WESTWAY - Renfrewshire...Westway is situated off Porterfield Rd, Renfrew, PA4 8DJ, central OS Grid...

DATE: 18 AUGUST 2016

CONTRACT REF: WBW06.16.1354

SITE LOCATION: WESTWAY, PORTERFIELD RD, RENFREW, PA4 8DJ

OS GRID REF: NS 495 664

CLIENT: WB WESTWAY LP

BAT SURVEY

WESTWAY

ECHOES ECOLOGY LTD UNIT 39 HAYPARK BUSINESS CENTRE

MARCHMONT AVENUE

POLMONT

FK2 0NZ

[This page is intentionally left blank]

Echoes Ecology Ltd Final Report, Reference: WBW06.16.1354

1

Contact Details All correspondence relating to this report should in the first instance be addressed to:

Heather Simpson ACIEEM Echoes Ecology Ltd Unit 39, Haypark Business Centre Marchmont Avenue Polmont Falkirk FK2 0NZ Tel: 0870 234 0002 Email: [email protected] Website: www.echoesecology.co.uk

Confidentiality Statement / Copyright

The details contained within this report are confidential and intended purely for the use of WB Westway LP. As such, no reproduction, copying or transferring of this report or the data and methods used in this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally intended, is permitted without the prior written consent of Echoes Ecology Ltd.

Copyright © Echoes Ecology Ltd 2016

Document Control

Version Date Prepared By Approved By

1

10 August 2016

Heather Simpson ACIEEM Senior Ecologist

Laura Carter-Davis MCIEEM Team Manager and Senior Ecologist

2 18 August 2016

Heather Simpson ACIEEM Senior Ecologist

Laura Carter-Davis MCIEEM Team Manager and Senior Ecologist


2

Contents of Report

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 3

Section 1 - Introduction ........................................................................................... 4

Section 2 - Legislation and Biodiversity ................................................................ 5

Section 3 - Survey Methodology ............................................................................. 7

Section 4 - Overview of Results .............................................................................. 9

Section 5 - Discussion ........................................................................................... 14

Section 6 - Requirements and Recommendations .............................................. 15

Section 7 - References ........................................................................................... 17

Site Plan .............................................................................................. 18

Introduction to Bat Ecology ............................................................. 20

Conservation Status of Bats in Scotland and Renfrew ................ 22

Raw Survey Data ............................................................................. 23


3

Executive Summary

Westway is situated off Porterfield Rd, Renfrew, PA4 8DJ, central OS Grid Reference NS 495 664. WB Westway LP acquired Westway in 2004. Since that time the owners have worked with Renfrewshire Council to agree a business and distribution led mixed use masterplan to set out the framework for future investment in, and improvement of, Westway and it is their intention to promote the site to Simplified Planning Zone (SPZ) status. Bat surveys have been completed at the site during 2010 where one roosting bat was observed entering at the wallhead on the eastern elevation of Block M (Echoes Ecology Ltd, 2010). Echoes Ecology Ltd were contracted by WB Westway LP to carry out a bat survey of Blocks M, D, H, N and A and the substation at Westway, to identify the potential for use by roosting, foraging and commuting bats, and to identify any roosts on site. A daytime assessment of the site was carried out on 05.07.16 by two surveyors. While no evidence of roosting bats was observed, there are some features visible that would support use by bats. During the dawn survey on 05.08.16 a single bat was observed wall touching adjacent to the roosting location identified in 2010, just below the wallhead on the south-east facing section on the eastern elevation of Block M although did not enter the building. No bats were found roosting within any of the other structures.

A bat roost was identified within Block M during the surveys completed in 2010 and this structure is proposed to be extended, which will lead to the destruction of the roost. For the proposed development to proceed a Habitats Regulations licence must be applied for and granted by Scottish Natural Heritage. Areas of Block M which are within 30m of the bat roost are protected at all times from disturbance, alteration, destruction etc. A 30m exclusion zone, in which no works can take place, must be adhered to until a licence to destroy the roost is granted. The exclusion zone must incorporate a 30m buffer around both the confirmed roosting location from 2010 and potential roosting location identified in 2016. See Section 6 for full details on requirements and recommendations with regards to Block M.


4

Section 1 - Introduction

Contract Overview

1.1.1 Echoes Ecology Ltd were appointed by WB Westway LP to carry out an assessment of the site. The aims of the survey were:

To carry out a daytime assessment of Blocks M, D, H, N and A and the substation at Westway to determine the potential for use by roosting, foraging and commuting bats at the site

To carry out activity surveys of Blocks M, D, H, N and A and the substation at Westway to assess the usage of the site by bats, identify which species are present and locate any roosts

To assess the likely impacts of the development on bats

If necessary, to suggest mitigation and compensation to minimise any predicted impacts and maintain favourable conservation status of the species in question.

