€¦ · Natasha Hannah-Lyons FdSc – Secondary Author Sophie Amphlett BSc (Hons) MSc Grad CIEEM...

17-2139 WEST HADDON BAT REPORT V2 SH 101117

of 18

Bat – Daytime Inspection Report

LGSS Property Services

West Haddon Primary School

Northamptonshire Office 8 Melbourne House Corbygate Business Park Weldon, Corby Northamptonshire NN17 5JG

Oxfordshire Office 7 Astley House Cromwell Business Park Chipping Norton Oxfordshire OX7 5SR

01536 408 840 [email protected]

01608 648 657 [email protected]

www.lgluk.com

Ref: 17-2139

Version: 2

Date: 01/12/2017

mailto:[email protected]


https://www.linkedin.com/company/9286763

https://www.instagram.com/lockhartgarratt/


of 18

This page has intentionally been left blank


of 18

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET

Ecological Team

James Hildreth BSc(Hons) PhD CEnv MCIEEM Associate Director & Principal Ecological

Consultant

Louise Floyd BSc(Hons) PG Dip Law MSc GradCIEEM Ecological Consultant

Samantha Hodgson BSc(Hons) GradCIEEM Ecological Consultant

Jo Underwood BA(Hons) BSc(Hons) PGDip Law Ecological Consultant

Julie Watson BSc (Hons) MSc MCIEEM PIEMA Ecological Consultant

Sophie Amphlett BSc (Hons) MSc GradCIEEM Assistant Ecological Consultant

Sarah Thresher BSc(Hons) Assistant Ecological Consultant

Sophie Barrell MEcol (Hons) GradCIEEM Graduate Ecological Consultant

Natasha Hannah-Lyons FdSc Ecology Assistant

Marie Allcoat Project Administrator

Becky McKay BA(Hons) Project Administrator

Originating Author: Date: Version Notes:

Samantha Hodgson 10.11.2017 1 Original Report

Reviewed By:

Sophie Amphlett 01.12.2017 1 Quality control

Approved for Issue By:

Samantha Hodgson 01.12.2017 2 Final Report

COPYRIGHT © The copyright of this document remains with Lockhart Garratt Ltd. Its contents must not be copied or

reproduced in whole or in part for any purpose without the written consent of Lockhart Garratt Ltd.

DISCLAIMER It should be noted that the information above provides details of the Site’s current ecological

situation. In the event that the proposed development does not commence within 12 months of the

date of this report, further advice should be sought from a suitably qualified ecologist as to whether

the information provided requires updating in light of changing ecological conditions.


of 18

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 5

Terms of Instruction .............................................................................................................. 5

Report Limitations ................................................................................................................ 5

Documents Provided ............................................................................................................. 5

Qualifications ....................................................................................................................... 5

Site Description .................................................................................................................... 5

Aim of the Study ................................................................................................................... 5

2. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 8

Desk Study ............................................................................................................................ 8

Daytime Inspection ............................................................................................................... 8

3. SURVEY RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 10

Desk Study .......................................................................................................................... 10

Daytime Inspection ............................................................................................................. 12

Field Survey Limitations ...................................................................................................... 12

Habitat Description ............................................................................................................. 12

Amenity grassland .............................................................................................................. 12

Buildings ............................................................................................................................. 12

Hard standing ..................................................................................................................... 12

Scattered trees ................................................................................................................... 12

4. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 14

Overview ............................................................................................................................ 14

5. RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... 15

Enhancement ..................................................................................................................... 15

General .............................................................................................................................. 15

6. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................. 16

Appendix 1: Desk Study Data .............................................................................................. 17

Table of Contents

Purpose of Document


of 18

1. INTRODUCTION

Terms of Instruction

1.1. This report has been commissioned by LGSS Property Services. It provides further detail on the

likely usage of a series of buildings known as West Haddon Primary School to support roosting

bats.

Report Limitations

1.2. This is an ecological report and as such no reliance should be given to comments relating to

buildings, engineering, soils or other unrelated matters.

