Barrow Brook Business Park, Clitheroe · Construction Ltd and Edward Hine, LPA Receiver for...

Barrow Brook Business Park, Clitheroe

Ecological Appraisal

February 2014 Prepared for: Barnfield Construction Ltd and Edward Hine, LPA Receiver for Papillion Properties Ltd

UNITED KINGDOM & IRELAND

Barnfield Construction Ltd and Edward Hine, LPA Receiver for Papillion Properties Ltd – Barrow Brook Business Park, Clitheroe

ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

FEBRUARY 2014

i

URS West One Wellington Street Leeds LS1 1BA United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)113 204 5000

Fax: +44 (0)113 204 5001 www.ursglobal.com

REVISION SCHEDULE

Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

1 February 2014

Ecological Appraisal Colin Bonnington

Ecologist

David Broughton

Senior Ecologist

David Broughton

Senior Ecologist



FEBRUARY 2014

ii

Limitations

URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“URS”) has prepared this Report for the use of Barnfield Construction Ltd and Edward Hine, LPA Receiver for Papillion Properties Ltd (“Client”), in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by URS. This Report is confidential and may not be disclosed by the Client nor relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of URS.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by URS has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report.

The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by URS in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken in February 2014 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances.

Where assessments of works or costs identified in this Report are made, such assessments are based upon the information available at the time and where appropriate are subject to further investigations or information which may become available.

URS disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to URS’ attention after the date of the Report.

Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forward-looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. URS specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report.

Where field investigations are carried out, these have been restricted to a level of detail required to meet the stated objectives of the services. The results of any measurements taken may vary spatially or with time and further confirmatory measurements should be made after any significant delay in issuing this Report.

Copyright

© This Report is the copyright of URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.



FEBRUARY 2014

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 1

1.1 Background Information ................................................. 1

1.2 Site Description ................................................................ 1

2 METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 2

2.1 Desk Based Study ............................................................ 2

2.2 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey .................................. 2

2.3 Limitations ........................................................................ 2

3 PLANNING AND LEGISLATION ...................................... 3

3.1 Legislation ........................................................................ 3

3.2 Planning Policy ................................................................ 3

3.3 Biodiversity Action Plan ................................................. 4

4 RESULTS .......................................................................... 5

4.1 Desk Study ....................................................................... 5

4.2 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey .................................. 5

4.3 Protected and Notable Species ...................................... 6

4.3.1 Bats ................................................................................... 6

4.3.2 Reptiles ............................................................................. 6

4.3.3 Breeding Birds ................................................................. 6

4.3.4 Invasive Species .............................................................. 7

4.3.5 Badgers ............................................................................. 7

4.3.6 Amphibians ...................................................................... 7

4.3.7 Other species ................................................................... 7

5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 8

5.1 Designated Sites .............................................................. 8

5.2 Habitats ............................................................................. 8

5.3 Protected and Notable Species ...................................... 8

5.4 Controlled Weed Species ................................................ 8

6 MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT ................................ 9

6.1 Breeding Birds ................................................................. 9

6.2 Enhancement ................................................................... 9

7 REFERENCES ................................................................ 10 FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION PLAN ................................................ 11 FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION PLAN ................................................ 11 FIGURES

Figure 1 – Site Location Map



FEBRUARY 2014

iv

Figure 2 – Phase 1 Habitat Map

Figure 3 – Site Photographs

Appendices

Appendix A – Methodology and Grading Criteria for Bat Roost Potential Features

Barnfield Construction Ltd and Edward Hine LPA Receiver for Papillion Properties Ltd – Barrow Brook Business Park, Clitheroe


FEBRUARY 2014

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information

URS was commissioned by Barnfield Construction Ltd and Edward Hine, LPA Receiver for Papillion Properties Ltd to undertake an Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey of a proposed development site on Hey Road, Barrow, Lancashire (“the site”, national grid reference SD 740 382). A location plan is provided as Figure 1. The proposed development is located within the Barrow Brook Business Park.

