David Leach Ecology Ltd. Environmental Consultants Land At

David Leach Ecology Ltd. Environmental Consultants

Land at Long Landsley Salisbury Road Shaftesbury Dorset

Ecological Survey Date: November 2018 - updated April 2019 Report compiled by M. Haines

Report checked and authorised by D. V. Leach. M.C.I.E.E.M

Phone: 01258 840773 Mobile: 07756 855212 E-mail: [email protected]

Registered Office: Arrowsmith Court, Station Approach, Broadstone, Dorset, BH18 8AT Company Reg. No. 8846666

Contents Executive summary ...... 2 1.0 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Background ...... 3 1.2 Aims of the Survey ...... 3 1.3 Site Description ...... 3 2.0 Methodology ...... 4 2.1 Desk Study ...... 4 2.2 Site Survey ...... 4 3.0 Results ...... 77 3.1 Desk Study ...... 77 3.2 Site Survey ...... 77 4.0 Assessment ...... 10 5.0 Mitigation and Compensation ...... 11 5.1 Habitat ...... 11 5.2 Bats...... 11 5.3 Birds ...... 12 5.4 Reptiles ...... 12 6.0 Enhancements ...... 12 6.1 Bats ...... 12 6.2 Birds ...... 13 6.3 Insects ...... 13 7.0 Limitations of the survey...... 13

Appendices Appendix 1) Legislation ...... 14 Appendix 2) References ...... 15 Appendix 3) Location of Site ...... 17 Appendix 4) Photographs ...... 20 Appendix 5) Proposed site plan ...... 20 Appendix 6) Proposed elevations showing enhancment feature locations ...... 20 Appendix 7 Bat boxes...... 31 Appendix 8) Bird Boxes ...... 36 Appendix 9) Insect Boxes ...... 36

Executive summary  The proposal is to fully demolish an already partially demolished building and erect a replacement dwelling in the northeast corner of site.  The site is approximately 0.1 hectares and consists of a burnt out house sited on recently cleared land.  The site is situated in Donhead St. Mary approximately 2.3km east of Shaftesbury.  The plot on which the house is to be constructed forms part of larger plot (approximately 1.2 ha) that has also recently been cleared and bulldozed, plant machinery was present on site at the time of survey.  Bordering the site to the north is broadleaved deciduous and ancient and semi natural woodland. Adjacent to the wider plot to the east is mixed, mainly conifer woodland.  No statutory designated sites are located within 1km of site. There is a County Wildlife Site (CWS) 150m northeast of the survey site. There is unlikely to be any significant impact on this site due to the poposed demolition and re-build proposed for the site.  A search of ordnance survey maps found one pond 485 northeast of site. In the current state (recently cleared) the site does not exhibit suitable terrestrial habitat for great crested newts.  The perimeter vegetation on site offers potential for nesting birds; recommendations have been made in section 5 to minimise impacts to nesting birds should these features be impacted by proposals.  The building had been badly damaged by fire and is now just a shell of standing walls with no roof or ceilings. The building has negligible potential for bats due to a lack of suitable roosting features.  There are no proposals to remove any more trees or cut back limbs from the trees at the perimerter of the site. Any trees or large limbs that may have had potential roosting features had been removed prior to this survey. The proposals are unlikey to have a significant effect on the trees at the site perimeters.  In the current state (recently cleared) the site does not exhibit potential for reptiles. From examination of aerial images (2014/15) it appeared the site may have exhibited reptile potential prior to clearance. No further survey work is required, however measures have been recommended to compensate for the clearance of potentially suitable reptile habitat.  Enhancement measures have been recommended to be incorporated in to the proposed dwelling and surrounding habitat (section 6).

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

Client: Mr J. Fear

Property Surveyed: Long Landsley, Salisbury Road Donhead St Mary Shaftesbury Dorset SP7 8BX

Grid reference: ST88262238

Date of Surveys: 13th October 2018. 27th March 2019 10th April 2019

Lead Surveyor: Michelle Haines (Natural England WML CL18 registered bat worker) David Leach BSc. (Hon), CBiol., M.R.S.B., M.C.I.E.E.M. (Natural England WML CL18 & 21 registered bat worker).

1.2 Aims of the Survey  The proposal is to fully demolish an already partially demolished building and erect a replacement dwelling in the northeast corner of site.  A survey was commissioned to check for protected species or potential for protected species that would be affected by any proposed works, and to produce a mitigation plan if signs of any protected species were found, and/or recommend further surveys if there was potential for protected species on the site.

