Back Dane, Danebridge Ecology Survey Report

December 2015

ii

Document data

Client Beasley Back Dane Trust

Reference 770 Danebridg ecology survey

Report title Ecology Survey Report

File reference 770 Back Dane, Danebridge, Ecology Survey Report

Team leader Jake Robinson

Contact details [email protected]

Issue date December 2015

Revision tracking

Name Position Date

Author Jake Robinson Ecologist December 22 2015

Reviewed Andrew Baker Managing Director December 22 2015

Baker Consultants Ltd. Cromford Station Cromford Bridge Matlock Derbyshire DE4 5JJ [email protected] http://www.bakerconsultants.co.uk 01629 593958 Company No. 6702156

© Baker Consultants 2015

Disclosure and Limitation: Baker Consultants has prepared this document for the sole use of the commissioning client in accordance with the agreed scope of works and Terms and Conditions under which our services were performed. The evidence and opinion provided is true and has been prepared in accordance with the guidance of our professional institution’s Code of Professional Conduct. No other warranty is made as to the professional advice included in this document or any other services provided by us. This document may not be relied upon by any third party without the prior and express written agreement of Baker Consultants.

Unless otherwise stated in this document, the assessments made assume that the site referred to will continue to be used for its current purpose without significant change. The assessment, recommendations and conclusions contained in this document may be based upon information provided by third parties and upon the assumption that the information is relevant, correct and complete. There has been no independent verification of information obtained from third parties, unless otherwise stated in the report.

Where field investigations have been carried out, these have been restricted to the agreed scope of works and carried out to a level of detail required to achieve the stated objectives of the services. Natural habitats and species distributions may change over time and further data should be sought following any significant delay from the publication of this document.

iv Report Contents

1 Key Issues 6

2 Site Description 8

3 Methodology 9

4 Results 11

5 Legislation and Policy 17

6 Assessment and Conclusion 19

7 Recommendations 20

8 References 21

770 Back Dane – Ecology Report

1 Key Issues 1.1 Background 1.1.1 It is understood that the Beasley Back Dane Trust, the owners of Back Dane (the former Swythamley estate farmhouse and attached barn), are seeking planning permission from the Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA) to renovate the attached barn building. The farmhouse is currently being used as a hostel, mainly for young people from the Derby area, and the proposed development will enable significant upgrades to the hostel, and will help to enhance and facilitate the charitable objectives of the trust.

1.1.2 Members of the Beasley Back Dane Trust (BBDT), who have owned the farm for about forty years, have been in discussion with the PDNPA about obtaining planning consent for the work. The PDNPA subsequently requested a bat and ecology survey, which Baker Consultants have provided.

1.1.3 The proposed renovations at Back Dane (herein referred to as ‘the site’) could potentially result in impacts on ecological features at the site and its surroundings. The PDNPA therefore requested an ecological appraisal of the site to inform the planning application. Given that the proposals primarily affect buildings, this ecological appraisal has a primary focus on bats. Incidental observations and recommendations regarding nesting birds are also included, as are general recommendations in relation to the immediate surrounding habitats.

1.1.4 This report describes the survey methods including any limitations, survey results, and an assessment of features of ecological value identified. It then concludes with any pertinent recommendations that will ensure the development complies with current nature conservation policy and legislation. 1.2 Ecological receptors 1.2.1 No evidence of a bat roost was found within the farmhouse, barn or outbuildings within the site. However, the buildings were assessed to offer moderate to high potential to support low-medium numbers of roosting bats in accordance with the Bat Conservation Trust Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition (Hundt, 2012), and the likely absence of a bat roost could not sufficiently be determined by this single daytime survey. Historical evidence (via desk study results) of bat roosts is present in the nearby village of Wincle, but no records exist for the Back Dane site or the immediate vicinity (<500m), including Allgreave and Gibbons Cliff Wood to the north.

1.2.2 Opportunities exist for breeding birds to nest within the buildings; and vacant passerine nests from previous breeding seasons were found in the barn and outbuilding.

