosting but this was tempered by the known pipistrelle roosts within the village and the nearby foraging potential.

9. Intrusive Survey and Results

9.1 An intrusive investigation of the building was undertaken by Anna Swift, Natural England Bat Licence No. CLS01296 (Bat Survey Level 2) using Petzl Tikka Plus 2 headtorch, Clulite ‘CB2’ 0.5 and 1 million candle power lamp and ‘SeeSnake’ Micro Endoscope.

9.2 A search for the following was undertaken both internally and externally of the building:

• Live or dead bats - live bats could be freely hanging from the roof or tucked away in a crevice (depending on the bat species)

• Droppings - bat droppings will crumble when rubbed between your fingers (unlike those of small rodents such as mice and voles, which are typically hard and solid). Also bat droppings are often found in places where rodent droppings are not, such as stuck to walls or caught in cobwebs

• Feeding remains - these typically include the discarded wings of butterflies (such as peacock and tortoiseshell) and moth (such as noctuid species). An accumulation of such wings may be present under a well-used feeding perch and would often indicate the presence of brown long-eared or horseshoe bats, which typically leave such remains

• Absence of cobwebs - a roof void that is free of cobwebs could indicate animals, such as bats or even birds flying around in this space

• Oil staining - the fur of bats may leave an oily residue on areas around a well-used access point to a roost

• Daytime vocalisations - these are often heard at bat maternity roosts, especially during periods of warm weather

• Smell – some bat species, such as soprano pipistrelle or Noctule have an identifiable smell • Tracks in dust - some bats have been known to take off from their perch in a roof void then land

on the ceiling and crawl to the eaves or a similar area where their access point is located. If the ceiling of the roof void is dusty then bat tracks may be visible although this evidence would need to be corroborated by an additional positive sign from one of those listed above

• Scratching - scratch marks produced by the claws of many bats may be apparent close to the access point for a well-used roost, although these are often more readily identifiable on trees rather than in buildings. Again, this evidence would need to be corroborated by an additional positive sign from one of those listed above.

9.3 No evidence of bats was recorded externally or internally of the building. However, it should be noted that no access was gained to the roof void of the hall as there was no loft hatch present and it was a suspended ceiling making access unsafe in any case. It should also be noted that any external evidence from bats that may use the building in the summer months would have been blown or washed away by the weather since the end of August and would not likely be evident at this time of year.

9.4 No incidental evidence of any other protected species, such as nesting birds, was recorded during the visit.

ECOLOCATION


10. Survey Conclusions

10.1 The results of the initial bat assessment of the building indicated no evidence of bats externally or internally, although no access was possible to the roof void of the hall. The construction of the roof was unlikely to offer suitable roosting conditions for bats that prefer open roof spaces, such as long-eared bats. However, it was considered that there was the potential for crevice-dwelling bats to be roosting behind the fascia and perhaps in the soffit with any such evidence unlikely to be present at this time of year. Furthermore, there were records for crevice-dwelling bats, namely Pipistrelle, within the village, which could increase the likelihood of satellite roosts within close proximity. It is therefore considered that a further daytime inspection during the active bat period of May-August would better reveal whether any bats are likely to be using the building for roosting, without the need, at this stage, for costly bat activity surveys. Regardless of whether or not evidence of bats is found, a cavity wall roost for bats such as Pipistrelle will also be provided (following agreement with Tina Cuss and the applicant) within the new extension to ensure that bat mitigation/enhancement is secured from the outset. Further recommendations in this regard are provided in sections 11 and 12.

10.2 No incidental recordings of use of the site by any other protected species was recorded during the visit.

11. Recommendations

The National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 117 states that "To minimise impacts on biodiversity andgeodiversity, planning policies should...promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priorityhabitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations". In order toensure no net loss of biodiversity in accordance with NPPF & Circular 06/2005 recommendations are madebelow:

Bats

11.1 All species of British bat and their roosts (places of shelter or rest) are protected by law from intentional and reckless disturbance under The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Acts 2000, and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 to incorporate the European Habitats directive.