1.3 Site Description  The site is approximately 0.1 hectares and consists of a burnt out house sited on

recently cleared land.  The site is situated approximately 2.1km east of Shaftesbury.  The plot on which the house is to be constructed forms part of larger plot (approximately 1.2 ha) that has also recently been cleared and bulldozed; plant machinery was present on site at the time of survey.  Bordering the site to the north is broadleaved deciduous and ancient and semi natural woodland. Adjacent to the plot to the east is mixed, mainly conifer woodland.

2.0 Methodology

2.1 Desk Study  The Magic.gov web site was accessed to determine whether there were any nature reserves or protected areas local to the site that would be affected by the proposed works.  Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 scale maps were accessed to identify ponds within 500m of the site with potential to support great crested newts.  If signs or potential for protected species was found then a full data search may be undertaken to look for records of protected species in the area around the site.

2.2 Site Survey  This consisted of a walkover survey of the application site and land within 50m of the application site boundaries where possible.  Any habitats identified as having potentially high botanical value will be subject to further botanical surveys, if deemed necessary. The site was inspected for non-native invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica), Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) and Himalayan Balsam (Impatiens glandulifera).  The survey methodology included an assessment of the potential for habitats on or immediately adjacent to the site to support legally protected or conservation-notable species. The location and nature of any signs of the presence of protected species (such as droppings, footprints, burrows, etc.) were documented and mapped accordingly.  Indicative methods for protected species are outlined below following recognised guidelines: Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM), Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (ARC), Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) and Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC).

Bats The external and internal areas of any building or structure on site were inspected following guidelines set out in the BCT Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists Good Practice Guidelines 3rd edn. Collins. J (2016) and the JNCC Bat Workers’ Manual (Mitchell-Jones A. J). The presence of bats or signs of bats and possible entry points into buildings was looked for.

Extant trees were inspected for potential roosting areas that could support bats. Particular attention was paid to the following:

Evidence searched for to indicate usage of bats included:  Droppings  Urine staining  Worn entrances or claw marks around potential access points  Insect feeding remains  Oil staining left from bat fur  Live/dead bats  External signs of bats or potential use by bats were looked for. These included:-

The bat roosting potential of buildings was assessed according to the scale negligible, low, moderate or high:

Negligible: This category describes buildings of a simple structure where all structural features can easily be surveyed with a visual inspection or investigated with an endoscope. For example a simple wooden garden shed, a corrugated iron barn or precast concrete modular garage may fit this category. Low: This category is used to describe simple structure buildings that have very few potential bat roosting features but all areas cannot be surveyed visually or investigated with an endoscope. Moderate: This category is used to describe buildings that have some potential to support roosting bats, but is considered to be less than ideal in some way. Some but not all modern industrial and agricultural buildings may fit this category if they are of a simple structure with single layer walls and unlined roof areas. High: This category is used to describe buildings with multiple internal and external structural features suitable for roosting bats. Most brick built dwellings and timber or stone barns will be covered by this category. Features that may be used by bats are e.g. loft spaces and other smaller roof voids, gaps between overlapping clay tiles, gaps in-between the tiles or slates and

the roofing felt, cavities under ridge tiles, under soffits fascia and barge boards, by the brickwork of chimney stacks, under lead flashing, inside cavities of flat roofs, under wall hanging tiles, behind wooden cladding or other wooden structures, inside cavity walls or other smaller wall cavities, in gaps and cracks of stone walls and inside wooden beam mortise and tenon joints. Confirmed: This category is used where evidence of bats such as live or dead bats or bat droppings are present, or where there are records of a bat roost in the building within the last 5 years.

Badgers Any area that could be used for foraging or could potentially contain a Badger sett was inspected and any signs noted including:  Evidence of active or disused setts  Evidence of potential badger diggings  Latrines / dung pits  Evidence of badger foraging (‘snuffle holes’)  Footprints  Badger hairs

Birds Any habitat features, for example, scrub, trees and hedgerows which could potentially be used by nesting birds, were inspected and any nesting activity was noted. The habitat was also assessed regarding its potential for bird activity.

Great Crested Newts Ponds within the vicinity of the site were noted and the potential of the land to act as a commuting route, shelter or foraging resource for great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) was assessed.