Documents Provided

1.3. As background information the following documentation was provided:

Site Constraints Plan: Ref No. NCC008-PL007

Proposed Plan: Ref No. NCC008-PL004

Qualifications

1.4. The authors of this report are detailed below:

Samantha Hodgson BSc (Hons) Grad CIEEM – Primary Author/ Primary Surveyor

Natasha Hannah-Lyons FdSc – Secondary Author

Sophie Amphlett BSc (Hons) MSc Grad CIEEM – Reviewer

John Lockhart FRICS CEnv – Project Director

Simon Muddiman – Graphics

Marie Allcoat – Project Administrator

Site Description

1.5. The site is located at SP 62855 71862 (hereafter referred to as “the Site”) The assessment

covered the whole of the Site, which is approximately 0.7 ha in area.

1.6. At the time of the assessment the Site mostly comprised buildings, amenity grassland,

hardstanding, scattered trees and hedgerows.

1.7. The Site was surrounded by the village of West Haddon to the north, east and south and by

pastoral land to the west.

1.8. The Site location plan is provided below at Figure 1.

1.9. A plan of the buildings within the Site is provided at Figure 2.

Aim of the Study

1.10. The purpose of this report is to provide an assessment of the suitability of the Site for bats and

whether or not there is any evidence of the Site being used by bats.


of 18

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Reproduced with the permission of The Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Crown Copyright

© Licence Number: 100015654. Lockhart Garratt Ltd 8 Melbourne House, Corbygate Business Park,

Weldon, Corby, Northants NN17 5JG.


of 18

B1

B2 B3

Figure 2: Building Layout Plan


of 18

2. METHODOLOGY

Desk Study

2.1. Existing ecological information on the Site and surrounding area was requested from the

Northants Bat Group. The purpose of the desk study was to collect baseline information to

identify legally protected species and species of conservation concern within a 2km radius of

the Site in line with IEEM Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (2012). Full information

is provided at Appendix 1.

2.2. A review of online resources, including the Multi Agency Geographic Information for the

Countryside (MAGIC) database was also undertaken to establish the ecological context for the

Site (accessed 10th November 2017). The MAGIC website was also reviewed to identify any

designated sites of European Importance within 5km of the Site.

Daytime Inspection

2.3. An external assessment of one building (B1) located on the Site was undertaken to determine

its potential to support roosting bats.

2.4. The survey included a detailed check of all suitable features for bats. Features searched and

checked included cracks, wall cavities, enclosed roof voids and open joints. Small squeeze

spaces such as behind timber boarding, shelving and insulation fitted on the walls were also

examined.

2.5. A high powered pair of binoculars (8x44mm), as well as a range of larger and smaller hand

torches (e.g. 1 million candle power to 200 lumens) were used where appropriate.

2.6. A 5.96m surveyor’s ladder was also used to allow aerial features to be checked where accessible

and safe to do so.

2.7. As part of the survey, actual bats, and signs of their usage including droppings, feeding remains

and urine staining were also searched for as part of the assessment.

2.8. Based on the findings of the assessment each building was rated as being of negligible, low,

moderate or high bat potential to support roosting bats based on the type and number of

suitable bat features present, in accordance with best practice guidance, Bat Conservation Trust

(2016) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition.

1) High Potential – a structure with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable

for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of

time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat;

2) Moderate Potential – a structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by

bats due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat but unlikely to

support a roost of high conservation status (with respect to roost type only – this assessment

is irrespective of species conservation status, which is established after presence is

confirmed).

3) Low Potential - a structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by

individual bats opportunistically. However, these potential roost sites do not provide enough

space, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions and / or suitable surrounding habitat to be


of 18

used on a regular basis by larger numbers of bats (i.e. unlikely to be suitable for maternity or

hibernation).

