Report of Bat Survey - ribblevalley.gov.uk · Lancashire. The survey work described in this report...

Report of Bat Survey

St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School,Whalley Road,

Hurst Green,Clitheroe,

Lancashire,BB7 9QJ

Provided for:

CA Planning7 East Cliff

PrestonPR1 3JE

20th July 2014

www.ecologyservice.co.ukBury | Lancashire | BL8 2JD

T 0161 763 4699 E [email protected] in England and Wales no. 5329675

Report of bat survey St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School, Hurst Green

Ecology Services UK Limited July 20142

Summary

This report has been produced on behalf of CA Planning to inform a planningproposal for a development at St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School, Hurst Green inLancashire.

The survey work described in this report followed the discovery of signs of batsduring previous site investigations in May 2014. Additional surveys carried out in2014 comprised daytime building inspections, use of remote detectors and a datalogger, as well as emergence surveys of three buildings; the Chapel, the ParishRooms and a boiler room.

Bat surveys of three buildings at St Joseph’s were carried out between May and July2014. Unattended recording of the Parish Rooms roof void was carried out between13th to 18th May and 9th to 30th June 2014. A data search was also undertaken.

A total of three species of bat were recorded on site; Common pipistrelle Pipistrelluspipistrellus, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus and brown long eared Plecotusauritus.

No bats were observed roosting inside the target buildings. No bats emergedfrom target buildings (Parish Rooms, boiler room and Chapel) during the threeemergence surveys.

A brown long eared bat was briefly recorded on two consecutive nights insidethe roof void of the Parish Rooms on unmanned remote detectors.

Old and more recent bat droppings were found scattered and clustered in theroof void of the Parish Rooms during the surveys and bat feeding remains werealso found in the roof void at the start of the surveys. No new feeding signs orfresh droppings (i.e. no signs of bat activity in 2014) were found during thesurveys.

There are no constraints to the demolition of building 1 at the current time; however,precautionary methods of working are advised.

There is evidence to suggest that building 2 has been a roost in previous years butbats are not currently dependant on this as a roost. The evidence from the 2014surveys suggests that no more than a small number of brown long eared bats haveused the site occasionally as a night feeding roost during the active season.

It is concluded that with appropriate mitigation, including retention/creation of apermanent, dedicated roof void for bat roosting, along with precautionary workingmethods and timings, the contribution made by the building to the favourableconservation status of bats can be maintained. In this case, works could be managedwithout recourse to a mitigation licence.

Seven swift access points were observed on the Parish Rooms building under theroof overhang during the emergence surveys; it is assumed that swifts were nesting atall locations with access points. One occupied swift nest was observed during adaytime survey. Starling and house sparrow nest sites were also observed during thedaytime and evening surveys. Any development works will require a carefulapproach to avoid offences in relation to nesting birds. Nesting features should bemaintained or new features created as part of the building design in order to protectnesting sites for birds, in particular the swift colony which is recognised as importantin a local and county context.



Report contents

1. Introduction 4

2. Objectives, methodology and rationale 6

3. Site description 10

4. Results of surveys 14

5. Limitations of survey 18

6. Conclusions 20

7. Advice and recommendations 23

8. Bibliography 26

Appendices

App 1- Data Search Results

App 2 – Map 1 - Surveyor locations and potential roost features

App 3 – Map 2 - Bat evidence and potential access points

App 4 - Map 3 - Bird nesting sites

App 5 - Bat activity survey forms

App 6 - Weather survey forms

App 7- Datalogger results

App 8- Sonograms

App 9 - Photographs of buildings and site

App 10 - Photographs of bird nesting locations



1 Introduction

This report has been produced on behalf of CA Planning to inform a planningproposal for a development at St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School in HurstGreen, Lancashire.

Ecology Services UK Limited was commissioned to carry out bat surveysstarting in May 2014.

The information contained within this report comprises:

The methodology employed to survey for bats at the proposeddevelopment site

A brief description of the survey site The results from the bat surveys An assessment of the importance of the survey site for bats Conclusions drawn from the results of the surveys Advice and recommendations for further action in relation to bats at this

site

The surveys, assessment of potential and advice in this report comply withnational best practice guidance as outlined in:

Hundt, L. (2012) Bat Surveys; Good practice Guidelines. BCT, London

PersonnelThe surveys were carried out by Pat Waring and Janette Gazzard.

Pat is a licensed bat worker (Class 2 licence), a Chartered Environmentalistand a full member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and EnvironmentalManagement, with a Bachelor degree in Biology.

Pat has been working as an ecological consultant for over sixteen years, mostrecently as Director of Ecology Services UK Limited. This work includesprovision of expert advice and guidance to bodies such as Statutory NatureConservation Organisations, Local Planning Authorities and Lancashire andPolice Authorities, as well as the delivery of professional training courses aboutbats at a national level.

Pat has recognised and extensive experience and knowledge of bat ecologyrelating to buildings and trees including the requirements and conditionnecessary for bats roosting. He also has recognised skills relating to batsurveys and assessment and has extensive experience of designing mitigation,compensation and enhancement for a range of bat species. He providesprofessional training at a national level in mitigation design, compliance auditsfor mitigation and in measuring success of mitigation schemes. He has actedas the Project Ecologist for over 25 licensed mitigation schemes for bats inEngland.



Janette is a full member of Chartered Institute of Ecology and EnvironmentalManagement, with a Bachelor of Science degree in EnvironmentalManagement.

Janette has over ten years experience working in ecology and natureconservation, including roles as a Senior Ecologist for a largemultidisciplinary company and as a lead adviser for Natural Englandthroughout the North West of England. She has a range of demonstrable skillsincluding habitat surveys ecological appraisals, protected species, conservationmanagement advice and condition assessments; and is currently workingtowards becoming a licensed bat worker.

Field surveyors, Hannah Christy, Greg McManmon and Mark Williamsassisted during the emergence surveys at St Joseph’s.



2 Objectives, methodology and rationale

2.1 General background

The brief for this work was to investigate the use of buildings by bats, theChapel building is proposed for demolition and the Parish Rooms and boilerroom are to be re-designed and refurbished. The surveys completed include adaytime building inspections and bat emergence surveys of the buildings.

Objectives – building surveys

a) To identify any potential bat roosting habitat

b) To identify whether bats were present on the site at the time of survey

c) To identify whether bats had used the site prior to survey

d) To provide an assessment of the likely importance of the site for bats andbat conservation

e) To provide advice and recommendations accordingly

Objectives – emergence surveys

a) To identify whether bats were emerging from the target buildings at thetime of survey and, if so, to identify bat numbers and species

b) To provide an assessment of the likely importance of the target buildingsfor bats and bat conservation

Information gathering involved two phases; a desk-based study and field-based surveys.