Reptiles Habitat features that could be suitable as hibernacula, foraging or basking areas were noted. Extant refugia were lifted and examined for evidence of reptiles, including sloughs (shed skins).

Dormice The suitability of the habitat was assessed for dormice (Muscardinus avellanarius). Any small mammal feeding signs were checked and assessed, including:

 Examination of hazel nuts  Evidence of nest building

The survey was carried out by Michelle Haines and David Leach who are experienced ecological surveyors. Michelle holds Natural England licences to work with great crested newts (CL08), bats (CL18) and reptiles (smooth snake survey licence).

David Leach an experienced ecological surveyor who is a full member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management and a Chartered Biologist. He holds a Natural England WML CL18 bat licence and is a Registered Consultant under the Bat Mitigation Class Licence –WML CL21 annexes B, C &D.

3.0 Results

3.1 Desk Study  An internet search found no statutory designated sites within 1km of site.  It has been pointed out by the county ecologist that there is a County Wildlife Site (CWS) 150m north east of the survey site.  A search of ordnance survey maps found one pond 485m northeast of site.  A records search for protected species and sites within 1km has not been undertaken at this stage.

3.2 Site Survey Weather for initial survey: Clear and dry at time of survey 12:00 The external temperature was 17°C.

 The site is approximately 0.1 hectares and consists of a burnt out house sited on recently cleared land.  The plot on which the house is sited forms part of wider plot (approximately 1.2 ha) that has also recently been cleared and bulldozed, plant machinery was present on site at the time of survey.  There is a hedgerow of predominantly fir trees with a mature beech (Fagus sylvatica) on the eastern boundary, directly adjacent to the burnt out house.

 To the north and west, the adjoining plot has been cleared apart from a Salix sp. and hazel (Corylus avellana) tree (appendix 4, fig. 12 & 15).  A hedgerow forms the southern boundary of the wider plot, running along Salisbury Road, the following species were noted: hazel, holly (Ilex aquifolium), elder (Sambucus nigra), oak (Quercus robur), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa) and Rhododendron sp.  Bordering the wider plot to the north is broadleaved deciduous and ancient and semi natural woodland.  None of the trees remaining on the site or on the north and west boundary had potential roosting features for bats.  Adjacent to the wider plot to the east is mixed, mainly conifer, woodland.

Invasive non-native plant species.

 No Japanese Knotweed or Himalayan Balsam was found on the site.

Protected Species. Bats Building Features Evidence or potential Fire  Red brick elevations only.  No gaps or crevices with damaged sufficient depth were noted within building.  No soffits, fascias, the single layer brickwork windows, doors, roof or elevations. ceilings were present .  Two exposed chimney stacks of <  Chimney stack on the east 30cm in diameter had exposed and west elevations. fireplaces; from a ground level inspection the lower internal section of the chimney breasts appeared congested with debris.

 No missing mortar from the chimney stacks was noted from the exterior.

 The upper sections of the chimneys, both interior and exterior, were inspected from a mobile elevated platform (MEP). No potential roosting features were seen in either chimney.

 No potential roosting features were found in the building.

Birds  No evidence of nesting birds was found.  The perimeter vegetation on site offers potential for nesting birds; recommendations have been made in section 5 to minimise impacts to nesting birds should these features be impacted by proposals

Reptiles  In the current state (recently cleared) the site does not exhibit potential for reptiles.  Historically, the site was used as a low intensity scrap yard. From examination of aerial images (2014/15) it appeared the site may have exhibited reptile potential prior to clearance.  No further survey work is required, however measures have been recommended to compensate for the clearance of potentially suitable reptile habitat.

Badgers  In the current state (recently cleared) the site does not exhibit signs of badgers.  The adjacent woodland habitat to the north offers suitable foraging habitat for badgers. The edge of the woodland was inspected and no signs of badgers were found; no further survey work is required.

Great crested newts  A search of ordnance survey maps found one pond 485m northeast of site which is adjacent to what appears to be series of small lakes.  In the current state (recently cleared) the site does not exhibit suitable terrestrial habitat for great crested newts; no further survey work is required.

Dormice  No habitat suitable for dormice will be impacted by proposals; no further survey work is required.