4) Negligible Potential – negligible habitat features on site likely to be used by roosting bats.


of 18

3. SURVEY RESULTS

Desk Study

3.1. The full information collected during the desk study from the Northants Bat Group is presented in Appendix 1 and summarised below.

3.2. Table 1 below provides an extract of the protected species which were found within 2km of the Site. It should be noted that the absence of records should not be

taken as confirmation that a species is absent from the search area.

Species/Group No. of

Records

Date of Latest

Record

Proximity to

Project

Legislation / Conservation Status

Mammals (bats-resident species)

Whiskered/Brandt’s bat

Myotis mystacinus / Myotis brandtii

2 2011 1.44km

North-west

CHSR, CRoW, EC Directive Annex IV, WCA 5 S9, NERC S.41

Long-eared bat, Brown

Plecotus auritus

13 2011 0.9km

South

CHSR, CRoW, EC Directive Annex IV, WCA 5 S9, NERC S.41,

UK BAP

Natterer’s bat

Myotis nattereri

3 2011 0.9km

South


Noctule

Nyctalus noctula

2 2011 1.44km

North-west


UK BAP

Pipistrelle, Common

Pipistrellus pipistrellus

3 2011 1.44km

North-west


Pipistrelle, Soprano

Pipistrellus pygmaeus

1 2011 1.44km

North-west


UK BAP

Pipistrelle Species

Pipistrellus sp.

8 2011 0.2km

North-east


Key:

CHSR - The Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended); transposes the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive into national law, operating in conjunction with the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Affords protection to European Sites and European Protected Species and requires Local Planning Authorities to include policies encouraging the management of

features in the landscape that are of major importance for wild flora and fauna (Regulation 39). Lists European protected species; animals are protected under Regulation 41 of the Habitats and

Species Regulations 2010 and are listed on Schedule 2 of these Regulations; plants are protected under Regulation 45 of the Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and are listed on Schedule 4. It

an offence (subject to exceptions) to deliberately capture, kill, disturb, or trade in the animals listed in Schedule 2 and to pick, collect, cut, uproot, destroy, or trade in the plants listed in Schedule 4.


of 18

CRoW: - Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000: Protection of certain birds and animals.

Habitats Directive Annex IV - The EU Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora, also known as the Habitats Directive Annex IV lists animal and plant species of

Community interest in need of strict protection.

NERC S.41 - Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Section 41: Habitats and Species of Principal Importance in England

WCA 5 S9 - Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended); Protected animals (other than birds). Section 9 has a number of parts that include protection against killing and taking (9.1),

possession of or possession of part of (9.2), disturbance or destruction/obstruction of places of shelter (9.4), selling (9.5a) or advertising for sale (9.5b).


of 18

Daytime Inspection

3.3. The inspection was conducted on 15th November 2017 in reasonable weather conditions (6°C, 100% cloud cover,

Beaufort scale 0-1).

Field Survey Limitations

3.4. The exterior of all of the building to be impacted was surveyed as part of the assessment.

3.5. The interior of all the buildings were accessible, however an interior survey including any roof voids could not

be undertaken due to the presence of children.

3.6. The conclusions drawn as part of this assessment are based upon the findings of a single daytime inspection

conducted during the hibernation period. No activity surveys have been completed as part of this assessment.

Habitat Description

3.7. Habitats identified during the survey are detailed below in alphabetical order:

Amenity grassland

3.8. An area of amenity grassland was present in the west of the Site. This area was used as playing field and

consisted of short species poor grassland (approximately 50mm).

Buildings

3.9. B1 was a single storey brick building with a flat roof. The top section of the wall was covered in timber cladding.

There were also two small sheds in close proximity to the building. Detailed information on the building surveys

is presented in Table 1 below.

3.10. All of the buildings were in active use by the school.

Hard standing

3.11. There was a large area of hardstanding to the south of B1 forming the playground on the Site.

Scattered trees

3.12. There were several scattered trees along the south boundary of the Site.


of 18

Table 1: Summary of survey findings for daytime bat inspection

Building No.