1.1.2 Westway is situated off Porterfield Rd, Renfrew, PA4 8DJ, Central OS Grid Reference NS 495 664. WB Westway LP acquired Westway in 2004. Since that time the owners have worked with Renfrewshire Council to agree a business and distribution led mixed use masterplan to set out the framework for future investment in, and improvement of, Westway. It is the intention of WB Westway LP to promote the site to Simplified Planning Zone (SPZ) status. For a plan of the site as it currently exists refer to Appendix I, Figure I.1.

1.1.3 The uses that could be permitted by the SPZ are fundamentally the same as those within the approved masterplan that benefits from Planning Permission in Principle (PPP). Whilst the scope of the SPZ will be determined during the SPZ preparation phase, it is anticipated that the SPZ Scheme would permit the erection / extension of industrial and distribution floorspace, new office space and the refurbishment of existing buildings within the business park in line with the approved masterplan (see Appendix I, Figure I.2 for approved masterplan).

1.1.4 In addition there will also be an opportunity to deliver additional ‘complementary uses’ including cafes/restaurants, leisure uses and day nurseries. Any floorspace permitted by the SPZ is not in addition to the existing PPP consent.

1.1.5 The scale of the industrial and business uses and the range of complementary uses will be identified during the preparation of the SPZ Scheme through consultation with the local community, owner/occupiers in the SPZ area and key agencies.

1.1.6 Whilst the PPP masterplan included residential, hotel, multi-storey car park and bridge land uses, these are excluded from the SPZ Scheme itself. They will be promoted at Westway, although through a separate planning process.

1.1.7 Bat surveys have been completed at the site during 2010, where one roosting bat was observed entering at the wallhead on the eastern elevation of Block M (Echoes Ecology Ltd, 2010).

1.1.8 The following documents have been provided to Echoes Ecology Ltd in order to assist in carrying out this contract:

Architects Drawings

1.1.9 The survey work reported upon within this document was carried out during the period 05.07.16 to 05.08.16. If works at the site do not commence prior to 01.02.18, then further surveys should be commissioned in order to ascertain that the situation regarding bats has not changed and thus the conclusions of this report are still valid.

1.1.10 Appendix II provides an introduction to bats in the UK.


5

Section 2 - Legislation and Biodiversity

Legal Considerations

2.1.1 Bats and their roosts are protected under UK and European Legislation. In Scotland, this is mainly provided by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, as amended (known as the Habitats Regulations). Under this legislation, bats are regarded as European Protected Species (EPS).

2.1.2 It is an offence to deliberately or recklessly disturb a bat (including injuring, capturing and/or killing), or damage, obstruct, alter or destroy a bat roost. A bat roost is protected at all times irrespective as to whether any bats are using the roost at a given time.

2.1.3 If the work proposed affects bats or their roosts, a Habitats Regulations licence, issued by the licensing authority Scottish Natural Heritage under Regulation 44 will be required so as to permit an otherwise illegal activity. There are three tests that must be satisfied before a licence will be granted, in addition to which mitigation and/or compensation will almost certainly be required. The three tests are:

The activity must fall within one of the licensable purposes listed in Regulation 44 (including preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, and preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber, property or fisheries)

There must be no satisfactory alternative

The action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Biodiversity in the UK

2.2.1 In 1992, 150 government leaders from around the world (including the UK) signed the Convention on Biological Diversity at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (also known as The Rio Earth Summit). By doing so, the signatory nations were committing to promoting sustainable development, and at a national level implementing plans to do so.

2.2.2 In the UK, the governmental response to the Convention on Biological Diversity was the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP), which depicts the biological resources of the UK and the detailed plans to protect them.

2.2.3 In 2004 ‘Scotland’s Biodiversity: It’s in Your Hands - A strategy for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland’ was published (Scottish Executive, 2004). This set out a 25-year strategy to assist government, the private and public sectors, non-governmental bodies and individual members of the public to conserve and enhance biodiversity in Scotland.

2.2.4 The Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL) was published in 2005 and last updated in 2012. It is a list of animals, plants and habitats that are considered to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation. The list fulfils requirements under Section 2(4) of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and allows public bodies to carry out their biodiversity duty. Nine species of bat are included on the SBL as detailed below.

Brandt’s bat (Myotis brandtii)

Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii)

Whiskered bat (Myotis mystacinus)

Natterer’s bat (Myotis nattereri)

Noctule (Nyctalus noctula)

Nathusius’ pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii)

Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus)

Soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus)

Brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus)


6

2.2.5 In 2012, the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework, produced by the Four Countries Biodiversity Group, succeeded the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (JNCC and Defra, 2012). It covers the period 2011 to 2020. The priority species and habitats listed under the UKBAP are still relevant and form much of the work carried out within the four individual countries.