4.0 Assessment

 The proposal is to fully demolish an already partially demolished building and erect a replacement dwelling in the northeast corner of site.  The site is approximately 0.1 hectares and consists of a partially demolished house sited on recently cleared land.  The site is situated in Donhead St. Mary approximately 2.3km east of Shaftesbury.  The plot on which the house is to be constructed forms part of larger plot (approximately 1.2 ha) that has also recently been cleared and bulldozed, plant machinery was present on site at the time of survey.  Bordering the site to the north is broadleaved deciduous and ancient and semi natural woodland. Adjacent to the plot to the east is mixed, mainly conifer woodland.  As the proposed building will be situated slightly to the south east of the existing foot print and further away from the trees to the north and east of the site there is less likely to be an impact on the trees due to lighting in and around the main house.  There will be no significant impacts on the CWS to the north east of the site.  A search of ordnance survey maps found one pond 485m northeast of site. In the current state (recently cleared) the site does not exhibit suitable terrestrial habitat for great crested newts.  The perimeter vegetation on site offers potential for nesting birds; recommendations have been made in section 5 to minimise impacts to nesting birds should these features be impacted by proposals.

 There will be no significant impacts on the CWS to the north east of the site due to the proposed demolition and re-build.  The remaining sections of the house were assessed as offering negligible potential for bats due to a lack of potential roosting features.  There are no proposals to remove any more trees or cut back limbs from the trees at the perimerter of the site. Any trees or large limbs that may have had potential roosting features had been removed prior to this survey. The proposals are unlikey to have a significant effect on the trees at the site perimeters.  In the current state (recently cleared) the site does not exhibit potential for reptiles. From examination of aerial images (2014/15) it appeared the site may have exhibited reptile potential prior to clearance. No further survey work is required, however measures have been recommended to compensate for the clearance of potentially suitable reptile habitat.  Enhancement measures will be incorporated into the proposed dwelling and surrounding habitat (see section 6).

5.0 Mitigation and Compensation

5.1 Habitat  The remaining perimeter habitat and trees within the site will be retained. No trees will be removed or cut back.  The garden habitat will consist of lawn and native or wildlife friendly plants used for landscaping.  The garden habitat will be connected to adjacent habitats by using hedging and avoiding the use of walls and creating gaps in any fences (minimum 13cm x 13cm) allowing corridors for any transitory wildlife such as hedgehogs.

5.2 Bats.  Post works, where possible, no additional external lighting will be used. Where absolutely necessary a sympathetic lighting scheme will be adopted on site so not to deter bats. This should include either absent, minimal or downward facing lighting that is not switched on all night (unless for health and safety). Where lighting is necessary it will not be directed onto bat access features such as bat boxes and bricks, habitats or flight paths and not illuminate the trees at the north and west of the site.

5.3 Birds  It is advised that any works undertaken reducing the perimeter tree habitat are performed outside the bird nesting season, which is generally considered to be from March to the end of August, although may extend longer depending on local conditions.  If there is no alternative to doing the work during this period then a thorough, careful and quiet examination of the affected area must be carried out by a suitably experienced ecologist before clearance starts.  If occupied nests are present then work must stop in that area, a suitable (approximately 5m) stand-off maintained, and clearance can only recommence once the nest becomes unoccupied of its own accord.  Replacement nesting features will be incorporated in to the new development site.

5.4 Reptiles  Due to the removal of potentially suitable reptile habitat prior to the phase one survey, the following measures aim to create suitable reptile habitat as compensation.  Free entry at ground level will be ensured by the use of fences with gaps and not walls.  Shading created by the boundary tree habitat will be reduced by pruning (not removal).  A 1m buffer of grassland at the edge of the site will be allowed to grow unmanaged to offer compensatory edge cover for reptiles.  Log piles, rockeries or banks with crevices will be constructed in south-facing areas, in close proximity to denser vegetation.

6.0 Enhancements.

In accordance with Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and paragraph 109 and 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework a number of measures will be implemented to enhance the biodiversity on site. These will include

6.1 Bats  A Schwegler 1FF bat box and a Vincent Pro bat box (appendix 5) will be installed on trees of a suitable height, position with accessible flight access on site.  1WI Schwegler Summer and Winter Bat Box (appendix 5) will be installed on the western elevation of the proposed dwelling.  A Schwegler 1FR Bat Tube or similar will be installed on the eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling.

6.2 Birds  Two pairs of house martin nest cups will be put up under the west eaves (see appendix

6) of the new dwelling.