2.2 Desk-based study

A data search was requested from the Local Biological Records Centre;Lancashire Environmental Records Network (LERN).

2.3 Methodology for surveys

The surveys, assessment of potential and advice in this report comply withcurrent national best practice guidance as outlined in:

Bat Conservation Trust (2014) Bat Surveys; Good practice Guidelines. BCT,London



2.3.1 Building surveys

Daytime inspections of the target buildings were carried out on 2nd May,13th May, 9th June and 30th June 2014.

Internal and external parts of both buildings were subjected to examinationfor signs of bats, including droppings, urine staining, grease marks,feeding remains and areas clear of cobwebs. A search was also made forlive and dead bats.

A 1000 lumens Led Lenser X21 torch and close-focussing Pentax Papilio8.5x21 binoculars were used as aids to visibility.

Observations were made from ground level and surrounding vantagepoints, as well as from telescopic 3.8 metre ladders.

Notes were made of potential disturbance factors for bats.

Sections of the Parish Rooms roof void floor were covered in cleancardboard sheets after the initial building inspection on 13th May 2014.This was done to enable fresh droppings to be caught and observed easily.The survey sheets were checked throughout the remaining surveys up toand including the final survey.

A Tiny Tag datalogger was deployed adjacent to bat signs in the ParishRooms roof void from 13th May to 30th June 2014. The datalogger wasused to gather data to inform the bat assessment, survey report and anymitigation that might be required. Temperature and humidity data waslogged throughout the survey period.

2.3.2 Anabat survey

Two unmanned Anabat SD1 bat detector was deployed inside the ParishRooms roof void from 13th to 18th May and 9th to 30th June 2014.

The Anabats were set to function every night from at least 30 minutes beforesunset to at least 30 minutes after sunrise the following morning (the timeperiod when bats, if present, were expected to be active).

2.3.3 Emergence surveys

Emergence surveys were carried out on 13th June, 24th June and 11th July 2014.

At the start and end of each survey, a range of environmental readings,including temperature, humidity and wind speed, were taken using a Kestrel4000 Weather Meter. The weather meter was left to run continuouslythroughout each of the surveys.



Each survey started approximately 20-30 minutes prior to sunset andcontinued until at least 60 minutes after sunset (i.e. until it was no longerpossible to see all potential emergence sites clearly). This timing waschosen as it was judged to provide the best opportunity for observingemergence in brown long eared bats (the likely use of one of the targetbuildings by this species had been determined from evidence found duringthe initial building inspection in May 2014).

Bat detectors used externally during emergence surveys were as follows:

Date (2014) Detector models Detector functions13th June BatBox Griffin x2

BatBox DuetBat Box III

Time expansionFrequency divisionHeterodyne

24th June BatBox Griffin x2BatBox DuetBat Box III

Time expansionTime expansion

11th July BatBox Griffin x3EM3Anabat x 2EM3

Time expansionTime expansionFrequency divisionTime expansion

All surveyors were equipped with a hand-held bat detector.

All hand-held detectors were used with headphones.

Bat echolocation was recorded onto internal or external devices from alldetectors.

Surveyors were positioned so that all accessible elevations of the buildingscould be observed by at least one person.

During emergence surveys, observers stood close to locations that werejudged most likely to act as access points for bats, as determined duringthe building surveys and previous emergence surveys.

A Canon xf100 camcorder (set on 0 lux Nightshot), with two IRlight6infra-red illuminators, was focussed on external parts the Parish Rooms(the air vent on the south west gable end as a potential access point andalong the wall top along the southern elevation) throughout the emergencesurveys to assist with observations. All activity was recorded onto theinternal hard drives of the camcorders for further analysis.



2.3.4 Bat identification

The identification of bat species was confirmed by a combination of droppingsanalysis, location and type of roost features, direct observation (including thebehaviour of bats when seen flying), use of bat detectors and analysis of batrecordings using computer software (Batsound v3.31 and AnalookW).Analysis of bat recordings involved a series of measurements, including interpulse interval, pulse duration, characteristic slope and frequency of maximumenergy; all of these were compared to a number of known references in orderto arrive at an identification of each bat species.

2.3.5 Summary table of bat surveys

Survey type Timing of surveyDaytime 2/5/14, 13/5/14, 9/6/14, 30/6/14Emergence 13/6/14, 24/6/14, 11/7/14Anabat 13-18/5/14, 9-30/6/14



3 Site description

3.1 The site subject to survey

The centre of the site is located at grid reference SD 68827 38137.

Map 1 - 1:25 000 map showing location of the survey site – site indicated byarrow to centre of map

The survey area comprises school buildings, part of a private dwelling(Walkers Castle), along with areas of hard standing, amenity grassland andmature gardens.

The Chapel – Building 1

The Chapel is single storey with stone walls and a dual pitched, slated roofwith ridge tiles and a chimney stack on the west gable end. There are gaps inthe chimney due to missing mortar and lifted lead flashing. Some sections ofthe roof are in a poor condition, with missing and slipped slates and gapsbeneath ridge tiles. The roof is supported on exposed timber beams andpurlins and there is no roof void. There are no mortise joints or roostingfeatures present in the internal structure of the roof.

The building has UPVC windows and a wooden door which were closed at thetime of the surveys.

The building supported a range of roosting opportunities externally; theseincluded roof coverings and gaps associated with the chimney stack.



The building interior is well lit by natural and artificial lighting; it is heatedand used regularly by the school.

Parish Rooms - Building 2

The Parish Rooms building adjoins the Chapel, boiler room and privatedwelling, and is a large two storey building constructed of stone block wallsand a dual pitched slated roof. The roof is in a fair condition, with no missingor slipped slates although gaps are present beneath the ridge tiles. There is anopen vent on the south gable end and continuous gaps along the wall topswhich provide potential access for bats to gain entry into the roof void. Housesparrows and starlings were nesting at various locations along the wall top ofthis building.

There is a single accessible roof void above the Parish Rooms which extendsinto part of the adjoining private dwelling to the east. The roof void is a largeuncluttered space, noticeably draughty and with extensive natural lightincursion due to a large vent on the south gable end and gaps all along the walltop. The roof is supported on a timber frame with king posts and ridge beam.Modern breathable underlining is present along the eastern aspect and bitumenlining along the western aspect.