2.2.6 The document ‘2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity’ (Scottish Government, 2013) was published in 2013 which supplements the 2004 guidance and together the two documents form the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.


7

Section 3 - Survey Methodology

Desk Study Methods

3.1.1 A desk study was carried out to obtain baseline data of bat activity in or near to the study area. This desk study allowed for data within a 2km radius of the site to be considered. The following resources were consulted:

Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP)

‘Distribution Atlas of Bats in Britain and Ireland 1980-1999’ (Richardson, 2000)

Echoes Ecology Ltd, ‘ScoMam’ Database (a database of over 4,000 mammal records collected by Echoes Ecology Ltd and associate surveyors over 10 years of surveys).

Field Survey Methods

3.2.1 The survey methods employed are described below within Table 3.1 and are adapted from ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd Edition’ (Collins, 2016). Only the buildings that are to be impacted upon, as outlined in the masterplan presented in Appendix I, were subject to bat surveys.

3.2.2 Activity Survey Programme: Due to the structure types and the surrounding habitat, the buildings were considered to have a moderate suitability for active season roosts (Collins, 2016, Chapter 4, Table 4.1). As such, a programme of two activity surveys (at least one being a dawn survey), with at least one of these being carried out during the period May to August, was delivered in line with the guidelines (Collins, 2016, Chapter 7, Tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3).

3.2.3 Over-Wintering Roost Potential Assessment: The construction of the structures within the site is such that they would not typically be regarded as classic over-wintering (i.e. hibernation) roosts for bats. There is, however, a low level of risk that a small number of isolated bats (e.g. Pipistrellus spp.) could be using discrete areas for hibernating purposes. Also, due to the uncertain nature of hibernation occurring in some parts of Western Europe with the Pipistrellus genus (Korsten et al., 2015), unexpected incidents of hibernation could occur (likelihood being low, but not impossible). Therefore, the potential for hibernation cannot entirely be ruled out, but as the structures are considered to have a low winter roost potential, no over-wintering surveys were carried out.

Table 3.1 - Survey methods

Number and Type of Surveys

1 x Daytime Assessment 1 x Dusk Activity Survey (split over two nights) 1 x Dawn Activity Survey

Surveyors

Laura Carter-Davis (SNH Licence No. 41061) Elaine Anderson (SNH Licence No. 68122) Heather Simpson Laura Spence Mingaile Zebaite Amy Ashe Russell Keen Callum McLaren Colin Everett

Survey Dates 05.07.16: daytime assessment 05.07.16: dusk activity survey 06.07.16: dusk activity survey 05.08.16: dawn activity survey

Methods Used

Daytime Assessment A daytime assessment was carried out, inspecting the outside of the buildings and some internal spaces (within Block H only), to assess for the suitability for use by bats, and to look for any evidence of bats, such as corpses, droppings and feeding remains. Any suitable roosting locations (e.g. cracks, crevices, holes) were noted so that particular attention to such areas could be taken


8

account of during activity surveys. An internal inspection of the rooms was not carried out for Blocks M, D, H, N and A and the substation, because the buildings were currently occupied. Hibernation Assessment Each Structure was assessed for ‘Winter Roost Potential’ in accordance with ‘Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd Edition’ (Collins, 2016). See Para 3.2.3 above. Dusk Activity (Emergence) Surveys A total of eight surveyors over two consecutive nights observed suitable aspects throughout the site in order to establish whether or not bats were using potential roosting features within or near Blocks H, D, M, N and A and the substation. The surveys commenced 20 minutes prior to sunset and lasted until 90 minutes after sunset. During the early parts of the surveys bat detectors were also used periodically to listen for social calls coming from the buildings. Bat activity was recorded using frequency division bat detectors and digital recorders to allow later analysis with BatSound version 4.1.4 software. See Figure IV.1 in Appendix IV for surveyor positioning. Dawn Activity (Re-entry) Survey Eight surveyors observed suitable aspects throughout the site in order to establish whether or not bats were using potential roosting features within or near to Blocks H, D, M, N and A and the substation. The survey commenced 90 minutes before sunrise and lasted until 15 minutes after sunrise. During the later parts of the survey bat detectors were also used periodically to listen for social calls coming from the buildings. Bat activity was recorded using frequency division bat detectors and digital recorders to allow later analysis with BatSound version 4.1.4 software. See Figure IV.1 in Appendix IV for surveyor positioning. Survey Equipment Used: Frequency division bat detectors (Batbox Duet), digital recorders (Roland R-05 and Zoom H1), torch, binoculars (magnification 8 x 42), endoscope (Ridgid Micro CA-100), GPS (Garmin eTrex), digital camera.