/Name

Description Features Bat Signs Overall bat

potential B1

Single storey brick built building with flat roof. Wooden cladding present along the top section of the walls. Currently used as classrooms by the school.

The brick work was in good condition with no visible cracks and gaps suitable for bats. The wooden cladding was considered to be a feature potential suitable for bats. However upon inspection it was found that the majority of the cladding was in good condition and tightly pinned.

Any areas that showed signs of lifting were inspected in more detail. All lifted areas were considered too tight to be used by bats. The gap between the roof lip and the wall was heavily cobwebbed in most places. Where the gap was clean it was considered too large a gap for bats to use a squeeze space.

No signs found. Low-Negligible

B2 Small wooden shed used for storage

No features suitable for bats found. No signs found. Negligible

B3 Small wooden shed used for storage

No features suitable for bats found. No signs found. Negligible


of 18

4. CONCLUSION

Overview

4.1. The daytime inspection undertaken in November 2017 found no evidence of bats being present

within the building to be extended. There were limited suitable features for bats present within

the building, all of which were absent of any evidence of roosting bats.

4.2. Given the limited suitability of the building for bats and the lack of evidence of roosting bats, it

is considered that bats are likely to be absent from the building to be extended as part of the

proposed works.


of 18

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Although bats are not considered to be roosting within the building they are known to be

present in the local area. The following recommendations are given to reduce the indirect

impacts to any bats that may be present in the local area and also to provide enhancements to

improve the Site’s suitability for bats.

Construction and external lighting

5.2. To reduce the indirect impacts on bats using the area, the following construction and lighting

measures should be implemented:

All construction lighting is to be focused on the proposed works areas only with baffles and

cowling used to minimise light throw around the fringes of these areas.

Construction lighting (including that associated with any site compound, or welfare

facilities) is to be switched-off at the end of the working day.

Any new external lighting units to be installed as part of the scheme is to avoid up-lighting,

LED lights fitted with hoods to direct light downward should be installed.

It is also recommended that where practicable, new external lighting units are fitted with

passive-infrared receivers (PIRs), with these adjusted to avoid them being triggered by

birds or bats. Similarly the use of timers to avoid the requirement for lighting to be

operational throughout the night would also be beneficial (e.g. lighting switched off 1hr

after sunset until 1hr before dawn).

Construction practices should follow best practice in terms of dust and noise and control.

Enhancement

5.3. To secure a net ecological gain, landscaping proposals for the scheme should include the use of

native plant species.

5.4. There is opportunity to erect bat boxes on some of the trees to be retained to offer bat roosting.

It would be recommended to install 2 bat boxes on the scattered trees, for example Schwegler

2FF.

General

5.5. If in the event any bats (or other protected species e.g. nesting birds) are encountered, works

are to stop immediately with advice sought from ourselves (Lockhart Garratt – 01536 408840).


of 18

6. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bat Conservation Trust (2016) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition

Russ, J. (2012) British Bat Calls: A guide to species identification 1st Edition Pelagic


of 18

Appendix 1: Desk Study Data

Ref: 17-2249

1

Northants Bat Group

10 Bedford Cottages Great Brington

Northampton NN7 4JF

01604 770632 [email protected]

Lockhart Garratt Ltd 8 Melbourne House Corbygate Business Park Weldon Corby NN17 5JG 8th November 2017

West Haddon 2km

17-0722

Bat Database Search There are currently 12 of the 17 UK bat species recorded in the county of Northamptonshire. The attached spread-sheet should in no way be taken as fully representative of the bat roosts in the area. The bat group has unsystematically collected the results since 1980 during surveys. Bats have a lifespan up to 30 years in the UK (present research) and so records from over the last two decades are a very good indicator of the presence in an area of these long-lived mammal species. Older records should not be ignored. These results are not to be used in place of thorough site-specific and species-specific bat surveys, which should be undertaken for all developments. These data are for your use on this contract and should not be passed on to third parties. The canal passing close by to the north is a good foraging site for bats and a commuting route, too. The traditional villages in this area have a reasonably diverse bat population.