Scattered bat droppings were found beneath the entire length of the ridge beamand in clusters behind the king posts (i.e. in darker areas). Bat droppingsincluded both old and more recent material, suggesting occupation for morethan one year. Feeding remains (butterfly wings) were also scatteredthroughout the roof void floor and concentrated remains were present at theeast gable end on the floor and wall.

Internal and external areas in the building where bat signs could possiblyaccumulate had not been disturbed for a number of months. This suggests thatif signs of bats had been left inside or outside of the building, they would haveremained undisturbed up to and during the survey.

There was no vegetation growing against the walls of the building withpotential for use by roosting bats.

A swift colony (maximum count 12 individual adults) are utilising thisbuilding as a nesting site. Seven entry points were observed during theemergence surveys and one occupied nest was confirmed during a daytimeinspection on the 30th June 2014. Starlings and house sparrow nest sites werealso observed during surveys.

Boiler Room – Building 3

The boiler room is a small mono pitch lean to with bitumen roof covering andbrick walls; the roof is under-boarded with timber panels. There are ill fittingtimber doors which were left open at the time of the May 2014 surveys. Nosigns of bats or potential roosting features for bats are present in the boilerroom but a single bird’s nest was present in a gap along the wall top. There ispotential for birds to nest in the air vents and ledge at the wall top of thisbuilding.



3.2 The site surroundings

The immediate surroundings of the buildings comprise hard standing, a road,mature gardens and sheep grazed agricultural fields. The vegetated part of theimmediate surroundings offers limited potential for use by commuting andforaging bats.

Image 1 - Aerial image of survey site, with buildings to be affected byproposed development numbered 1, 2 and 3.

Image 2 - Wider aerial image of survey site, with site location shown bywhite arrow

1

23



The wider surroundings of the survey site include an extensive network ofopen agricultural fields with mature hedgerows and trees, areas of connectingbroadleaved woodland and waterbodies including field ponds and the RiverRibble to the south.

Open undeveloped land, particularly those areas such as woodland, hedgerowsand sheltered waterbodies which provide shelter for bats and their insect prey,has high potential to support bat activity during the active season.

Although there are two external lights within the survey site, only one of thesewas in operation at the time of the evening surveys – this was a PIR securitylight attached to the main school building to the south of the survey area.Artificial lighting in the immediate and wider surroundings is unlikely topresent a significant constraint to the activity and movement of some batspecies through the landscape.



4 Results of surveys

The weather during the evening surveys was as follows.

A graph of datalogger results is included in the appendices. The dataloggerrecorded the following results between 10th and 30th June 2014

Min Max Min Max

10/06/2014 16.6 °C 25.2 °C 41.2 %RH 74.1 %RH

11/06/2014 16.2 °C 24.8 °C 47.4 %RH 73.0 %RH

12/06/2014 16.2 °C 29.0 °C 39.3 %RH 70.7 %RH

13/06/2014 18.2 °C 27.5 °C 47.2 %RH 61.3 %RH

14/06/2014 18.4 °C 26.0 °C 55.8 %RH 68.6 %RH

15/06/2014 18.1 °C 22.1 °C 63.3 %RH 71.7 %RH

16/06/2014 16.1 °C 25.1 °C 43.8 %RH 71.9 %RH

17/06/2014 16.1 °C 25.6 °C 49.4 %RH 68.1 %RH

18/06/2014 19.7 °C 30.0 °C 45.7 %RH 66.6 %RH

19/06/2014 20.2 °C 29.9 °C 45.0 %RH 65.3 %RH

20/06/2014 18.5 °C 28.1 °C 39.8 %RH 63.3 %RH

21/06/2014 18.1 °C 27.1 °C 36.9 %RH 65.3 %RH

22/06/2014 17.5 °C 31.7 °C 35.3 %RH 66.1 %RH

23/06/2014 19.6 °C 30.5 °C 35.3 %RH 62.8 %RH

24/06/2014 20.1 °C 25.0 °C 48.1 %RH 61.5 %RH

25/06/2014 17.9 °C 26.8 °C 45.0 %RH 64.1 %RH

26/06/2014 17.2 °C 24.5 °C 42.6 %RH 63.0 %RH

27/06/2014 14.8 °C 18.5 °C 53.3 %RH 68.1 %RH

28/06/2014 13.7 °C 16.8 °C 63.3 %RH 75.1 %RH

29/06/2014 12.3 °C 23.4 °C 44.3 %RH 73.3 %RH

30/06/2014 15.1 °C 30.6 °C 24.1 %RH 66.9 %RH

A graph of datalogger results is included in the appendices. The dataloggerrecorded the following results from 10th to 30th June 2014:

Highest temperature = 31.7°CLowest temperature = 12.3°C

There was a high degree of temperature fluctuation within each 24 hour period(minimum fluctuation 2°C, maximum 15.1°C).

Highest humidity = 75.1%Lowest humidity = 24.1%

There was a high degree of humidity fluctuation within each 24 hour period.

Date(2014)

Temperature(min) oC

Humidity(min)%

Cloudcover (min)

Oktars

Rain Wind(max) mph

13th June 14.1 76.6 6/8 None 1.624th June 13.7 62.3 0/8 None 1.611th July 14.1 73.1 0/8 None 1.6



Interpretation

Environmental conditions, as regards temperature and humidity, were suitablefor bat occupation throughout the 2014 survey period but are considered suboptimal for bats due to the degree of fluctuation.

4.1 Results and interpretation of desk-based studies

Bat roost data for the area of 2 km around St Joseph’s Catholic PrimarySchool, provided by LERN was as follows:

Bat species Number ofroosts

Number ofbats per roost

Date range

Pipistrelle 1 100 2010Soprano pipistrelle roost 1 250 2011

Interpretation

St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School accounts for 100 % of all knownbrown long eared roosts recorded in the search area.

4.2 Results and interpretation of field-based surveys

4.2.1 Building surveys

No live or dead bats were found during the daytime building surveys.

Chapel – Building 1

No signs of bats were found.

Day roosting features were likely to be limited to roof coverings and roof edgefeatures.

Interpretation

The lack of visible bats is not unexpected on this building as the onlypotential daytime roosting features are beneath the roof coverings.

Parish Rooms - Building 2

Scattered and clustered signs of bats, in the form of droppings and feedingremains, were found in darker, less draughty areas of the roof void, with adistinct concentration beneath the ridge and in darker places behind the kingposts.