9

Section 4 - Overview of Results

Desk Study Results

4.1.1 The following bat species have Species Action Plans (SAPs) written under the Inverclyde, Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan:

Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus)


4.1.2 Habitat Action Plans (HAPs) are also in place within this Local Biodiversity Action Plan. Those HAPs which may be relevant to the protection of bats at the study site are as follows:

Urban

4.1.3 A resources and database search was carried out during July 2016. The results are shown in Table 4.1 below.

4.1.4 For additional information relating to the conservation status of bats within Renfrew, refer to Appendix III.

Table 4.1 - Resources and database search results

Species

Potential for Roosting within Structure(s) on Site*

Record Type

Source Location**

Unidentified bat (exact species unknown)

High Roost ScoMam Within the site


High Field ScoMam Within the site

Common pipistrelle (P. pipistrellus)

High Field ScoMam Within the site

Nathusius’ pipistrelle (P. nathusii)

Low Known to occur in this area

Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentonii)


Natterer’s bat (M. nattereri)


Whiskered bat (M. mystacinus)


Brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus)


Noctule (Nyctalus noctula)


Notes: The lack of bat records in any given area should by no means be interpreted as an indication that no bats and/or roosts exist. *The potential for the species to be found roosting at the site takes into account not just the geographic species distribution but also the habitat in and around the site and the structures present. **Where no records exist for a particular species, the Bat Distribution Atlas (Richardson, 2000) has been consulted to identify species known to occur in the area.


10

Daytime Assessment

4.2.1 Only Blocks M, D, H, N and A and the substation are to be impacted upon by the proposed re-development of the site, as outlined in the PPP masterplan (see Figure I.2, Appendix I). Therefore, these were the only buildings that were subject to survey.

4.2.2 During the daytime assessment there was no evidence found to suggest that bats are roosting within the buildings on site. However, Block M is a known bat roost as one bat (species unknown as no echolocation was heard) was observed entering at the wallhead of the east corner of the building during the initial surveys conducted in 2010 (Echoes Ecology Ltd, 2010).

4.2.3 Block M is an occupied, four-storey, modern brick building with a flat roof topped with rubber and stone chips (see Figure 4.1). There is a generator room on the roof with corrugated metal roofing, which was not possible to access during the daytime assessment. There are gaps all the way around the building under the flat roof overhang.

4.2.4 Block D is a brick building with a roof constructed of single skin asbestos and metal sheeting and concrete lintels above doors and windows (Figure 4.2). The building was disused and at the north-west end the windows have been boarded up. There are also three buildings adjoining Block D: a workshop (similar structure to main building but with a roof composed of asbestos sheeting on top of wooden cladding); a larger building directly behind workshop (similar structure to main building but with an exterior brick lower wall and corrugated metal upper wall); and a brick warehouse (similar structure to main building). In all buildings there are gaps behind the boards in the windows and holes in the brickwork, where pipes enter the building.

4.2.5 Block H is made up of three buildings (H1, H2 and H3) which are all unoccupied, with brick walls and corrugated metal and asbestos roofing. Building H1 has holes in the brickwork leading into an internal space which could potentially be utilised by roosting bats. There are also gaps where the drainpipe meets the guttering on the north-west corner of the building and gaps under the ridges of the asbestos roof. Building H2 has gaps where barge boards are coming away from the wall between the two front doors, gaps in the brickwork on the south-west corner, gaps around door frames and the lead lining of the partition wall within the building is coming away creating gaps (Figure 4.3). Building H3 has large gaps where the plywood doors meet the metal/asbestos sheeting on the walls and gaps under the asbestos sheets on the roof.

4.2.6 Block N is an occupied, single-storey brick building with rendered walls and corrugated metal roofing (Figure 4.4). The building is comprised of a pitched roof warehouse and a flat roofed office. There are gaps in the corners of the building around the guttering, gaps behind the painted barge boards on the eastern elevation, gaps in the white entrance door and in the bargeboards on the southern elevation and there is a vent on the northern elevation with no mesh covering.

4.2.7 Block A is a large warehouse, where the lower walls are of brick construction with corrugated metal on the upper walls and roof (Figure 4.5). The southern end of the building has modern brick façade and there is a single-storey brick wing with a flat roof. There are gaps in the brickwork where pipes enter, gaps around the brown shutter doors on the south side and broken glass in windows providing entry points for bats into the building.

4.2.8 The substation is a single-storey brick building with a flat concrete and felt roof (Figure 4.6). Broken glass in windows provides potential entry points for bats into the substation and there are gaps in the brickwork, where timber cladding used to be.

Activity Surveys

4.3.1 During the dusk surveys, a small number of pipistrelle bats were recorded in the area but no bats were observed leaving the buildings. During the dawn survey a common pipistrelle bat was observed wall touching just below the wallhead on the south-east facing section of the eastern elevation of Block M, adjacent to the previously recorded roosting location from 2010. No other bat activity was seen within the vicinity of the buildings being surveyed. Figures 4.1 highlights the previous roosting location and the area where the bat was observed wall touching.