 Two triple swift boxes or swift bricks (see appendix 6) will be fitted under the eaves of

the north facing wall of the new dwelling.  Three bird boxes of three different designs (see appendix 6) will be installed in suitable locations on trees on site.

6.3 Insects.  Three insect towers/boxes of three different designs (see appendix 7) will be installed in suitable locations on trees on site.  Two bee bricks will be built into the house and garage walls in a sunny position (see appendix 7).

A compliance check will be made by an ecologist will inform the planning officer that the enhancements measures have been implemented.

7.0 Limitations of the survey.

 A survey of this type only provides a snapshot of what was found at the time of the survey and it is sometimes necessary to carry out a number of surveys to show the presence or absence of protected species.  Due to the recently cleared habitat the previous potential for protected species could not be fully assessed.  In the event that a protected species is found during construction then work must stop and David Leach Ecology Ltd. or Natural England should be contacted for advice on how to proceed.  This survey can be considered valid for one year from the date of the survey unless there are changes to the condition of the site.

Appendices

Appendix 1) Legislation

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way (CroW) Act 2000, all bats have legal protection. In addition any structure which shows signs of use by bats either currently or in the past, for shelter or protection, is classed as a bat roost and both the roost and any bats using it are protected by law which makes it an offence to:

 Intentionally or recklessly kill or injure or take any bat.  Intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy any bat roost and to obstruct access to that roost.  Intentionally or recklessly to disturb any bat using a structure as a roost. Protection is also afforded to bats under the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (the Habitats Regulations) Amended 2007 Annex IV lists all bats Regulation 39 makes it an offence to:  Deliberately kill or capture a bat.  Deliberately disturb a bat.  Damage or destroy a resting place or breeding site of any bat. If any proposed development would result in the otherwise illegal acts above, a licence must be obtained from Natural England prior to any work being carried out. A licence will only be granted if there is no satisfactory alternative and the authorised action will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) also protects all reptiles from killing, injury and sale.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) makes it an offence to damage or destroy the nests of birds of breeding birds (with the exception of certain pest species). The bird nesting season is generally defined as being between mid-February and August inclusive although nesting outside of the period is not unusual if conditions are favorable.

Appendix 2) References

 ARG UK 2010. ARG UK Advice Note 5: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index. Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United Kingdom.

 Collins, J. (Ed.) 2016. Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists - Good Practice Guidelines: 3rd edition. Bat Conservation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

 English Nature 2001. Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. Natural England, Peterborough.

 English Nature 2004. Bat Mitigation Guidelines.

 Froglife Advice sheet 10 (1999) Reptile survey

 IEEM 1995. Institute of Environmental Assessment: Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. E & FN Spon, London.

 IEEM 2006. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006), Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management [online]. Available: http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html [accessed February 2011]

 JNCC 2004. Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Mammals. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

 JNCC 2007. Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A technique for environmental audit. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

 Mitchell-Jones A. J. & McLeish, 2004. Bat Workers’ Manual. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

 Natural England and Countryside Council for Wales, 2007. Disturbance and protected species: understanding and applying the law in England and Wales. – A view from Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales. United Kingdom

 Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S. & Jeffcote M., 2000. Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10(4), 143-155.

 Strachan, R., 1998. Water Vole Conservation Handbook. University of Oxford, Oxford.

 Stebbings R.E., 1986. Which bat is it? The Mammal Society and The Vincent Wildlife Trust, London.

Appendix 3) Location of Site

Fig. 1: Location of site.

Fig. 2: Location of site, outlined in red.

Fig. 3: Aerial image of site 2014/15.

Appendix 4) Photographs

Fig. 4: Entrance looking north towards burn out house.

Fig. 5: Front (southern) elevation of house.

Fig. 6: South eastern corner of house.

Fig. 7: Chimney stack within the house on eastern Fig. 8: Chimney stack within the house, western elevation. elevation.

Fig. 9: Interior of the house.

Fig. 10: Interior of the house, chimney stack on western elevation.

Fig. 11: Looking south out of entrance to site, on to Salisbury Road.

Fig. 12: Eastern view from entrance. Remaining Salix sp. and hazel tree on adjacent site can be seen as well and road side hedge to the left.

Fig. 13: Looking south west towards house.

Fig. 14: Rear (northern) view of house.

Fig. 15: South east view taken from north western corner of site. Remaining Salix sp. and hazel tree on adjacent site can be seen.