All the droppings were small-medium in size and included old and morerecent material, as evidenced by the condition of droppings and their colour.



During the survey period, no bats or new signs of bats were found anywhere inthe roof void. The fresh cardboard sheets laid beneath the ridge beam wereclean throughout the survey period and no fresh droppings or feeding remainswere detected.

As the roof void was subject to natural light spillage and was draughty due tothe open eaves and vent on the south gable end, any day roosting features werelikely to be limited to the northern end of the roof void (furthest point awayfrom sources of natural light and draughts) either above the ridge beam, increvices between bricks on the end wall or between the underlining and roofcoverings.

The roof void is split into a lower and upper section the dimensions of whichare as follows:

Lower level (west section)

Width = minimum 7.8mLength = minimum 14.25mHeight = minimum 2.19m

Upper level (east section)

Width = minimum 5.4mLength = minimum 7.00mHeight = minimum 1.40m

Boiler Room - Building 3

No signs of bats were found.

Day roosting features were very limited in this building due to the buildingbeing partially open to the elements, creating light and draughty conditions.

4.2.3 Anabat survey

The Anabats deployed in the roof void of the Parish Rooms, located at thenorth and south gable ends. The following activity was recorded:

Date 2014Sunset/Sunr

ise

Location Species Time of first and lastbat

Activity

18th May2050/0502

South gable endnear vent

Brown longeared

2249/2249 R (1 pass)

18th May2050/0502

North gable end Brown longeared

2249/2249 R (1 pass)

19th May2051/0500

North gable end Brown longeared

2316/2316 R (1 pass)

Key to table:V. frequent = >100 bat passes Frequent = 50-100 bat passesOccasional = 10-50 bat passes Rare = <10 bat passes



Interpretation

The evidence confirms that brown long eared bats were present inside theroof void on two occasions during the survey period

The evidence suggests that at most, a small number of brown long earedbats make very limited use of building 2

The evidence does not show that brown long eared bats were roosting inthe roof void of the Parish Rooms in 2014

4.2.4 Emergence surveys

No bats emerged from any of the target buildings during the three emergencesurveys.

Low numbers of common and soprano pipistrelle bats were detected foragingclose to the target buildings and commuting over the survey area. No brownlong eared bats were detected at any time during the emergence surveys.

Interpretation

The survey observations suggest that none of the target buildings wereoccupied by bats during the 2014 summer roosting period.

It is not possible to draw any definite conclusions about the type of batroosts (e.g. in terms of timing of use and their functionality) at St Joseph’sfrom the 2014 surveys. The evidence to date suggests that brown longeared bats of unknown numbers have been present in previous years.

4.2.5 Bat identification

Bat species recorded during surveys were confirmed as common pipistrelle,soprano pipistrelle and brown long eared bats. Sonograms are presented in theappendices.

4.3 Other species

Swifts were active throughout all the emergence surveys. Swifts were recordedrepeatedly entering and re-emerging from five locations on the easternelevation and two on the western elevation, indicating that there at least sevennest sites located in the roof void above the wall top, beneath the eaves of theParish Rooms (Building 2).

House sparrow and starling activity, typically associated with active nesting,were also recorded during daytime and evening surveys. Photo-sheets showingbird access points are presented in the appendices.



5 Limitations of survey

Surveys in 2014 took place on several occasions; in May (initial daytimesurvey) and June and July (emergence surveys). It is recognised that limitingthe survey period to visits in these months does not take account of bat activityon the site through the whole of the active season (March/April to October) orat other times of the year.

5.1 Building surveys

5.1.1 Some bat species, such as pipistrelles, are typically crevice dwellers.Droppings and other field signs of the presence of such species are often notvisible, as they accumulate in hidden areas which may not be found duringroutine, non-invasive surveys. This is a frequent limitation when surveyingbuildings.

5.1.2 As with most buildings, the roof coverings could not be examined in detail dueto limits on access and concerns about the safety of surveyors. However, mostof the roof coverings were visible from ground level and from other vantagepoints; this enabled an assessment to be made in relation to potential forroosting areas for bats.

5.1.3 It is likely that some of the feeding remains inside the building 2 wereattributable to bird activity. As it is not known what the actual or likelypercentage of feeding remains can be assigned to birds or bats, this limits ourability to reach definitive conclusions about the extent of bat feeding; this inturn limits the extent to which we can attach a value to the building 2 as awhole as a resource for bats.

5.2 Emergence surveys

5.2.1 The echolocation used by some bats is very quiet and difficult to detect;species such as brown long eared bat may have been present withoutregistering on the bat detectors used during the emergence surveys.

5.2.2 Some sections of the roof coverings were not visible during emergencesurveys (e.g. the southern elevation of building 1 was partially obscured by theadjoining building 2); bats may therefore have emerged from these featuresundetected. This is a frequent limitation when surveying buildings.

5.3 Anabat survey

5.3.1 The recording system employed by Anabats can only respond to signals withsufficient intensity. In addition, as the signal from some bat species (such ascommon pipistrelles) will nearly always be more intense than that of other batspecies (such as brown long eared bats), it is possible that some bat signalswere not recorded. As a result, some bat activity may have been under-recorded.



5.4 Datalogger

5.4.1 A single datalogger was used to gather temperature and humidity information.As the datalogger was in a fixed position in the Parish Rooms roof void, theinformation gathered was not necessarily representative of the whole ofbuilding 2.

5.4.2 The datalogger was stationed inside the roof void of the Parish Rooms and thedata gathered does not, therefore, relate to external areas of the building or tothe environmental conditions of any other buildings in the survey area.



6 Conclusions

6.1 Building surveys

6.1.1 The evidence shows that at least one brown long eared bats has roosted in theroof void of the Parish Rooms (building 2) prior to 2014.

6.1.2 The evidence for bat signs cannot be accurately dated, so the timing and age ofthe bat activity cannot be determined. In addition, as some of the feedingsigns are likely to be attributable to other animals such as birds, a definitive,measured judgement about the extent of bat feeding (and therefore the value ofbuilding 2 in this respect) is not possible.

6.1.3 There is no evidence that bats were roosting in the target buildings duringsurveys in 2014.

6.1.4 Both building 2 and building 1 support features suitable for use by roostingbats.

6.1.5 The datalogger results confirms that the conditions of the roof void of building2 are not optimum for bat roosting, as the degree of temperature and humidityfluctuation is considered too unstable. It is possible that these environmentalconditions have become less favourable overtime as the building condition hasstarted to deteriorate i.e. draughtiness and the extent of natural light spillagehave increased.