The purpose of this investigation was to record and to map habitat types and vegetation (including any controlled weed species) present on the site, and to appraise the habitats for their potential to support populations of protected and/or notable species. This is to provide preliminary baseline ecological information and to identify potential ecological constraints to the development of the site. If relevant, this report also provides recommendations on the likely scope of any additional ecological surveys that would be required to support the planning application for the proposed development. This report provides the results of this survey which was completed on 18

th February 2014.

1.2 Site Description

The site (c. 1 ha) is located to the east of Barrow, Lancashire, and lies adjacent to the A59 and is within a business park. The site is predominantly semi-improved grassland, with a bank of some tall ruderal vegetation, scrub, trees and amenity grassland in the south. The site is surrounded by a road to the east, south and west, and by intensively grazed sheep pasture to the north.



FEBRUARY 2014

2

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Desk Based Study

Although a full desk study was not requested, the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) was checked to identify any statutory nature conservation designations within a 1 km radius of the site.

2.2 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

An Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey was undertaken by an URS ecologist on the 18th February

2014 to record vegetation and habitats present within the site. Habitats outside this area were noted but not surveyed in detail. Habitat types were recorded in accordance with published guidelines for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2010).

Whilst undertaking the Phase 1 Habitat survey, the potential for protected and NERC Act Section 41 (S41) priority species to occur, based on habitats present within and immediately adjacent to the site, was noted. Where practical, given seasonal and survey constraints, an attempt was made to clarify whether the identified potential constraints were supported by any direct evidence of the species concerned or their field signs.

A ground-based bat roost potential (BRP) assessment was undertaken of the trees on the site using binoculars. The objective of the assessment was to identify any bat access/egress points or potential roosting sites for bats (e.g. rot holes, damaged limbs, woodpecker holes or peeled bark on trees) whilst also looking for evidence indicating the presence of bats (e.g. scratching, droppings and staining beneath cavities). The survey was undertaken based on standard guidance for bat surveys (Bat Conservation Trust, 2012). Reference was made to other relevant guidance, specifically the Bat Workers Manual (Mitchell-Jones & McLeish, 2004) and the Bat Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature, 2004) where applicable. The full survey methodology and associated assessment criteria used when undertaking the BRP survey are provided as Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix A.

As well as considering protected species, records were also made of invasive non-native plant species (e.g. Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) and Indian balsam (Impatiens glandulifera), if observed. These are controlled species, listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The Environmental Protection Act 1990 specifies additional legal requirements with regard to the disposal of Japanese knotweed.

It should be noted that the Phase 1 Habitat survey is not intended to provide a comprehensive list of fauna and flora, rather the objective is to characterise the habitats present and determine any potential ecological risks or constraints that might be associated with the proposed development.

2.3 Limitations

The Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey was undertaken outside the recommended survey period of April to September. However, this is generally not considered a limitation to the survey work undertaken, given the geographic location of the site and identified habitat context.

The timing of the survey did limit the opportunity to record non-native controlled weed species as many such species are dormant and not visible over the winter period. While possible Japanese knotweed was identified during the survey this could not be confirmed given the limited evidence available.

There are no other limitations to the ecological investigations undertaken.



FEBRUARY 2014

3

3 PLANNING AND LEGISLATION

3.1 Legislation

The following legislation relates to species and habitats that could potentially occur within the study area:

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations)

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000

Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006

Protection of Badgers Act 1992

Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

Hedgerow Regulations 1997

3.2 Planning Policy

Consideration has been given to relevant national and local planning policy and strategy documents.

In March 2012, the Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which guides Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) in developing their planning policies and when considering planning applications affecting protected habitats, sites and species.

In respect of the natural environment, the NPPF states that “… the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by

protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;

recognising the wider benefits of ecosystems services;

minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures …”

Relevant local planning policy comprises the Ribble Valley Borough Core Strategy 2008-2028 and saved policies of the Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan (DWLP) (adopted in June 1998).