11

Potential for Hibernation

4.4.1 It would not be typical for bats to be found over-wintering in the types of structures that exist at the site. Some features on the external surfaces of the structure are present but are exposed and/or shallow and there are no unoccupied loft spaces or access into cavity walls which could provide the protection from weather and/or temperature fluctuation during the winter period. Therefore, the buildings are considered to have a low winter roost potential and so no over-wintering surveys were carried out.

- East face of Block M with previous roosting location from 2010 indicated by yellow arrow and area where bat was observed wall touching during 2016 survey indicated by red arrow

- Workshop adjoining Block D with cavities behind boarded windows and gaps in brickwork


12

- Southern elevation of Block H2 with gaps behind barge boards, gaps in brickwork and around doorframe

- Eastern elevation of Block N with gaps behind barge boards

- Southern and Western elevation of Block A


13

- Northern and Eastern elevation of substation with gaps in the brickwork and holes in windows


14

Section 5 - Discussion

Limitations to Survey Work

5.1.1 It was not possible to access the generator room at the top of Block M during the daytime assessment and there was no internal access into Block N. However, as the external of the buildings were inspected through the use of binoculars and activity surveys were completed, it is highly unlikely that any roosting locations were over looked.

Roosting, Foraging and Commuting Behaviour by Bats

5.2.1 When establishing the conservation needs of bats there are three important aspects that should be considered when making changes to the local habitat or features. These are roosting sites, foraging areas and commuting/navigational corridors or features (Entwistle et al., 2001).

5.2.2 Throughout the year, during periods of inactivity, all bats require safe and sheltered roosting sites. They will use different roosts at different times of the year and males and females may use different roosts. Block M is a bat roost and as such is protected at all times from disturbance, alteration and destruction. No disturbance, alteration or destruction can be made to this roosting area and/or any potential areas of access or exit for bats using the roost without a Habitats Regulations licence being in place.

5.2.3 The structures that make up the site are of low roosting potential for winter roosting bats (see Section 3, Para 3.2.3, and Section 4, Para 4.4). As such the potential for hibernating bats within the site is not being considered any further.

5.2.4 All bats within the UK require large amounts of insect food in order to survive. Bats were found foraging in small numbers over the area. With regards to the potential foraging areas and insect abundance within the vicinity of the site it is concluded that the proposed changes will not affect bats in this respect as works are confined to the buildings.

5.2.5 Bats require linear features (e.g. woodland edge, tree lines, waterways etc.) in order to orientate themselves in the dark and to act as commuting corridors between their roosts and their foraging areas. This is especially true for smaller species and a gap in a linear feature as little as 10m may act as a barrier to movement (Entwistle et al., 2001). Such linear features can also provide a degree of protection from potential predators and from adverse weather. The proposed changes to the site will not impact upon bats in this respect as works are restricted to the structure(s).

5.2.6 Requirements and recommendations with regards to proposed works at the site are discussed within Section 6.


15

Section 6 - Requirements and Recommendations

Requirements and Recommendations

6.1.1 Table 6.1 summarises the requirements and recommendations relating to bats and future developments at the site.

Table 6.1 - Requirements and recommendations

Action Point

Action Ownership Target Date

AP1 If the works do not commence prior to 01.02.18 further surveys may be required in order to confirm that the situation regarding bats at the site has not changed in the interim period.

WB Westway LP

01.02.18

AP2 There is a bat roost within Block M and this structure is proposed to be extended, which will lead to the destruction of the roost. For the proposed development to proceed a Habitats Regulations licence must be applied for and granted by Scottish Natural Heritage. The licence application will be accompanied by a Species Protected Plan and Method Statement detailing the necessary mitigation and compensation for this structure. Areas of Block M which are within 30m of the bat roost are protected at all times from disturbance, alteration, destruction etc. A 30m exclusion zone, in which no works can take place, must be adhered to until a licence to destroy the roost is granted. The exclusion zone must incorporate a 30m buffer around both the confirmed roosting location from 2010 and potential roosting location identified in 2016 (see Figure 6.1)

WB Westway LP

Prior to licence being granted


16

Figure 6.1 - Exclusion zone around bat roost in Block M (highlighted in red) with arrows indicating roost access points

AP3 Because bats and their roosts are protected, all contractors and site maintenance working on the site must be made aware of the presence and location of the roost.

WB Westway LP

Prior to works

AP4 If bats are seen to be present at any time during activities, then stop the work immediately and seek advice from Echoes Ecology Ltd and/or Scottish Natural Heritage.