11.2 Bats are highly mobile and when not in hibernation can occupy a building overnight. It is essential therefore that due vigilance be maintained before and during any works to ensure their protection. The lack of evidence of any roosting at this stage does not constitute confirmation that this is not taking place intermittently or may not take place in the future.

11.3 As a result of the findings to date, and taking into account limited access opportunities but presence of bat records nearby, it is considered appropriate in the May-August period preceding the commencement of works to undertake a further daytime inspection of the hall, particularly of the gaps between the fascias and brickwork for evidence of bat roosting. The further inspection should take place after a period of several days with no strong winds or heavy rain to ensure that any bat evidence remains and has not been washed/blown away. Should evidence of bats be found, then detailed bat activity surveys are likely to be necessary as a further stage of investigation as well as other measures described in section 12.1 together with appropriate replacement roosting opportunities (which have already been agreed and are described in section 11.4).

11.4 The provision of a cavity wall roost within the new extension will act as either suitable mitigation for crevice-dwelling bats (should evidence be found during the inspection described at 11.3) or as an enhancement (should no evidence of bats be found during the inspection described at 11.3). The location and detail of the cavity wall roost (see attached diagrams on the following page) has been agreed with Tina Cuss, Senior Environmental Planner at Northamptonshire Council as well as the key

ECOLOCATION


stakeholders at West Haddon Primary School and will be implemented regardless of whether evidence of bats is found.

11.5 Historically, treatment of timber, especially roof timbers, in buildings has been detrimental to bat populations. It is therefore essential that any timber treatment is undertaken using appropriate products at a time of year when bats will not be affected. The Natural England website www.naturalengland.org.uk can provide further information.

Birds

11.6 The majority of species of nesting bird are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and as amended by the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000. The site should be surveyed for nesting birds prior to commencement of works by a person competent to do so and due vigilance also be maintained during construction to ensure that no breeding birds are disturbed during the construction process should nesting commence thereafter.

Other 11.7 Should any protected species be discovered before or during the works ECOLOCATION or the local

office of Natural England should be contacted for advice.

12. Mitigation and Enhancements

12.1 No mitigation in respect of bats is recommended at this stage. However, should evidence of bats be found during the further bat inspection during May-August, the following mitigation measures are considered likely to be necessary, and are achievable within the scheme:

- detailed bat activity surveys to be undertaken during May-August to determine bat species, roost type, numbers and access points; - works to be timed for when bats are not in residence (i.e. works undertaken between October-March); - existing roof to be stripped under the presence of a licensed bat worker; - temporary roosting opportunities to be provided by way of bat boxes on suitable trees or on the school building on a suitable elevation; - permanent replacement roosting opportunities to be retained if possible, or if not possible, the cavity wall roost will be available within the extension once this has been built, as previously agreed with Tina Cuss and with the applicant..

National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 118 states that "Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged". Therefore, additional recommendations for biodiversity enhancements across the site are provided below:

12.2 As pipistrelle bats have been recorded within the village, an enhancement for this species is suggested (though not an obligation) to include the addition of bat boxes on retained trees or on the school

ECOLOCATION


building (such as Schwegler 1FF suitable for use by pipistrelle). ECOLOCATION can provide further advice in this respect if required.

13. References

Bat Workers Manual (3rd Edition) JNCC, 2004Bat Survey Guidelines, Bat Conservation Trust, 2012, 2nd edBat Mitigation Guidelines, English Nature Jan 2004Long-eared bats, Susan M Swift 1998The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, HMSO (2010, as amended)NPPF - National Planning and Policy FrameworkCircular 06/2005: Biodiversity and geological conservation: Statutory obligations and their impacts in theplanning systemNorthamptonshire Bat Group Recordswww.nbn.org.ukwww.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.ukGoogle Earth Pro

ECOLOCATION

http://www.magic.gov.uk/

the conservation of habitats and species regulations 2010 . consolidate all the various amendments...

Documents