6 770 Back Dane - Ecology Report

1.2.3 Reptile and amphibian refugia exist in the immediate vicinity of the buildings, in the form of rubble piles to the north and dry stone walls to the south. However, no historical records exist for these taxa on site, and there is no evidence of suitable breeding waterbodies for great crested newts Triturus cristatus on or within 500m of the site. However, this may be an under-recorded area. 1.3 Conclusions 1.3.1 Although no roosts were discovered during the preliminary survey, the buildings, particularly the barn, do provide suitable roosting habitat for bats. As such, the proposed development has the potential to adversely affect bats should they be occupying the building. Additional surveys are recommended in order to determine presence/absence and to ensure legislative compliance. See Recommendations section for further details. 1.3.2 Should the presence/absence surveys show a negative result from an appropriate survey effort, a Natural England Mitigation Licence will not be required and development may proceed with caution. 1.3.3 A pre-works check for nesting birds within the buildings is recommended immediately prior to any development; and a pre-works check for reptiles/amphibians within the suitable refugia on site is also recommended, should these features be disturbed as part of the development proposals.

7 770 Back Dane – Ecology Report

2 Site Description

2.1.1 The site is approximately ½ mile upstream from Danebridge on the Cheshire/Staffordshire border next to the River Dane, at grid reference GR 971661. The site (shown below in Figure 1 with reference numbers) comprises four buildings:

§ The farmhouse (ref. 1); Henceforth referred as Building 1

§ The attached barn (ref. 2); Henceforth referred as Building 2

§ The attached outbuilding (ref. 3); Henceforth referred as Building 3

§ The detached outbuilding (ref. 4) Henceforth referred as Building 4

2.1.2 However, the main scope of works will predominantly involve the renovation of the barn and attached outbuilding (Building 2 and Building 3).

Figure 1. The site and surrounding habitats. Note building reference numbers 1-4.

3 2 4 1

500m

8 770 Back Dane - Ecology Report

3 Methodology

3.1 Desk Study 3.1.1 In December 2015, a data search was undertaken for records of bats and other protected or notable taxa, within a radius of approximately 1 km of the site. This data was acquired from the local Biological Records Centre serving Cheshire, Halton and Warrington (RECORD LRC), the principal source of biological records for the county. The government’s interactive MAGIC service was also consulted for information on habitats and designated sites in the area.

3.1.2 In addition to this, aerial imagery (Google Earth) and OS maps were also viewed to gain an understanding of the habitat and landscape surrounding the site with regard to bats. 3.2 Field Surveys

Surveyor Qualifications and Experience 3.2.1 Jake M. Robinson BSc (Hons) PgCert ACIEEM, an Ecologist with Baker Consultants and the author of this report, coordinated this project. Jake has been a professional ecologist for nearly five years and has been licensed by Natural England to carry out professional bat surveys for more than three seasons. Jake holds a Natural England Level 1 Class survey licence for bats (CLS02269). Jake also holds Natural England licences for great crested newts and hedgehogs and is an Associate member of the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). Jake undertook the preliminary daytime assessment of the buildings and the immediate surrounding land.

Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment 3.2.2 This daytime survey comprised an inspection of the buildings at Back Dane for evidence of roosting bats, which typically includes faeces, characteristic staining and scratches, or the presence of bat specimens. In addition to this inspection, the surveyor also completed an assessment of each building for its potential to support bat roosts (which remains possible even if no evidence of their presence is identified) in accordance with the BCT (2012) guidance.

3.2.3 The assessment of the potential of a building to support bat roosts is based upon the presence of external or internal features where bats may roost, such as cavities in brickwork and masonry, beneath roof and ridge tiles and along ridgeboards, within and behind soffit boxes, cladding, barge boards and fascias, and in some roof voids.

3.2.4 The preliminary bat roost assessment was undertaken on the morning of 11th December 2015 in mild and bright conditions (12oc, 50% cloud cover).

9 770 Back Dane – Ecology Report

3.2.5 Equipment used by the surveyor to conduct the survey comprised high-powered torches (Lenser P7, and Petzl head torch), close-focusing binoculars, an endoscope, a digital camera, and a Forward Looking Infrared Camera (FLIR) to detect thermal radiation.

Other Protected or Notable Species 3.2.6 During the above preliminary daytime assessment, the ecologist also assessed the site for potential notable habitats, and its potential to support other protected or notable species. Given that the development proposals primarily involve the buildings on site, other species of concern are most likely to be nesting birds or birds protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981.

3.2.7 The ecologist also made an additional search for habitats that have the potential to support other taxa. For example, the land surrounding the building was searched for suitable refugia for reptiles, amphibians and small mammals, and a search for field signs of badgers was also made. In addition to this, the surveyor also noted general habitat classifications. 3.3 Survey Constraints 3.3.1 It is important to note that, even where data is returned for a desk study, a lack of records for a defined geographical area does not necessarily mean that there is a lack of ecological interest, since the area may be simply under-recorded. Equally, due to the level of recording, some species should be considered more frequent than indicated by the records returned in a desk study.