Fig. 16: Western boundary hedgerow adjacent to house.

Fig. 17: View east taken from north western corner of site.

Fig. 18: Wider plot, view east.

Fig. 19: View west taken from wider plot.

Fig. 20: View of west chimney taken from MEP (10th April 2019). 27

Fig. 21: View of west chimney taken from MEP (10th April 2019).

Fig. 22. View of east chimney taken from MEP (10th April 2019).

Fig. 23. View of east chimney interior taken from MEP (10th April 2019).

Fig. 24. View of east chimney interior taken from MEP (10th April 2019).

Fig. 25. View to the north of the house looking along trees at the north perimeter to the west perimeter (27th March 2019).

Fig. 26. View from the south east corner of the plot looking to north west corner of the splot (27th March 2019). 30

Appendix 5) Proposed site plan

Appendix 6 Proposed elevations showing enhancement features.

1WI Schwegler Summer and Winter Bat Box

Schwegler 1FR Bat Tube (or Forticrete bat brick)

Two pairs of house martin nest cups

Two triple swift boxes

Bee Bricks

Appendix 7 Bat boxes.

Bat boxes to be incorporated into the design of the proposed new residential dwellings and / or the surroundings.

The links below offer further information, details and examples: http://www.bats.org.uk/publications_detail.php/1318/bat_box_information_pack http://www.habibat.co.uk/about-habibat https://www.nhbs.com/equipment/bat-boxes

EXAMPLES OF BAT BOXES

The Schwegler 1FF bat box is spacious enough for bats to use as a summer roost or nursery site and is open at the bottom, allowing droppings to fall out so it does not need cleaning. The 1FF is, therefore, especially suitable for hanging in inaccessible places such as high in trees, or on steep slopes and house walls. The 1FF is manufactured from long-lasting Woodcrete, which is a blend of wood, concrete and clay which will not rot, leak, crack or warp, and will last for at least 20 - 25 years, making it suitable for long-term mitigation projects. Woodcrete is breathable and maintains a stable temperature inside the box and the 1FF is painted black to absorb warmth. It also provides a good rough surface for bats to cling on to and climb.To compensate for fluctuations in temperature in spring and autumn, the 1FF is provided with a roughened rear panel made of hard-wearing wood. Depending on their individual temperature requirements, the bats can choose between the cooler Woodcrete surface or the warmer wooden panel.

The inner dimensions of the 1FF have a reducing width making it ideal for bat species which inhabit crevices such as pipistrelle and noctule bats. The 1FF bat box can be sited in trees or on buildings and is best positioned at a height of between 4 to 6 metres. Please note that once Fig. 20: Schwegler 1FF bat box. bats have inhabited a roost or nursery site they may only be disturbed by licensed bat workers. Schwegler bat and bird boxes are backed by conservation organisations, government agencies and forestry experts and have the highest occupation rates of all nest boxes. They are carefully designed to mimic natural nest and roost sites and to provide a stable environment.

For more info: https://www.nhbs.com/1ff-schwegler-bat-box-with-built-in- wooden-rear-panel

Vincent Pro Bat Box The box features three vertical chambers of different sizes, providing ideal roosting space for a variety of species. Beneath the crevice entrances is a ladder which provides a rough surface for bats to land. Limited cleaning is required for these boxes as the droppings will fall out of the bottom of the chambers. Manufactured from FSC timber with a recycled plastic top. The front and top of the box are black which helps the box to absorb heat. Proven with seven UK species: Barbastelle, Leisler's, common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared, Natterer's and whiskered bat.

* Height: 720mm * Width: 180mm * Depth: 235mm * Weight: 4.1kg

Fig. 21: Vincent Pro Bat Box

Schwegler 1FR Bat Tube - This long box can be installed within brick masonry, beneath plasterwork or wood paneling, or incorporated into concrete structures such as factory buildings or bridges. Inside it contains a woodcrete surface, a roughened wood board, and a metal mesh, providing a choice of roosting areas depending on the weather conditions and the bats' habits. This box is maintenance-free as the entrance slit is at the bottom, allowing for self-cleaning. No painting required, but if painting is necessary a natural breathable paint should be used Woodcrete (75% wood sawdust, concrete and clay

mixture) Fig. 22: Schwegler 1FR Bat Tube Width 20cm, Height 47.5cm, Depth 12.5cm Entrance width 15cm, Entrance depth 2cm

1WI Schwegler Summer and Winter Bat Box The Schwegler 1WI Summer and Winter Bat Box is designed for year-round occupation. This means that it is suitable for both the safe hibernation of bats in winter, as well as for roosting, forming of colonies and raising of young during the summer. This box is manufactured with woodcrete together with a special insulating material. Along with the cavity wall design, this results in excellent thermal insulation but with no loss of air permeability. The insulation also prevents the interior from overheating in the summer or if it is placed in a very exposed site.