In the Ribble Valley Borough Core Strategy the relevant key policy concerning ecology is:

“EN4: Biodiversity and Geodiversity – The Council will seek wherever possible to conserve and enhance the area’s biodiversity and geodiversity and to avoid the fragmentation and isolation of natural habitats and help develop green corridors.”

In the Ribble Valley DWLP the policies ENV1 – ENV12 all concern ecology and nature conservation. This policy was screened and it is considered that only the following policy is relevant to the proposed development site:



FEBRUARY 2014

4

“Species Protection: Policy ENV7 –

1. Development proposals which would have an adverse effect on wildlife species protected by law will not be granted planning permission, unless arrangements can be made through planning conditions or agreements to secure the protection of the species.

2 The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a local planning authority is appraising a development proposal which if carried out would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. Matters likely to be of concern to the Borough Council in implementing the policy, if development is considered possible, will be to facilitate the survival of individual members of the species, to reduce disturbance to a minimum, and to provide adequate habitats to sustain at least the current levels of populations.”

3.3 Biodiversity Action Plan

Through national planning policy and Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC), local planning authorities have a duty to consider habitats and species listed in S41 of the Act as being of principal importance for nature conservation in England and local biodiversity action plans when considering a planning application. The Lancashire BAP lists species and habitats that are rare or threatened in the region and for which action plans have been prepared.

Where NERC S41 and Lancashire BAP species and/ or habitats that are relevant to the site having been identified through the field survey, these are detailed in the results section where appropriate.



FEBRUARY 2014

5

4 RESULTS

4.1 Desk Study

There are no statutory nature conservation designations in the search area.

4.2 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

The following Phase 1 Habitat types were recorded within the site:

Neutral semi-improved grassland

Tall ruderals

Scattered scrub

Scattered trees

Amenity grassland

Hedgerow

Dry ditch

The distribution of these habitats is shown on the Phase 1 Habitat map is provided as Figure 2. Site photographs are provided collectively as Figure 3. The habitats recorded within the site are described in more detail below.

Neutral semi-improved grassland

The site is dominated by unmanaged species-poor neutral semi-improved grassland and includes the species cock’s foot (Dactylis glomerata), timothy (Phleum pratense), false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), Yorkshire-fog (Holcus lanatus), broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), black medick (Medicago lupulina), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), lesser celandine (Ficaria verna) and soft rush (Juncus effusus). There is a manmade bund which runs down the western site boundary and this supports a comparable flora to the main field (Photograph 1 and 7, Figure 3).

Tall ruderals

In the north of the site is a patch of tall ruderals, and includes the species rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), common hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium), cow parsley (Anthriscus sylvestris), common nettle (Urtica dioica) and broad-leaved dock (Photograph 5, Figure 3). There are escaped ornamental plants, including tutsan (Hypericum androsaemum) and Wilson’s honeysuckle (Lonicera nitida), scattered within the tall ruderals. A small stand of suspected patch of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) was found within the tall ruderal vegetation (Photograph 9, Figure 3) but there was insufficient material to confirm identification. Confirmation will require a site visit during the growing season (April onwards).

Scattered scrub

There is scattered scrub in the north of the site and includes the species elder (Sambucus nigra), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) (Photograph 2, Figure 3).



FEBRUARY 2014

6

Scattered trees

There is a semi-mature oak (Quercus robur) in the north of the site, a row of young lime (Tilia sp.) trees in the south of the site, and a tree sapling in the north-east corner of the site (Photographs 3 and 4, Figure 3).

Amenity grassland

There is a strip of mown amenity grassland inside the southern site boundary.

Hedgerow

There is a defunct hawthorn hedgerow along part of the northern site boundary, running along a fenceline (Photograph 10, Figure 3).

Dry ditch

There is a well vegetated dry ditch which runs along the northern site boundary (Photograph 11, Figure 3).

4.3 Protected and Notable Species

4.3.1 Bats

Roosting

There are no buildings on the site. All trees within the site were appraised for their potential to support roosting bats and no suitable trees were recorded.