6.1.6 Temperature and humidity fluctuation in the roof void of building 2 is outsidethe optimum range for bat roosting in the active season and is also likely to beoutside the optimum range for the winter season.

6.2 Emergence surveys

6.2.1 The surveys provided no evidence that bats were roosting in any of the targetbuildings in 2014.

6.2.2 The surveys confirmed that common and soprano pipistrelles were commutingand foraging close to the target buildings. The presence of bats around thebuildings during emergence surveys highlights the potential for bats to roost inthe buildings.

6.2.3 Artificial lighting is present in the survey area but is not a significant limitingfactor to bat activity.

6.3 Use by roosting bats

6.3.1 Buildings 1 and 2 provide suitable conditions for a range of bat species toroost throughout the active season (April to October). Buildings 1 and 2 arevery unlikely to support hibernating bats due to the unstable and widelyfluctuating environmental conditions predicted to occur at that time of year.



6.3.2 The evidence confirms that building 1 does not currently support any batroosts but there are external features which could be utilised by bats,particularly between April and October.

6.3.3 The evidence suggests that building 2 has previously supported an occasionalnight roost of no more than a small number of brown long eared bats duringthe active season.

6.4 Landscape and lighting

6.4.1 There is a lack of suitable foraging habitat within the proposed developmentsite and its immediate surroundings; this can be a limiting factor to the successand type of roosting sites.

6.4.2 Artificial lighting was not a limiting factor to bat activity at the proposeddevelopment site during 2014 surveys. Although external lighting is presenton the target buildings it was not in use during the surveys.

6.5 Mitigation, compensation and enhancement

6.5.1 If the proposed development work involves the dismantling of a bat roost anda risk of disturbance or damage to roosting bats, there will be a need formitigation. If the proposed development work is likely to cause the loss ofsome roosting features, there will be a need for compensation. Any worksaffecting roof structures or the roof void will create a risk of unlawfulactivities.

6.5.2 Evidence from surveys to date has shown that at least one brown long earedbat has been in the roof void during the 2014 active season. The lack ofcurrent information and evidence about bat numbers, timing of bat occupationand dependence of bats on building 2 as a resting and sheltering site, meansthat there is currently insufficient information and basis on which to apply fora mitigation licence.

6.5.3 As the evidence suggests that a bat or bats have previously used the roof voidof building 2 for roosting, perching and flight activities, and as the roof voidremains accessible and usable by bats, it will be appropriate to adopt aprecautionary approach to working. This approach should reflect the fact thatbats could potentially be present in the roof void or roof coverings whenrefurbishment is being undertaken.

6.5.4 It is concluded that with appropriate precautionary working methods andtimings the contribution made by the building to the favourable conservationstatus of bats can be maintained and works could be managed without recourseto a mitigation licence.



6.5.5 In order to effectively maintain the roof void of building 2 as a feature suitablefor use by roosting bats, it will be necessary to ensure that ContinuedEcological Functionality is fully addressed. This will involve theretention/creation of a permanent, undisturbed, dark roof void with suitableroosting substrates and unrestricted access for bats. The roost environmentmust also be designed to achieve a suitable temperature and humidity rangethroughout the active season (i.e. the period over which bats are believed tohave made use of the roof void).

6.5.6 If bats are subsequently shown to be roosting in building 2, a mitigationlicence will be required for the proposed works to proceed lawfully. In thiscase, further surveys and documentation will be required.

6.5.7 There is no evidence that building 1 (Chapel) and 3 (Boiler Room) support abat roost and there is no reason to suggest that the planned works will triggeroffences under UK and EU legislation, as regards impacts on bats and roosts.There is currently no reason to believe that mitigation measures are required inrelation to these buildings at the current time.

6.6 Birds

6.6.1 Building 2 supports nesting swift and starling. The adjacent private buildingsupports nesting house sparrow.

6.6.2 There is a risk that nesting birds may occupy the buildings during the nestingseason.

6.6.3 Any works will need to take full account of nesting birds.



7 Advice and recommendations

7.1 Advice

7.1.1 It is advised that all bat species are afforded full protection under UK andEuropean legislation, including the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (asamended), the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Conservationof Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

Together and in brief, this legislation makes it illegal to:

Intentionally or deliberately take, kill or injure a bat Damage, destroy or obstruct access to bat roosts Deliberately disturb bats.

Prosecution could result in imprisonment, fines of £5,000 per offence andconfiscation of vehicles and equipment used.

A bat roost is defined in the legislation as “any structure or place which a batuses for shelter or protection”. Roosts are protected whether or not bats arepresent.

If a development activity is likely to result in disturbance or killing of a bat,damage to its habitat or any of the other activities listed above, then amitigation licence will usually be required from Natural England.

In order to minimise the risk of breaking the law it is essential to work withcare to avoid harming bats, to be aware of the procedures to be followed ifbats are found during works, and to commission surveys and expert advice asrequired to minimise the risk of reckless harm to bats.

7.1.2 It is advised that there is potential for the roof void of building 2 and the roofcoverings of building 1 and 2 to support roosting bats. Roosting is most likelyduring the spring, summer and autumn months and is also possible thoughunlikely at this site during winter months. If bat roosts are found to be present,the roosts will be subject to strict legal protection at all times; this protectionincludes disturbance and demolition, as well as covering of the roost or otherchanges to the roost environment. Any works affecting building 1 and 2should be undertaken with the potential presence of roosts in mind.

7.1.3 It is advised that there is currently insufficient reason and basis to apply for amitigation licence to lawfully disturb or destroy bat roosts. A licenceapplication requires current and up to date details of bat species roosting, batnumbers roosting and the type of bat usage (e.g. roost type), and there isinsufficient information about all of these elements.

7.1.4 Despite having insufficient reason and basis to apply for a mitigation licence,it is still appropriate to take full account of both the previous use of thebuilding 2 roof void by at least one bat, and also the potential for further useby bats. Taking full account includes providing mitigation, as outlined below.



7.1.5 Appropriate mitigation and compensation actions are shown in the tablebelow. All actions are applicable to building 2 whilst actions marked with *are also applicable to building 1.

Potential issue re: batsand roosts

Proposed mitigation and compensation

Destruction of roost*

Disturb and potentiallykill or injure bats withintheir roost sites *

Destruction of accesspoints

Impact onenvironmental conditionof roost features

Carry out the works when bats are expected to beabsent (i.e. winter months) *

All works to be supervised by a licensedEcologist*

All works to be subject to a compliance check bya licensed Ecologist, throughout work period*

Hand strip of actual and potential roost features *

Create environmental conditions suitable for theContinued Ecological Functionality of the roostfeatures. This will involve:

The retention/creation of a permanent,undisturbed, dark roof void

The provision of suitable roosting substratesand unrestricted access for bats.

