Cameron S Crook and ASSOCIATES Ecological Impact Assessment – Higher Cage Farm, Knowle Green

. 30

7.0 Appendix A. Proposed Bat Mitigation

B. Desktop Survey Data (LERN)

Cameron S Crook and ASSOCIATES Ecological Impact Assessment – Higher Cage Farm, Knowle Green

. 31

Appendix A – Outline Method Statement in respect of Bats

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The presence of a number of droppings of two bat species were found within the roof space of the existing farmhouse, Building B1, and beneath the bargeboards of the existing garage/outbuilding, Building B2, indicating that site has been recently used for roosting. The night-time emergence surveys confirmed that the species of bats using the roof void of the farmhouse is Brandt’s bat and that soprano pipistrelle is using the garage/outbuilding, though in both case, only a relatively small number of bats and signs of roosting were found indicating that neither are likely to be maternity roosts but rather, summer or male roosts.

1.2 The buildings in question are therefore protected under both the Habitat Regulations and Wildlife & Countryside act. As a legal obligation, proposed development works must take place following a method statement to ensure that there is no impact upon roosting bats and that the requirements of the Habitat Regulations are fully complied with.

1.3 To allow an appropriate assessment to be carried out by the local authority and Natural England in respect of the respective proposals for demolition and to ensure that there is no detriment to the existing bat roost or favourable conservation status of the local bat population, it is proposed that the following mitigation measures should be implemented as part of site development proposals. It is expected that the proposals below will form the basis of an application for a Natural England EPS licence.

2.0 Mitigation Strategy

2.1 Taking the survey results into account (see main report), it is reasonable to conclude that, in accordance with the Bat Mitigation Guidelines (Guidelines for Proportionate Mitigation) the roost sites are of Low-Moderate conservation significance and the Scale of Impact is also Low-Moderate. In the wider context, the impact upon the meta-population of bats is therefore also considered to be Low-Moderate due to the loss of two small summer roost sites of two small populations of relatively common bat species.

2.2 Proposed mitigation should allow for any works to the building to take place initially under close ecological supervision, coupled with the provision of alternative roosting sites prior to any site works taking place.

2.3 Since the site is of limited conservation importance in relative terms, it is considered that a temporary gap of several weeks during the winter period between loss of the existing roost site and provision of a new, permanent roost space, will have a limited impact upon the local bat population. However, to allow for continuous roost availability during site works and to allow for additional roosting potential overall, a number of bat boxes will also be fitted to adjacent trees (not currently part of the development but adjacent to the site) and the large retained outbuilding.

3.0 Proposed Method Statement

3.1 The roof space and upper parts of the existing buildings where roosting has been identified should be initially dismantled by hand, removing all roof-coverings followed by other super-structural materials and finally the wooden roofing structure and supports. All works should be undertaken under the strict supervision of an experienced bat handler.

3.2 Initial dismantling works should be carried out section by section, commencing at one corner of each building then working slowly backwards, removing all internal cladding, plaster/wooden boards, other woodwork, roofing slats and roofing sheets. Should any bats be discovered, all works should cease and bats removed from site and held in captivity by a suitably licenced and/or experienced bat handler for as long as required

Cameron S Crook and ASSOCIATES Ecological Impact Assessment – Higher Cage Farm, Knowle Green

. 32

until demolition is complete. Captive bats should not to be released until the building has been demolished, or are no longer capable of supporting bat roosts.

3.3 To reduce the chances of bats being present or disturbed, the works described above should commence no sooner than the third week of October when bats are least active and least liable to disturbance. Dismantling works should be completed, to at least the level described in 3.2 above, prior to the third week in March of the following year at the absolute latest.

3.4 If works are not complete by this time, further night-time surveys (dawn roost-return) should be undertaken each morning, prior to any site works continuing, to determine whether (i) the buildings are being used by bats, or (ii) there are any indications that bats are attempting to use the building for roosting purposes. Works should only continue where it has been confirmed that bats are not using or attempting to use the building for roosting. This procedure should continue until (i) bats have been found to be using the building, in which case, all works should cease, or (ii) dismantling works are completed to the level described in 3.2 above.

3.5 Once the super-structures of the buildings have been removed and the licenced bat worker is satisfied that no further roosting areas remain and no bats are reasonably likely to be present, the remainder of the roof sections or roof voids of the buildings may be dismantled without further restrictions. However, if at any stage there is any evidence or suspicion that bats may still remain, all work should cease immediately and further investigation by a licenced bat worker should be carried out before any site works continue. All site workers should be fully briefed on the possible presence of bats and that there should be no attempts to handle any bats that are found, except to remove them from immediate danger until a bat worker is able to attend the site.

3.6 In addition to the precautions taken during dismantling of the roof area outlined above, alternative roost sites should be provided to compensate for the loss of the bat roosts within the existing buildings. The alternative roosting site will be provided on a ‘like for like’ basis within the near vicinity of the existing roost site. For summer roosting purposes, the new roost site shall closely match the existing roosting site by providing a suitably-sized void with open rafters and appropriate roof pitch, to be constructed of suitable materials to create optimal environmental conditions, in particular temperature and humidity, whilst still allowing unimpeded entry and access. To that end a suitable void shall be constructed over the proposed new garage, as shown in Figures A1, A2 & A3 below.

3.7 To avoid any post-construction disturbance, the access to the proposed new bat loft should be restricted to a size of no greater than 450mm x 450mm and the roosting area should not be used for storage or any other purpose than for roosting by bats.