WB Westway LP

During works

AP5 If bats are found during any operations under no circumstances should anyone touch or pick up any bat. If someone has been bitten or scratched by a bat, the wound should immediately be flushed with running water for several minutes and washed with soap and water, with additional cleaning of the wound using a virucidal agent such as 40-70% strength alcohol. The wound should then be covered with a light dressing. Medical attention should be sought from a GP, A & E department or by calling NHS 24 on 111 (although the risk of rabies in the UK appears to be very small, anyone being bitten or scratched by a bat should seek advice). Regardless of the species of bat involved, if the skin is broken the protocol is to provide post-exposure prophylaxis (immunisation). As rabies is a notifiable disease, if signs of rabies are suspected in a bat (e.g. bat is found in an exposed location during daylight hours or displays unprovoked biting) the local Animal Health Office should be notified (details available on the Scottish Government website, www.gov.scot).

WB Westway LP

During works


17

Section 7 - References

Altringham, J. D. (2003). British Bats. Harper Collins. Bat Conservation Trust (2008). Encouraging Bats. A Guide for Bat-friendly Gardening and Living. Bat Conservation Trust, London. Bat Conservation Trust (2014). The State of the UK’s Bats 2014. Bat Conservation Trust, London. Battersby, J. (ed) (2005). UK Mammals: Species Status and Population Trends. JNCC/Tracking Mammals Partnership, Peterborough. Collins, J. (ed.) (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edition). Bat Conservation Trust, London. Echoes Ecology Ltd. (2010). Westway Contract Bat Consultancy. Submitted to Halcrow Group Ltd on 15.07.10. Entwistle, A. C., Harris, S., Hutson, A. M., Racey, P. A., Walsh, A., Gibson, S. D., Hepburn, I. and Johnston, J. (2001). Habitat Management for Bats - A Guide for Land Managers, Land Owners and their Advisors. JNCC, Peterborough. Harris, S., Morris P., Wray, S. and Yalden, D. (1995). A Review of British Mammals: Population Estimates and Conservation Status of British Mammals other than Cetaceans. JNCC, Peterborough. JNCC (2013a). Supporting Documentation for the Third Report by the United Kingdom under Article 17: S1309 Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus). JNCC, Peterborough. JNCC (2013b). Supporting Documentation for the Third Report by the United Kingdom under Article 17: S5009 Soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus). JNCC, Peterborough.

JNCC and Defra (on behalf of the Four Countries’ Biodiversity Group) (2012). UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. JNCC, Peterborough.

Korsten, E., Schillemans, M., Limpens, H. and Jansen, E. (2015). On the trail of the hibernating common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus): Strategies for locating mass hibernation sites in the urban environment. National Bat Conference 2015 abstracts, Bat Conservation Trust, London. Available from: www.bats.org.uk/data/files/National_Conference_Abstrcts _2015.pdf (accessed 01.08.16). Mitchell-Jones, A. J. and McLeish, A. P. (2004). Bat Workers Manual 3rd Edition. JNCC, Peterborough. Richardson, P. (2000). Distribution Atlas of Bats in Britain and Ireland 1980-1999. The Bat Conservation Trust, London. Scottish Executive (2004). Scotland’s Biodiversity: It’s in Your Hands - A strategy for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. Scottish Government (2013). 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity. Scottish Government, Edinburgh. Scottish Natural Heritage (2007). Natural Heritage and the Law: Bats and People. Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby.


18

Site Plan

Figure I.1: Current site plan

Blo

ck M

Blo

ck

D

Blo

ck N

Su

bs

tati

on

Blo

ck H

Blo

ck A


19

Figure I.2: PPP Consent – Proposed Masterplan

Blo

ck M

Blo

ck D

Blo

ck N

Su

bs

tati

on

Blo

ck H

Blo

ck A


20

Introduction to Bat Ecology

II.1 Bats in the UK

There are 18 species of bat found in the UK, 10 of which have been recorded in Scotland. All bats occurring in the UK are nocturnal and insectivorous (Altringham, 2003). A single pipistrelle bat can consume up to 3,000 insects in a night (Bat Conservation Trust, 2008), thus demonstrating the valuable contribution that bats make to the environment.

In order to interact naturally with their environment, maintain viable populations and indeed survive it is important that bats have access to roosting sites and foraging areas. Linear features are also important for many UK bat species (Entwistle et al., 2001) which have been shown to rely upon these as commuting corridors or as points of reference in the dark.

Bats roost in groups or as individuals. In the course of a year bats will use a number of different roosts for different purposes according to the season (see Table II.1). These roosts can be in the same location or a good distance apart. Due to bats regularly switching roosts (e.g. according to season), the absence of bats in any one particular location at any one time does not necessarily mean that bats do not roost there at other times. Bats tend to be faithful to their roosts and as such return to them, year after year. This is one of the reasons why a bat roost is always protected even if the bats are not present at any given time.