The roost environment must also be designedto achieve a suitable temperature andhumidity range throughout the active season(i.e. the period over which bats are believedto have made use of the roof void).

The features provided and their immediatesurroundings should be unaffected byartificial lighting

There should be sufficient space for freeflight of multiple individuals within the roofvoid.

7.1.6 It is advised that if bats are found at any time during works to any of thebuildings, activities should cease and guidance should be sought from NaturalEngland, either directly or through an appropriately experienced Ecologist.

7.1.7 It is advised that the information provided in this report is relevant andappropriate for summer 2014 only. It is therefore recommended that if worksto the buildings are undertaken after summer 2014, advice should be sought asto the need for further surveys at that time.



Rationale for the advice and recommendations

There are signs of previous bat roosting in building 2 and areas with highpotential for use by bats in building 1.

Bats and their roosts are protected under UK and European legislation.Roost sites are protected even if bats are not present at the time of surveyor development.

A number of specific elements are necessary to conserve bats at the siteand to mitigate and compensate for the loss of roosts

The careful management of artificial lighting and vegetation is regarded asessential to the continued use of the site by bats.

If bats are present on a site to be affected by development, it is thedeveloper’s responsibility to show how bats will be accommodated withinthe proposed change of land use. Work will have to be programmedaround the bats’ lifecycle to minimise disturbance.

The adoption of the most appropriate approach outlined above will help todemonstrate that reasonable safeguards have been put in place to avoid illegalactivities.

7.3 Other species

7.3.1 In order to avoid, minimise or reduce impacts to wild birds the followingprocedures are advised:

Avoid actions which could kill or injure any wild bird or damage ordestroy its nest, whilst the nest is in use or being built, or destroy its eggs.If possible, time works affecting building 2 and 3 so as to avoid the mainperiod when birds are likely to utilise the structure.

If work is to take place during the nesting season, ensure all areas affected(even indirectly e.g. by scaffolding placement and use) are checkedcarefully for the presence of nesting birds prior to work commencing andthroughout the development. It is advised that if birds are found to benesting during development works, it will be necessary to seek advice as towhether or not any development can proceed lawfully at that time. Underthese circumstances, work must stop until advice has been sought fromNatural England directly, or through an appropriately experiencedEcologist.

Maintenance of all existing nest locations for the all bird species should beincorporated into design plans. Undisturbed access points and nesting sitesshould be retained as permanent features.



Rationale for the advice and recommendations

Surveys have identified nesting birds and signs of nesting birds associatedwith building 2 and 3.

It is generally an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild birdor take, damage or destroy its nest whilst in use or being built or take ordestroy its eggs. Some species, e.g. those classed as pests, are exempt incertain circumstances.

If nesting birds are present, plans will need to show how offences will beavoided during the proposed development. Work will have to beprogrammed around the nesting season to minimise disturbance.

House sparrows and starlings are Species of Principal Importance underNERC Act 2006 for the purpose of conserving biodiversity.

Swifts are often colonial and return to the same nest sites each year; theyare reluctant to adopt an alternative location. Conserving these importanttraditional sites would contribute towards conservation of the species inthe local area.

The adoption of the approaches outlined above will help to demonstrate thatreasonable safeguards have been put in place to avoid illegal activities.



8 Bibliography

Bat Conservation Trust (2012) Bat Surveys; Good practice Guidelines. BCT,London

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

Mitchell-Jones, A. J. & McLeish, A. P. (1999). The Bat Workers’ Manual (2nd

Ed.). JNCC, Peterborough. ISBN 1-86107-462-X. [3rd edition in 2004].



Bat Survey-

St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School,Hurst Green, Lancashire