Suitable for bat species which typically inhabit buildings, such as common pipistrelles, serotine bats and occasionally noctule or Bechstein’s bats.

The 1WI is designed to be set into an external wall or incorporated into the masonry and then rendered flush with the surface so that only the entrance is visible. This box does not require any maintenance as the droppings fall out of the entrance.

* Height: 54.5cm * Width: 34.5cm * Depth: 9.5cm * Weight: 15kg

Fig. 23: 1WI Schwegler Summer and Winter Bat Box

Appendix 8) Bird Boxes

Bat boxes can be purchased and incorporated into the design of the proposed new residential dwelling and / or the surrounding area.

It is increasingly difficult for Swallows and House Martins to find suitable nest-building and mud they do find, if any, is often poor quality. In addition, the walls of buildings are nowadays often very smooth, so as a result, nests tend to fall down, sometimes with the nestlings inside. In many places, the vibration caused by heavy vehicles shakes the nests loose. Easily fixed under the eaves on the outside walls of Fig. 24: No. 9 Schwegler House Martin Terrace buildings, these nest boxes are perfect for house martins to return to year after year. The bowl-shaped nest is made of air-permeable wood-concrete and a backing board made of exterior grade, formaldehyde- free chipboard to prevent warping.

Double nest: House martins are very sociable and will more readily use nests that are arranged in pairs. They can also be installed in groups to form large colonies. The backing board may be painted to match the building. Siting: Under eaves on the externals walls of buildings. Install on the sheltered side of the building at a minimum height of 2m above the ground. These nests can be used for years without cleaning. However, if possible it is recommended to inspect them frequently and to clean them when necessary.

Swifts spend just four months in Europe over the summer and during this time they use urban areas around our homes and buildings to provide nesting sites. Renovation and rebuilding of older houses means that many of these preferred spaces, such as under roofs, attics or tiles, are often blocked so that they cannot find sufficient nest sites. These Swift Nest Boxes from Schwegler can help this species by providing valuable nesting locations and the installation of several units is an ideal way to support a swift colony. These boxes have been used across Europe with great success for many decades. The Swift Box No. 17A is made from a special mixture of compressed plant fibres and concrete which enables it to provide good insulation and an extremely long life. This is an Fig. 25: No. 17A Schwegler Swift Nest extended version of the No. 17 Standard Swift Box and can accommodate three pairs of swifts in parallel. This assists in the rapid formation of swift colonies. The box is supplied in a Box Nest Box (Triple Cavity) natural grey colour but can be painted to match the background using an air-permeable paint.

This box should be installed at least six to seven metres above the ground, ensuring that there is unobstructed access for birds entering and leaving. If possible, boxes should be sites under the shelter of eaves or overhanging roofs. They can also be installed on steep rock faces. 36

The Schwegler 3S Starling nest box has become established as

the standard design both in the UK and Europe. Not only will the 3S nest box attract starlings, it is just as likely to provide overnight shelter for great spotted, middle spotted and lesser spotted woodpeckers. When there are fewer starlings, other species such as pied flycatchers and nuthatches may breed in these boxes. Because of the relatively large entrance hole (45mm diameter), the interior is well lit which encourages occupation. The large diameter nesting chamber (140mm) also helps to encourage occupation.

Fig. 26: B3S Schwegler Starling Nest Box

Treecreepers like to nest in narrow gaps or clefts such as behind the bark in mature trees. Many woodlands and gardens do not possess suitable habitats such as these due to changes in woodland management, so the addition of a specialist nest box such as this Treecreeper FSC Nest Box provides an excellent alternative.

The box is manufactured from FSC certified wood and has a hinged lid for inspection or cleaning. The shape of the box is specially designed to be suitable for this particular bird, fitting snugly against a tree trunk with an entrance right next to the bark.