Bats and their roosts can be very difficult to detect. This is because the bat species which occur in the UK have evolved over millions of years (Altringham, 2003) to seek safe shelter in dark enclosed areas, away from disturbance and out of sight from potential predators (e.g. birds of prey). Common roosting locations for UK bats within buildings include: beneath slates or tiles; in crevices between stonework (particularly where these extend to rubble fill or a wall cavity); in mortise joints; around window frames; behind barge/soffit boards and areas where timber (e.g. rafters) creates corners, crevices or cavities (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2007). Further, many bat species can also be found roosting in trees, utilising cracks, crevices, holes and loose bark for this purpose. Note that this list is by no means exhaustive and bats can be found in a variety of other roosting places such as caves, tunnels, bridges, mines and historic buildings.

In order to help study bats and locate roosts, bat ecologists undertake a range of methods and techniques (Mitchell-Jones and McLeish, 2004). These include searching for signs of bats (e.g. droppings, corpses, feeding remains) and activity surveys (e.g. watching for bats leaving a structure at dusk or re-entering at dawn) using ultrasonic bat detectors in order to understand their behaviour.

: Typical annual cycle of bat roosting within the UK

Season

Type of Roosts Formed

Roosting Behaviour

Spring

Spring transitional Male roosts Night roosts Maternity roosts

Bats come out of hibernation and move into transitional spring roosts. For many species males usually roost separately to females. Night roosts used by bats taking a rest during the night rather than returning to their normal day roost. Females of most species begin to form maternity colonies.


21

Summer

Maternity roosts Nursery roosts Male roosts Night roosts

For some species of bat maternity roosts can typically hold many hundreds of adult females waiting to give birth. Damage or disturbance to any roosting colonies at this time could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the species population for that area. Once the females give birth the roost location is known as a nursery roost. Male bats tend to roost separately to females, individually or in smaller numbers. Night roosts used by bats taking a rest during the night rather than returning to their normal day roost.

Autumn

Nursery Roosts Harems/Breeding Roosts Non-breeding roosts Night roosts

Nursery roosts are vacated as the females and immature bats find alternative roosting areas. Male bats set up breeding roosts. Approach differs according to species. The autumn breeding season takes place. Bats not actively involved with breeding may be found separately at other roosting locations. Night roosts used by bats taking a rest during the night rather than returning to their normal day roost.

Winter

Hibernacula

Bats hibernate during the winter to conserve energy. At this stage in their life cycle damaging or obstructing a roost or disturbing bats may affect their survival as they would struggle to replenish the energy used in waking up at a time of year when food was scarce.


22

Conservation Status of Bats in Scotland and Renfrew

III.1 Conservation Status

It is widely accepted that 18 species of bat occur within the UK, up to 10 of which may occur within Scotland (Richardson, 2000). The species of bat potentially occurring in Scotland, their local status and roosting/foraging habitat preferences are described in Table III.1. The data within the table is of a general nature and it should be borne in mind that exceptions to the described behaviours have been recorded.

: Bat populations and habitat preferences within Scotland and Renfrew

Species

Common Name

(Scientific Name)

Estimated Population

in Scotland* (% of GB*)

Frequency Of Occurrence

(Scotland)

Status within

Renfrew

Main Roosting

Sites

Main Foraging

Sites

Common pipistrelle

(Pipistrellus pipistrellus)

352,000**

(27.5%)

Common

(widespread) Common

Buildings

Trees

Generalist

All habitat types

Soprano pipistrelle

(Pipistrellus pygmaeus)

198,000**

(27.5%)

Common

(widespread) Common

Buildings

Trees

Riparian associated

habitats

Nathusius’ pipistrelle

(Pipistrellus nathusii)

Only a small number of

records to date

Rare

May breed but no breeding records

so far

Rare Buildings

Trees

Woodland

Riparian

Brown long-eared bat

(Plecotus auritus)

27,500

(13.8%)

Less Common

(widespread) Less Common

Buildings

Trees

Woodland

Parkland

Daubenton’s bat

(Myotis daubentonii)

40,000

(26.7%)

Less Common

(widespread as far north as

Sutherland)

Less Common

Buildings

Structures

Caves

Trees

Riparian

Woodland

Natterer’s bat

(Myotis nattereri)

17,500

(17.5%)

Uncommon

(widespread as far north as

Inverness)

Uncommon

Buildings

Structures

Caves

Trees

Woodland

Riparian

Whiskered bat

(Myotis mystacinus)

1,500***

(3.8%)

Rare

(southern and Central Scotland)

Rare

Buildings

Structures

Caves

Woodland

Riparian

Brandt’s bat

(Myotis brandtii)

500***

(1.7%)

Rare

(may occur in southern Scotland)

Not recorded

in this area

Buildings

Structures

Caves

Woodland

Riparian

Noctule

(Nyctalus noctula)

250****

(0.5%)

Rare

(localised: southern Scotland)

Rare Trees

Woodland

Parkland

Riparian

Leisler’s bat

(Nyctalus leisleri)