Many of the trees within the site are young and do not have any suitable features such as cracked/ flaking bark, woodpecker holes, damaged limbs or boss holes that may provide cavities suitable for roosting bats. Although the oak in the north of the site is relatively mature, it lacks suitable features for roosting bats and therefore has negligible bat roost potential.

Foraging

The site is considered to offer low quality foraging habitat for bats due to its relatively small size, exposed and open habitat context and poor habitat connectivity to other more optimal habitats.

4.3.2 Reptiles

On first appraisal, the habitats on site are considered to be potentially suitable for reptiles due to the mosaic structure of the habitats and the piles of debris (deadwood and bricks) in the north of the site (Photograph 6, Figure 3). However, the site is isolated from other, more optimal, reptile habitat due to surrounding roads and unsuitable habitats and has a previous history of disturbance, making colonisation of the site by reptiles unlikely. In addition, it is considered unlikely that the site would support a relict reptile population as it is considerd that the habtiats present have developed from abandoned pasture of the type present to the north (Photograph 8, Figure 3). On this basis, no further consideration is given to reptiles in this report.

4.3.3 Breeding Birds

A number of common bird species were identified with the site during the survey, including dunnock (Prunella modularis), robin (Erithacus rubecula) and wren (Troglodytes troglodytes). The habitats on site (e.g. scattered trees and scrub) offer a limited amount of potential nesting sites for birds, including dunnock, which is a NERC Act S41 and Lancashire BAP species.



FEBRUARY 2014

7

4.3.4 Invasive Species

A suspected small patch of Japanese knotweed is present in the north of the site (53°50’24.86’’N, 2°23’41.88W’’). Conclusive identification was not possible due to the limited material found (dead stem bases). A survey is required in the growing season (April onwards) to confirm this identification and, if correct, to record the full extent of this species.

4.3.5 Badgers

No evidence of badgers was found during the survey. The site is unsuitable for the establishment of a sett. On this basis, no further consideration is given to badgers in this report.

4.3.6 Amphibians

There are no ponds within the site boundary and the 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey Map indicates that the only waterbodies within a 500 m radius of the site (the typical terrestrial range of great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) from their breeding ponds) are large lakes. Two of these are separated from the site by a built area and the A59 and are fishing lakes. The lake to the south of the site is separated from the site by Hey Road and may also be stocked with fish. All three lakes are thus considered suboptimal for great crested newts. Even if these lakes are used by great crested newt, their isolation from the site by intervening roads would mean that there would be no reasonable likelihood of great crested newts using the site. On this basis, no further consideration is given to great crested newts in this report.

4.3.7 Other species

No field signs or habitat suitable for other protected species were recorded during the survey.



FEBRUARY 2014

8

5 CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Designated Sites

The proposed development would be unlikely to affect any statutory nature conservation designations, as there are none within 1 km of the site.

5.2 Habitats

The habitats likely to be lost to the proposed development are relatively species-poor and are not covered by any designations. They are considered to be of no more than local ecological value.

5.3 Protected and Notable Species

With the exception of breeding bird risks, no protected species constraints are identified in association with the proposed development.

The proposed development of the site will require the clearance of a limited amount of habitat suitable for nesting birds, including trees and scrub. While the impact of the proposed development on nesting birds would be limited, meaning that further bird surveys are not required, legal requirements would still need to be met during construction (see mitigation in Section 6).

5.4 Controlled Weed Species

The site should be re-visited in April (when new growth should be present) to investigate the record of Japanese knotweed further.

If the species is confirmed to be on site and the proposed layout of the development indicate that the stand will be disturbed, then the species should be eradicted following ‘The Knotweed Code of Practice’ (Environment Agency, 2006). The main methods of eradication are removal of stems and rhizome contaminated soil to registered landfill or specially constructed on site burial cells, or chemical treatment, which can take up to three years to be completely effective. If however the proposed layout of the development will not disturb the stand, a fenced exclusion zone (at least 7 metres from the nearest visible growth) can be established, without the need for eradiction. However, if the latter approach is taken then there would be a risk that the species (if confirmed) would spread further such that it becomes a constraint to the operation of the site in the future.