Fig. 27: Treecreeper FSC Nest Box

This traditional design has proved to be highly effective in attracting robins, as well as other small species such as black redstart, spotted flycatcher and wren. It is designed to be installed on the walls of houses, barns, garden sheds or other buildings and should be hung so that the entrance is to one side (at an angle of 90° to the wall). The front panel can be easily removed for cleaning.

Please do not hang this type of box on a conspicuous tree or bush because small predators can enter through the unprotected opening. By hanging on a wall, predators won't be able to reach the box. Alternatively hide the box in ivy, honeysuckle or other climbing plants.

Fig. 28: 2H Schwegler Robin Box

Appendix 9) Insect boxes

The Bee and Bug Biome will provide valuable habitat in your garden for solitary bees and other insects. At a time when many of our native insects are struggling, this is a fantastic way to give them a helping hand. The top chamber features seven wooden nesting tubes in a wooden block, together with bamboo tubes of various sizes. A centre feeding hole is perfect for attracting ladybirds, earwigs and lacewings. The lower chamber is filled with pine cones which provide plenty of nooks and crannies for insects such as lacewings. These little creatures, as natural predators of aphids, are great friends of the gardener! Removing the wooden retainer dowel allows you to replace the pine cones with alternative natural materials, such as straw or bark, which will provide an excellent winter habitat for lacewings, ladybirds, woodlice, earwigs and many other bugs. The Bug and Bee Biome can be painted with a water- based exterior paint. (An annual coat of paint will both keep it looking its best and prolong its life)

Fig. 29: Bee and Bug Biome

This unique solitary beehive is manufactured from durable FSC timber and provides valuable habitat for bees in modern gardens. Designed specifically to attract non-swarming bees like the Red Mason Bee, Leafcutter Bee and other solitary bees which are naturally attracted to holes in wood. Fascinating and great for education, the beehive can be easily dismantled to see the formation of small cells where the eggs are laid, or indeed where predators have been active. Always a friend to the gardener, attracting solitary bees to the garden is not only safe,

but beneficial to pollination of flowers, fruit Fig. 30: Solitary Beehive and vegetables. Siting: Site in a visible warm place ideally oriented to face between southeast and south and to catch some sun. It is helpful to have soil nearby, and food sources such as flowers, orchards and fruit.

Nb. Solitary bees will often roost in this product during periods of cold weather and overnight. The product should not be dismantled at these times.

The Insect Tower will provide valuable habitat in your garden for solitary bees and other insects. The different sections of the Insect Tower have been designed to provide a habitat for a variety of insect species. The nesting tubes are ideal for solitary bees to build their nests in, the vertical slots are designed to encourage butterflies, other refuge holes are perfect for ladybirds and lacewings and the pine cones offer an excellent habitat for a range of other species.

Fig. 31: Insect Tower

Fig. 32: Bee Brick

David Leach BSc (Hons) CBiol. MSB MCIEEM. David is a professional ecologist with over forty years’ research and fieldwork experience in many aspects of ecology and for the past nine years in environmental consultancy work.

David is an experienced bat surveyor with competency in activity surveys, bat roost assessments, daytime surveys for bat field signs, assessments of trees as potential bat roosts and the production of reports providing advice on best practice, mitigation and compensation works relating to bats as may be required. He holds a Natural England licence to disturb bats for the purposes of science and education or conservation and is also a Registered Consultant for the Bat Low Impact Class Licence. Registered Consultants are now able to apply to register individual sites to undertake licensable activities under this licence. David has been involved in obtaining over 70 Protected Species Licences to permit development works affecting bats and also badgers.

David also has experience in surveying for birds, reptiles, great crested newts, barn owls and badgers and also carries out extended Phase 1 habitat surveys, BREEAM and Code for Sustainable Homes assessments.

David Leach BSc. (Hons), C.Biol., M.R.S.B., M.C.I.E.E.M.

Disclaimer.

All reasonable effort has been made to provide accurate information at the time of the survey. However weather conditions and the timing of surveys can affect the results. Some species or signs of that species will only be visible at certain times of the year e.g. the nesting season for birds is usually between March and September. The absence of certain species or signs of use at the time of a survey does not mean that they are not present at other times of the year and does not imply that a species might not use the site at some time in the future.

Phone: 01929 462179 Mobile: 0775 6855212 E-mail: [email protected]