-Appendices

App1 – Data Search Results

App 2 – Survey Positions at St Joseph’s

App 3 - Bat Roosts and Bat Signs at St Joseph’s

App 4 - Bat Activity at St Joseph’s

App 5 - Bat Emergence survey forms

App 6 - Weather survey forms

App 7- Datalogger results

App 8- Sonograms

App 9 - Photographs of buildings and site

App 10 - Photographs of bird nesting locations

ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

dd

d

d

ddddddddd d

dddd

ddd

dddddddddd

d

d

dd

dddd

dd

ddddddddddddddd

d ddddddddd

dd

ddd dd

dd d

dddd dddd

d

d

d

ddd

d dddddd

ddddddd dd dd

ddddddd

d

dd

d

dddddddddddddddddd

ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

ddd ddddddddddddd

dddddddddd d

ddddddddddddddd

dd

d

d

dddddd

ddddddd

ddddd

d

ddd

d

d

dd

ddddddddddddddddddd

d

d

d dd

d

d

d

ddd

dd

dd

ddd

d

d

d

d d d

d

d

dddd

d

dd

d dd

d

d

d

d

d

d

ddd

d

d

dd

dddd

d

d

d

d

dd

d

d

dd

d

d

dd

d

d

d

d

d

dd

d

ddd

d

d

d

d

d

dd

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

dd

d

ddd

d

dd

dd

d

d

d

d

d

d

ddd

d

d

d

d

ddd

dd

dd

dd

ddd

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

dddd

dd

d

ddd

d

d

dd

d

dd

d

dddd dddddd

d

d

d

dd

d

ddd

d

ddd

d

dd

d

d

dddd

d

d

d

dddd

d

d

d

d

d

dddd

dddddd

dd

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

d

dd

d

dd

d

d

dd

d

dd

d

d

d

d

d

d

dd

dd

d

d

dd

d

dd

dd

ddd

dd

d

d

d d

d

d

d

ddd

d

d

d

d

d

d

dd

d d

d

d

d

d

ddd

d

d

dd

d

d

%2%2

SD74SD74SD74SD74

SD64VSD64VSD64VSD64V

SD63YSD63Y

SD73ESD73ESD73ESD73E

SD63Y

SD63ZSD63ZSD63ZSD63Z

SD73D

SD63Y

SD73DSD73DSD73D

SD6736

SD7138

SD7037

SD6936

SD6940

SD7138

SD7039SD7039SD7039

SD6940

SD7139

SD7139SD7039

SD6940SD6940

SD6837

SD6936SD6736

SD7037SD6837SD6837SD6837

SD7137

SD6736SD7136

SD6739

SD676358SD676358 SD687357SD687357

SD687357SD676358

SD688364SD685365SD685365

SD685365

SD688360

SD696358

SD697364

SD699407

SD697401

SD697408SD697408

SD695354

SD710385

SD706388

SD706401

SD707397

SD706369

SD704373SD704373SD704373

SD695362SD695362

SD698366

SD673364SD673364

SD670368

SD703372

SD710382

SD674362

SD683374

SD688364SD685365

SD688360

SD698366

SD681387

SD687372

SD690375SD689375SD689375

SD682373SD682373

SD703366SD703366

SD672368

SD668363

SD690405

SD709378SD696375

SD684369SD675370

SD678368

SD687357 SD690356

SD675370

SD675405SD675405

SD690391

SD668357

SD706369

SD676387

SD695354

SD695362

SD687368

SD698401

SD69924042

SD69754022

SD70893963

SD69813736SD69433725

SD69463686

SD67833886

SD68383846

SD68663638SD68153637

SD69353784

SD68313702

SD69804023

SD69483783

SD6973836827SD6880636625

SD6678636134

SD6817737829

SD6828537502

SD6825237132

SD6805638693

SD7024339937

SD7077239661

SD6795239145

SD6683238862

SD6821436387

SD6791736829

SD6695937691

SD7040635666SD7040635666

SD6805638693

SD6803236707SD6803236707

LegendSt Josephs 2km BufferSt Josephs Primary School

%2 Water Voled Lancs_Key_Species_20131106

SSSI

1:22,500¯

Lancashire Environment Record NetworkC/O Research & Intelligence TeamEnvironment Directorate, Lancashire County Council, PO Box 100, County Hall, Preston. PR1 0LD01772 533896 [email protected]

Date: 22/05/2014

Map 1 – Surveyor locations and potential roost features – St. Joseph’s, Hurst Green (May to July 2014)

N

S

EW

Surveyor 1

Surveyor 2

Surveyor 3

Potential roost feature= roof coverings

Potential roost feature= roof coverings

Potential roost feature= roof void

B1B2

B3

Map 2 – Bat evidence and potential bat access – St. Joseph’s, Hurst Green (May to July 2014)

N

S

EW

Potential access =between roof

coverings

Potential access= vent in gable end

Potential access =between roof

coverings

Scattered and clustereddroppings = beneath ridgebeam throughout roof void

Concentration of feedingremains = by internal gable

wall

Concentration of feedingremains = beneath ridge

beam and king posts

B1 B2

B3

Map 3 – Bird nesting sites – St. Joseph’s, Hurst Green (May to July 2014)

N

S

EW

Swift nesting accesspoints to building =

below roof edge

Unoccupied bird nest in wallhole = external part of boiler

room building

House sparrow nest = junctionbetween proposed developmentbuilding and adjacent building

(associated with hanging slates)

Large accumulation ofnesting material = roof void

floor inside gable end

Swift nesting accesspoints to building =

below roof edge

Starling nest = access pointbelow roof edge

Swift nesting accesspoints to building = below

roof edge at windowcorners

Swift nesting access pointto building = below roofedge behind telegraph

wires

B1 B2

B3

BAT ACTIVITY SURVEY FORM LOCATION AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BAT SITE

Recorder Name(s) Pat Waring, Janette Gazzard, Hannah Christie, Greg McManmon

Site Name St. Joseph’s RC School, Hurst Green, Lancashire

Survey Date(s)

13th June 2014

Timing of survey

2120 - 2241

Notes Emergence survey of building – surveyors positioned at south elevation, west elevation and north elevation Sunset at 2141 Total bats emerging = none Swifts were noted entering and exiting throughout the whole survey period. 2 entry points along west and 4 entry point along east elevation

Bat species Time of observation

Behaviour (E - emerging C - commuting, F – feeding R - roosting)

Direction of flight Method of ID (detector, sight)

Common pipistrelle

2150

Flying around playground to south of target buildings

Circling Detector + recording + sight

Swift x2

2150

Entering 2-storey building to roost south elevation

South - north Sight

Noctule

2153

Flying over survey area

Unknown

Detector + recording

Common pipistrelle

2158

Flying from playground to north elevation flew east


Common pipistrelle

2200



Swifts x 2 2201 Entering 2 storey building north elevation

North to south Sight

Common pipistrelle

2203



Common pipistrelle

2209



Common pipistrelle

2212

Flying through survey area

South - north Detector + recording + sight

Common pipistrelle

2213



Noctule

2216


Unknown





Common pipistrelle

2220-2235



Common pipistrelle x 2

2222

Flying around playground to west of target buildings


Noctule

2234


Unknown


Noctule

2153


Unknown


Common pipistrelle

2200



Common pipistrelle

2203



Common pipistrelle

2209



Common pipistrelle

2212



Common pipistrelle

2213



Noctule

2216


Unknown


Common pipistrelle

2220-2235



Common pipistrelle x2

2222



Noctule

2234


Unknown


Soprano pipistrelle

2235




Recorder Name(s) Pat Waring, Janette Gazzard, Mark Williams


Survey Date(s)

24th June 2014

Timing of survey

2125 - 2245

Notes Emergence survey of building – surveyors positioned at south elevation, west elevation and north elevation Sunset at 2145 Total bats emerging = none Swifts were noted entering and exiting throughout the whole survey period. 2 entry points along west and 4 entry point along east elevation




Common pipistrelle

2204

Flying around playground came from south


Common pipistrelle

2210 Flying around playground from south

South to east Detector + sight

Common pipistrelle

2220 Flying around playground from south

South to east Detector + sight

Common pipistrelle

2227-2244 Flying around playground for approx 20 mins


Common pipistrelle

2237 Detected on north elevation not seen

Unknown Detector


Recorder Name(s) Pat Waring, Janette Gazzard


Survey Date(s)

11th July 2014

Timing of survey

2118 - 2238

Notes Emergence survey of building – two surveyors positioned on east and west elevations, one anabat placed on roof of car and one on wall opposite Parish room to record bat activity Sunset at 2138 Total bats emerging = none Swifts were noted entering and exiting throughout the whole survey period. 2 entry points along west and 4 entry point along east elevation




Common pipistrelle 2212 Feeding Came from east flew north, foraging in playground

Detector + recording + sight

Common pipistrelle x 2 2217 Commuting and Feeding

Came from south to north (no sound)

Sight

Common pipistrelle 2218-2220 Feeding Foraging and circling in playground flew north


Common pipistrelle 2221 Feeding Foraging and circling in playground and adjacent garden


Common pipistrelle 2225-2230 Feeding Foraging and circling in playground and adjacent garden


Common pipistrelle x 2 2233 Feeding Foraging and circling in playground and adjacent garden


Common pipistrelle 2234 Feeding Detected only on west elevation

Detector

Common pipistrelle 2236 Feeding Foraging and circling in playground till survey end


Emergence Survey 1 Site name – St. Joseph’s RC School, Hurst Green, Lancashire Site Grid Reference: SD 68827 38137.