FEBRUARY 2014

9

6 MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT

6.1 Breeding Birds

Removal of vegetation should ideally be undertaken outside the bird nesting season of March to September in order to avoid disturbing and/or damaging any nests that may be present. All bird’s nests receive protection from the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and it is an offence to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while the nest is in use or being built.

Where works or preparatory vegetation clearance cannot reasonably be timed to avoid the bird nesting season then they should only proceed under the supervision of an ecologist. If any active bird nests are found then the ecologist would advise on a legally appropriate course of action. This is likely to include the implementation of a suitable exclusion zone around the nest until nesting activity has been completed.

6.2 Enhancement

All new build developments have opportunities for ecological enhancement and this is encouraged by planning policy. Enhancement for certain species, bats and birds in particular, would be relatively straightforward to incorporate and could make a beneficial contribution to targets under the local BAP.

Options for ecological enhancement that could be incorporated within the Scheme are summarised below. We would be happy to provide additional advice on the incorporation of ecological enhancement into this development, if required.

It is recommended that the following management and enhancement options are appropriate and achievable on this site:

Planting of new soft landscaping comprising berry rich shrubs such as hawthorn and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) and native trees of local origin. This would provide nest sites and food sources for birds and other wildlife and would also compensate for any tree/ shrub losses during construction. This could include planting of hedgerow (species-rich) along the northern site boundary to extend and enhance the existing hedgerow and improve habitat connectivity across the site boundary.

Options for the incorporation of bird nesting and bat roosting provision (such as nesting boxes) within the redeveloped site should be considered at the design stage.



FEBRUARY 2014

10

7 REFERENCES

Bat Conservation Trust (2012) Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. http://www.bats.org.uk/download_info.php

English Nature (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidlines. English Nature (now Natural England), Peterborough

Environment Agency (2006). Managing Japanese knotweed on development sites – the knotweed code of practice. Environment Agency, Bristol

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A technique for environmental audit. JNCC, Peterborough

Mitchell-Jones, A.J. and McLeish, A.P. (2004) Bat Workers’ Manual. 3rd Edition. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough

Ribble Valley Borrough Council Core Strategy 2008-2028: A local plan for Ribble Valley - Submission to Secretary of State. http://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/downloads/file/8369/core_strategy_2008-2028-a_local_plan_for_ribble_valley-regulation_22_submission_draft Accessed 19 February 2014

Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan (1998). http://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?fileID=203 Accessed 19 February 2014

http://www.bats.org.uk/download_info.php

http://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/downloads/file/8369/core_strategy_2008-2028-a_local_plan_for_ribble_valley-regulation_22_submission_draft

http://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/downloads/file/8369/core_strategy_2008-2028-a_local_plan_for_ribble_valley-regulation_22_submission_draft

http://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?fileID=203



FEBRUARY 2014

11

FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION PLAN



FEBRUARY 2014

12

FIGURE 2 PHASE 1 HABITAT MAP



FEBRUARY 2014

13

FIGURE 3 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS



FEBRUARY 2014

14

Photograph 1: Neutral semi-improved grassland which dominates the site.

Photograph 2: Scattered scrub in the north of the site.



FEBRUARY 2014

15

Photograph 3: Young tree-line and amenity grassland inside the southern site boundary.

Photograph 4: Semi-mature oak in the north-east of the site.



FEBRUARY 2014

16

Photograph 5: Tall ruderals in the north-east of the site.

Photograph 6: Example of a deadwood pile in the north of the site.



FEBRUARY 2014

17

Photograph 7: Vegetated bund along the western site boundary.

Photograph 8: Intensively managed sheep pasture adjacent to the northern site boundary.



FEBRUARY 2014

18

Photograph 9: Suspected Japanese knotweed stalks in the north of the site.

Photograph 10: Species-poor defunct hedgerow located along the northern site boundary.



FEBRUARY 2014

19

.

Photograph 11: Dry ditch located along the northern site boundary.