3.8 In addition, a number of bat boxes as detailed below must also be fitted. The proposed bat boxes and new bat loft should be fully available for use by bats prior to any dismantling works commencing on the existing roost sites.

3.9 Supplementary to the above and prior to either site works taking place, which should be no earlier than third week in October 2015 or no later than the third week of March 2016, to ensure there is no gap in roost availability, a sufficient number of bat boxes should be placed on suitable trees within the wider site boundaries, as well as attached to the large adjacent outbuilding (to be retained) to allow for differing environmental conditions. Bat roost boxes should be of both a summer and a winter design and to be of a proprietary Woodcrete construction. The following proprietary bat boxes are proposed:

1 Schwegler 1FFH Woodcrete Universal bat box 87.5cm x 24.5cm

3 Schwegler 2FN, Woodcrete, Larger Species box, 36cm x 16cm

Cameron S Crook and ASSOCIATES Ecological Impact Assessment – Higher Cage Farm, Knowle Green

. 33

3 Schwegler 2F, Woodcrete, General Purpose box, 33cm x 16cm

1 Schwegler 1FW Woodcrete Hibernation Box, 50cm x 38cm

3.10 With respect to general site design, either no lighting, or only low-level lighting (type and design to be agreed) should be used within 10m of the bat box and new bat loft locations. Any lighting that is unavoidable should be directed away from the bat barn roost access points and known bat feeding areas (mature trees, scrub and other mature vegetation).

3.11 The new bat loft and all bat boxes should be subsequently monitored once per year during June-August for at least three consecutive seasons or at least until establishment of one or more bat roosts has been determined.

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 Providing the recommendations made above are taken into consideration and appropriately implemented, there is likely to be no residual negative impact upon bats or any detriment to the favourable conservation status of the two species involved.

5.0 References

Hundt (2012). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D. and Hill, D.A. (1992). Bird Census Techniques. Poyser. London.

Byron H. (2000). Biodiversity and Environmental Impact Assessment: A good practice guide for road schemes. RSPB, WWF-UK, English Nature and The Wildlife Trusts, Sandy.

British Government (1994). Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. Statutory Instrument 1994 No 2716 Wildlife, Countryside. HMSO

British Government (1981). Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 with Amendments. HMSO

IEA (1995). Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. Institute of Environmental Assessment. E & FN Spon.

Kirkby, K.J. (1988). A Woodland Survey Handbook. Research and Survey in Nature Conservation No. 11. NCC, Peterborough.

Mitchell-Jones, A. J., (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature.

NCC (1990). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A Technique for Environmental Audit. Nature Conservancy Council.

Cameron S Crook and ASSOCIATES Ecological Impact Assessment – Higher Cage Farm, Knowle Green

. 34

Figure A1 Proposed garage

Figure A2 Proposed Garage, side elevation

Cameron S Crook and ASSOCIATES Ecological Impact Assessment – Higher Cage Farm, Knowle Green

. 35

Figure A3 Proposed bat roosting area within garage

Cameron S Crook and ASSOCIATES Ecological Impact Assessment – Higher Cage Farm, Knowle Green

. 36

Appendix B - LERN Ecology Map

ddd dddd ddd ddd dd ddd ddddd dd dddd dd dd dddd ddd dd dddddd ddd d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

ddd

d

d d

d

d

d

d

d

d

dd

d

ddddd

d

d

d

dd

d

d

dd

d

d

d

d

d

d

dd

d

dd

d

d

ddd

d

d

d

d

dd

ddd

d

d

d

d

dd

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

dd

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

/DXUHQFH�$VKZRUWK

7KLV�PDS�LV�EDVHG�XSRQ�2UGQDQFH�6XUYH\�PDWHULDO�ZLWK�WKH�SHUPLVVLRQ�RI�2UGQDQFH�6XUYH\�RQ�EHKDOI�RI�WKH�FRQWUROOHU�RI�+HU�0DMHVW\¶V�6WDWLRQHU\�2IILFH���&URZQ�FRS\ULJKW���8QDXWKRULVHG�UHSURGXFWLRQ�LQIULQJHV�&URZQ�FRS\ULJKW�DQG�PD\�OHDG�WR�SURVHFXWLRQ�RU�FLYLO�SURFHHGLQJV���/DQFDVKLUH�&RXQW\�&RXQFLO����������������

Legend

����P�%XIIHU����P�%XIIHU��NP�%XIIHU��NP�%XIIHU

d /DQFDVKLUH�.H\�6SHFLHV%LRORJLFDO�+HULWDJH�6LWHV

�

/DQFDVKLUH�(QYLURQPHQW�5HFRUG�1HWZRUN&�2�5HVHDUFK��,QWHOOLJHQFH�7HDP(QYLURQPHQW�'LUHFWRUDWH��/DQFDVKLUH�&RXQW\�&RXQFLO��32�%R[�����&RXQW\�+DOO��3UHVWRQ��35���/'

OHUQ#ODQFDVKLUH�JRY�XN

��������

� �����

0HWUHV

KWWS���ZZZ�ODQFVSDUWQHUV�RUJ�OHUQ�

+LJKHU�&DJH

Project

&DPHURQ�6�&URRN

Client

Grid Ref 363690 436960

�%RXQGDULHV�RI�VWDWXWRU\�GHVLJQDWLRQV��1DWXUD�������666,�HWF�DUH�LQFOXGHG�IRU�LQIRUPDWLRQ�RQO\� Definitive, information forthese designations should be obtained from Natural England."

Lancashire Key Species records are plotted at the bottomleft/centre of the area to which they relate (the precision ofeach record is given in the accompanying attribute data andspreadsheet).