Date: 13th June 2014

Natural England Licence Holder: P. Waring Natural England Licence: Class 2 licence

Surveyors: J. Gazzard, P. Waring, H. Christie, G. McManmon

Environmental Data Time of survey

Start: 2120 End: 2241

Solar cycle Sunrise: Sunset: 2141

Temperature Start: 16.0

End: 14.1

Cloud cover (Oktas)

Start: 8/8 End: 8/8

Cloud cover measurement in Oktas.

0/8 1/8 2/8 3/8 4/8

5/8 6/8 7/8 8/8 Sky is obscured

Wind Speed

Start: 1.0 mph End: 1.8 mph

Humidity (%) relative humidity

Start: 85.4% End: 85.9%

Precipitation (descriptive)

None

Emergence Survey 2 Site name – St. Joseph’s RC School, Hurst Green, Lancashire Site Grid Reference: SD 68827 38137

Date: 24th June 2014

Natural England Licence Holder: P. Waring Natural England Licence Number: 20104311

Surveyors: P. Waring, J. Gazzard, M. Williams


Start: 2125 End: 2245



End: 13.7

Cloud cover (Oktas)

Start: 6/8 End: 6/8


0/8 1/8 2/8 3/8 4/8


Wind Speed



Start: 68.5% End: 76.6%


None

Emergence Survey 3 Site name – St. Joseph’s RC School, Hurst Green, Lancashire Site Grid Reference: SD 68827 38137

Date: 11th July 2014

Natural England Licence Holder: P. Waring Natural England Licence Number: 20123532

Surveyors: P. Waring, J, Gazzard


Start: 2118 End: 2238



End: 14.1

Cloud cover (Oktas)

Start: 1/8 End: 0/8


0/8 1/8 2/8 3/8 4/8


Wind Speed



Start: 73.1% End: 88.2%


None

13.5

14

14.5

15

15.5

16T

P°C

68

70

72

74

76

78

RH

%

-0.50

0.51

1.52

W…

24/06/2014

21:20

24/06/2014

21:30

24/06/2014

21:40

24/06/2014

21:50

24/06/2014

22:00

24/06/2014

22:10

24/06/2014

22:20

24/06/2014

22:30

24/06/2014

22:40

24/06/2014

22:50

TP RH WS

Des

kto

p\C

urre

ntw

ork

-la

pto

p\C

urre

ntB

atre

po

rts\

Bat

bui

ldin

g&

emer

genc

esu

rvey

s\2

01

4em

erge

nce

surv

eyre

po

rts\

St

Jose

ph'

sH

urst

Gre

en\D

atal

ogg

er\S

t

St. Joseph's

688427Temperature St. Joseph's688427Humidity St. Joseph's

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Te

mp

era

ture

(°C

)

11

Ju

n2

01

4

12

Ju

n2

01

4

13

Ju

n2

01

4

14

Ju

n2

01

4

15

Ju

n2

01

4

16

Ju

n2

01

4

17

Ju

n2

01

4

18

Ju

n2

01

4

19

Ju

n2

01

4

20

Ju

n2

01

4

21

Ju

n2

01

4

22

Ju

n2

01

4

23

Ju

n2

01

4

24

Ju

n2

01

4

25

Ju

n2

01

4

26

Ju

n2

01

4

27

Ju

n2

01

4

28

Ju

n2

01

4

29

Ju

n2

01

4

30

Ju

n2

01

4

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Hu

mid

ity

(%R

H)

Sonograms St. Joseph’s Catholic primary School, Hurst Green

Ecology Services UK Ltd July 2014

Sonograms of bat ultrasound – St. Joseph’s Brown long eared bat, recorded in roof void of Parish Rooms on Anabat SD1 – 2249hrs on 18th May 2014

Common pipistrelle flying around south elevation of Parish Rooms building (south of survey area), recorded on BatBox Griffin – 24th June 2014

Spectrogram, FFT size 512, Hanning window., 98% overlap.

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 sec

10 kHz

20 kHz

-10 dB-30 dB-50 dB-70 dB-90 dBSpectrogram, FFT size 512, Hanning window., 98% overlap.

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 sec

10 kHz

20 kHz

-10 dB-30 dB-50 dB-70 dB-90 dB



Photographs of Buildings and Site at St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School

Southern view of Chapel (Building 1) Gable end of Parish Rooms (Building 2) and

mono pitch Boiler Room (Building 3)

East elevation showing part of parish rooms building and adjoining building with hanging slates.

Report of bat survey St Joseph’s Primary School, Hurst Green


2


Potential roost features (slipped and missing tiles) on western elevation of Chapel (Building 1).

Internal view of Chapel (Building 1) no roof void and no suitable roosting features



3


Roof void of Parish Rooms (Building 2) showing timber structure, potential access (open vent at

southern end), anabat on floor (lhs) and cardboard sheeting in front of King post.

North end of Parish Rooms roof void looking south. Anabat placed timber beam



4


Potential access point on south gable end of Parish Rooms (Building 2)

Example of old and more recent bat droppings found beneath ridge beam in roof void of Parish

Room (Building 2).



5


Feeding remains (butterfly wings) on internal wall of north gable end in roof void of Parish

Rooms (Building 2).

View of internal north gable end showing modern liner on east elevation and bitumen liner of

west elevation.



6


Nest and feeding remains in roof void of Parish Rooms (Building 2) close to vent south gable end.

Swift nest with 3 juveniles located in Parish Rooms roof void on wall top, east elevation.

Location of swift nest sites (red arrows)– St. Joseph’s, Hurst Green, Lancashire (2014)

Location of swift nest sites (red), starling (green) and housesparrow (blue) – St. Joseph’s, Hurst Green, Lancashire (2014)

Report of Bat Survey - ribblevalley.gov.uk · Lancashire. The survey work described in this report...

Documents

Transcript of Report of Bat Survey - ribblevalley.gov.uk · Lancashire. The survey work described in this report...