FEBRUARY 2014

APPENDIX A METHODOLOGY AND GRADING CRITERIA FOR BAT ROOST POTENTIAL FEATURES



FEBRUARY 2014

Table A1: Survey methodology for undertaking bat roost potential of trees

Methodology

Trees

Bats use many different features in trees for places of shelter and roosting. Features that are observed, noted and graded (in accordance with criteria in Table A2) during the 360 degree tree surveys include:

cracks and crevices, especially those with upward-leading cavities

significant areas of loose bark with space behind appropriate for bats to shelter

holes (including rot holes, boss holes and woodpecker holes), especially with horizontal or

upward-leading cavities

splits, perhaps resulting from drought or lightening strikes

an absence of branches and vegetation immediately below and surrounding the cavity entrance

dark stains running down the tree, below the hole

stains around the hole resulting from the deposition of oil secretions in bat fur

odours or noise characteristic of bats coming from within the hole or scratch marks around the

hole entrance (resulting from bat claw holds)

bat droppings below or within the hole



FEBRUARY 2014

Table A2: Criteria used to describe bat roost potential in trees.

Bat roost potential

Description

Negligible

Generally used where a feature initially appears to have some bat roost potential, but on closer examination, the feature is confirmed to have no or negligible potential importance for roosting bats. In survey work, the category is used where a feature has been inspected and found not to contain any features of use to bats, and hence provides confirmation that a feature has been inspected or considered.

Low

Superficially, the feature may have some interest to roosting bats but it is considered sub-optimal to the extent that the surveyor would not anticipate bats to use it for shelter. For example the entrance to a gap/ crevice may be obstructed, or a feature may be exposed in some form. The surveyor may decide that due to access constraints during the survey that a single activity survey may be appropriate to gather further information about bats using the tree (if at all). This method is used when a watching brief is not deemed necessary but there is still doubt as to whether bats are present.

Moderate

A feature that has some potential for roosting bats but is less than ideal in some way. The surveyor would not expect such a feature to be regularly used by roosting bats. Connectivity with navigational features might be sub-optimal; the feature might be occupied by other fauna (such as spiders etc.), subject to disturbance, or be very exposed. Trees with significant ivy cover might fall within this category. In the context of licensing procedures, the Bat Conservation Trusts’ Bat Surveys - Good Practice Guidelines (2012), Joint Nature for Conservation Committees’ Bat Workers Manual (2004) and English Natures’ Bat Mitigation Guidelines (2004), the specialist bat surveyor would not automatically subject a ‘moderate’ feature to additional activity surveys, unless specific reasons were identified that justified this. If a precautionary approach is deemed appropriate, a watching brief at the time of any works taking place might be recommended.

High

An ‘ideal’ feature, which in the experience of the surveyor is wholly appropriate for use by roosting bats. For example, it has no obstructions at the gap / crevice, it is free or nearly so, from disturbance from artificial lighting, but no direct evidence of bats has been found. In the context of licensing procedures, the Bat Conservation Trusts’ Bat Surveys - Good Practice Guidelines (2007), Joint Nature for Conservation Committees’ Bat Workers Manual (2004) and English Natures’ Bat Mitigation Guidelines (2004), a feature with ‘high’ bat roosting potential (BRP) is likely to be subject to additional activity surveys such as dusk and dawn swarming surveys to assist in confirmation of its status, and may also be subject to a watching brief during works that may disturb them. If a feature with ‘high’ BRP is subsequently found to support roosting bats, the results of any additional surveys that qualify the nature of the roost, the species present, or quantify the population associated with it may be used in support of an application for a European Protected Species (EPS) derogation licence from Natural England.

Confirmed

Positive evidence of bats recorded, i.e. individual bats present, bat droppings or existing records of bat roost are directly associated with this feature. An upgrade to ‘confirmed’ status might be appropriate based on the findings of a dusk emergence or pre-dawn swarming survey.

Barrow Brook Business Park, Clitheroe · Construction Ltd and Edward Hine, LPA Receiver for...

Documents

Transcript of Barrow Brook Business Park, Clitheroe · Construction Ltd and Edward Hine, LPA Receiver for...