Phil Richardson Any bat records generated by your fieldwork, in any format, would be gratefully received to update and further our knowledge of bats for conservation purposes.

Ref Site Date Status

Pipistrelle

5740 West Haddon centre 1986 One grounded

587 West Haddon Church 1992 Roost

3556 West Haddon, Field Close 1988 Roost


2

7077 West Haddon, Yelvertoft Road 2004 Roost

3555 West Haddon, farm 1996 Roost

5969 Winwick turn 1984 Foraging

6121 Winwick village from 1983 Foraging

8278 Winwick, house 2011 Roost

Common pipistrelle

7477 Winwick, farm 2007 Roost

8148 Winwick, main street 2011 Foraging

8149 Winwick, main street east 2011 Foraging

Soprano pipistrelle


Brown long-eared bat

5086 West Haddon 1995 One grounded


6169 West Haddon farm 1983 Roost

8122 West Haddon, Baptist Chapel 2010 One grounded

6930 West Haddon, farm (2) 2003 Roost

5391 West Haddon, old chapel 1990 Roost

7440 West Haddon, bungalow 2007 Roost

610 Winwick Church from 1981 Roost

1652 Winwick house from 1980 Roost

1651 Winwick, house, Yelvertoft Road 1997 Roost

7478 Winwick,farm 2007 Roost

8152 Winwick, main street nr church 2011 Foraging

8279 Winwick, large house 2011 Roost

Natterer's bat


594 Winwick Church from 1981 Roost

8151 Winwick, main street nr church 2011 Foraging

Noctule

6506 Winwick Churchyard from 1980 Foraging


Whiskered/Brandt's bat



Northamptonshire 7-8 Melbourne House Corbygate Business Park Weldon Corby Northamptonshire NN17 5JG

Oxfordshire 7 Astley House Cromwell Business Park Banbury Road Chipping Norton Oxfordshire OX7 5SR

Tel: 01536 408840 Email: [email protected] Website: www.lgluk.com

Tel: 01608 648657 Email: [email protected] Website: www.lgluk.com

AERIAL SURVEYING SITE SURVEYING | SITE MONITORING | 3D MODELLING | ORTHOMOSAIC | DIGITAL SURFACE MAPPING ARBORICULTURE TREES & DEVELOPMENT| TREE RISK MANAGEMENT | TREES & THE LAW | EXPERT WITNESS DIGITAL MAPPING & GRAPHIC DESIGN DIGITAL REPRESENTATION AND GIS ANALYSIS | GRAPHIC DESIGN ECOLOGY HABITAT & SPECIES SURVEYS AND LICENSING | HABITAT CREATION, RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT | ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORESTRY & WOODLAND MANAGEMENT FORESTRY MANAGEMENT ADVICE | OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT | TIMBER SALES | GRANT APPLICATIONS

NEW WOODLAND DESIGN | CARBON | WOODLAND EVALUATION LANDSCAPE & GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT | LANDSCAPE DESIGN & SPECIFICATION LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PLANS | GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING & DESIGN | EXPERT WITNESS MINERALS & WASTE RESTORATION PLANNING RATIONALISATION & STAKEHOLDER LIAISON | LAND SURVEY & MANAGEMENT PLANNING COST ENGINEERED LANDSCAPE & HABITAT DESIGN | IMPLEMENTATION MANAGEMENT & CLERK OF WORKS

RESTORATION & AFTERCARE MANAGEMENT PLAN (RAMP) | SOIL SURVEY & ADVICE


http://www.lgluk.com/


http://www.lgluk.com/

€¦ · Natasha Hannah-Lyons FdSc – Secondary Author Sophie Amphlett BSc (Hons) MSc Grad CIEEM...

Documents

Transcript of €¦ · Natasha Hannah-Lyons FdSc – Secondary Author Sophie Amphlett BSc (Hons) MSc Grad CIEEM...