250

(2.5%)

Rare

(localised: south west Scotland)

Not recorded

in this area

Buildings

Structures

Trees

Woodland

Parkland

Riparian

The ‘Species’ boxes are colour coded to reflect significant trends in populations according to results of the latest National Bat Monitoring Programme (Bat Conservation Trust, 2014), in at least one of their survey types (RED: in decline, AMBER: stable or unknown, GREEN: on increase). * All figures taken from Battersby (2005). ** The figures are obtained using the population estimates for each species in Battersby (2005), although that publication does not split the figures per country, rather gives a GB total. The ratio assumed by Harris et al. (1995) for the split of pipistrelle sensu lato between the three countries has been used (England 0.625: Scotland 0.275: Wales 0.100). This method is also used by JNCC to gather population estimates (JNCC, 2013a; JNCC, 2013b). *** There have been a few historical records of Brandt’s bat for Scotland (Richardson, 2000), however due to the difficulty in separating it in the field from whiskered bat the assumption is that Brandt’s bat may occur in southern Scotland. ****It is generally accepted that this figure for noctule is no longer accurate as more and more records for this species are being noted from throughout southern Scotland. As such, although this species is rare/absent in many parts of Scotland, it is not regarded as rare within its established range within southern Scotland.


23

Raw Survey Data

IV.1 Activity Surveys

Activity surveys (dusk, carried out over two consecutive nights, and a dawn) were carried out at the site between the 05.07.16 and 05.08.16. Surveyor positioning for the surveys is presented below in Figure IV.1 and the results of the surveys are shown in full within Tables IV.1 to IV.3. Figure IV.1: Surveyor positioning

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8


24

: Survey form 1 (dusk of 05.07.16)

: Survey form 2 (dusk of 06.07.16)

: Survey form 3 (dawn of 05.08.16)

Site Name Date Survey Type Sunset OS Grid Ref Temperature oC Surveyor(s) (Location Ref)

Westway 05.07.2016 Dusk 22:03 NS 495 664 14

Precipitation Cloud Cover Moon Phase Wind (F)

Dry40% at start

10% at end of survey 3% visible 1

Surveyor Time Species Max Number of

Individual Bats

Present

Bat Passes

(Max of 5 per

single bat)

Behaviour Additional Notes

Survey Start Time 21:43

2

3

Survey End Time 23:33

Total Survey Time (mins) 110 Overall Roosting

Totals

0 0

Results Summary and Conclusions: Small number of pipistrelle bat passes along the trees and couple of pipistrelle bats were obseverd to circle around the

front of the surveyor at position 2. No bats were seen roosting at this site. However, common pipistrelle bats were recorded in the area.

Survey Timespan

20 mins before Sunset until 90 mins after Sunset

No roosting bats observed from this surveyor location


E. Anderson (S2) and

L. Spence (S3)

Site Name Date Survey Type Sunset OS Grid Ref Temperature oC Surveyor(s) (Location Ref)

Westway 06.07.2016 Dusk 22:02 NS 495 664 min:14 / max:14


Raining 100% 3% visible 3


Individual Bats

Present

Bat Passes

(Max of 5 per

single bat)



1

4

5

6

7

8


Total Survey Time (mins) 114 Overall Roosting Totals 0 0


Results Summary and Conclusions: No bats were seen roosting at this site. However, common pipistrelle bats were recorded in the area.


Survey Timespan

24 mins before Sunset until 90 mins after Sunset





A. Ashe (S1); E. Anderson (S4);

L. Carter-Davis (S5); C. Everett (S8);

L. Spence (S6) and R. Keen (S7)

Site Name Date Survey Type Sunrise OS Grid Ref Temperature oC Surveyor(s) (Location Ref)

Westway 05.08.2016 Dawn 05:30 NS 495 664 14


Dry 90% 8% visible 1


Individual Bats

Present

Bat Passes

(Max of 5 per

single bat)



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Total Survey Time (mins) 105 Overall

Roosting

Totals

0 0

M. Zebaite (S1), H. Simpson (S2),

E. Anderson (S3), C. McLaren (S4),

L. Carter-Davis (S5), L. Spence (S6),

R. Keen (S7), C. Everett (S8)Survey Timespan

90 mins before sunrise until 15 mins after sunrise



Results Summary and Conclusions: Small number of common and soprano pipistrelles were active commuting and foraging in the area, near surveyor

positions 1 and 2. A common pipistrelle was seen wall-touching at the wall head of the south-east facing wall next to surveyor position 2.







WESTWAY - Renfrewshire...Westway is situated off Porterfield Rd, Renfrew, PA4 8DJ, central OS Grid...

Documents

Transcript of WESTWAY - Renfrewshire...Westway is situated off Porterfield Rd, Renfrew, PA4 8DJ, central OS Grid...