3.3.2 Whilst every effort was made in the field survey to provide a comprehensive description of the site, no investigation can ensure the complete characterisation of the natural environment. Natural and semi-natural habitats are subject to change, species may colonise the site after surveys have taken place and results included in this report may become less reliable over time. It is therefore generally considered best practice to repeat survey work should a period of two survey seasons elapse prior to the commencement of works, in order to ensure robust and up-to-date information about the site is used to accurately inform any assessment or mitigation strategy that may be required.

3.3.3 The ecologist noted no significant constraints during the ecological assessment.

10 770 Back Dane - Ecology Report

4 Results

4.1 Desk Study 4.1.1 The desk study data acquired from RECORD LRC showed no historical records (year 2000+) of bats on the site, and the nearest bat recordings to the site are >500m away.

4.1.2 A number of records exist for common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygameaus, Daubenton’s Myotis daubentonii, and Brandts Myotis brandtii, noctule Nyctalus noctula, and brown long-eared Plecotus auritus. All observations were recorded at locations >500m from the site. No records exist (within 1km radius of the site) for any other resident or non-resident bat species.

4.1.3 Other notable taxa recorded in the area include farmland birds such as the red- listed ‘Birds of Conservation Concern’ lapwing Vanellus vanellus, curlew Numenius arquata, and amber-listed snipe Gallinago gallinago Easton, M.A. et al (2009).

4.1.4 Although records for reptiles and amphibians are not scarce on a regional level, there were no records for these taxa within 500m of the site.

4.1.5 Figure 2 below shows a modified GIS output from the MAGIC website, and includes the locations of notable habitats and species records in the area of the site. A Site of Special Scientific Interest is situated approximately 600m southeast of the site (not shown on Figure 2). This site has been designated for its nationally important lowland heathland habitat. The red ring indicates the Back Dane site.

Figure 2. GIS output from MAGIC. Showing notable habitats and species.

11 770 Back Dane – Ecology Report

Key: Young trees Ancient and semi-natural woodland Farmland birds records (2005-2009)* Farmland birds records (2005-2009)** Lowland dry acid grassland*** Good quality semi-improved grassland

* Snipe Gallinago gallinago, Curlew Numenius arquata, Grey Partridge Perdix perdix, Lapwing Vanellus vanellus

** Curlew, Grey Partridge, Lapwing

*** Higher Level Stewardship

4.1.6 There are some highly valued habitats in the area, such as ancient semi-natural woodland, however these are all >85m from the site. The grassland immediately surrounding the site is not of particular value from the perspective botanical composition, however records suggest that it does support a number of birds of conservation concern. Lowland dry acid grassland exists to the northwest of the site, across the River Dane. 4.2 Field Surveys

Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment 4.2.1 No evidence of a bat roost was identified in any of the four building structures (see Figure 1 for reference numbers) within the survey remit at Back Dane during the preliminary (daytime) bat roost assessment.

4.2.2 However, although no evidence of a bat roost was identified, Building 2 was assessed to offer high potential to support low numbers of roosting bats in accordance with the BCT (2012) guidelines, Buildings 3 and 4 were considered to offer moderate roosting potential, and Building 1 was considered to offer low- moderate potential, as follows:

Building 1. Roosting Potential: Low-Moderate 4.2.3 This large farmhouse provides potential bat roost habitat primarily via a limited number of cavities in the stonework primarily as a result of missing mortar, and limited areas of lifted flashing and tiles, predominantly at the northwest side of the building. Although the main gable wall is relatively well sealed, there are also some small gaps with some limited potential suitability for roosting bats around the apex of the gable end, at the southwest side of the property. Photographs 1 and 2 below show some examples of the potential bat roost habitat on this building.

12 770 Back Dane - Ecology Report

Photograph 1: Examples of cavities in the stonework Photograph 2: Northwest view of the Building 1 of Building 1. The photograph shows where some roof. Although not clearly shown in the photograph, mortar is missing from the end gable wall. a limited number of tiles and flashing are lifted in this area of the building.

4.2.4 An internal examination, including an assessment of the roof space showed low potential for roosting bats in Building 1. The attic was well sealed and there were no obvious entry points. Photograph 3 and 4 show the internal roof space.

Photograph 3: Example of the internal roof space of Photograph 4: Another example of the internal roof Building 1. space.

Building 2. Roosting Potential: High 4.2.5 This barn building is the main feature of the proposed development on this site. The building was assessed as offering high potential to support roosting bats. Due to the nature of their construction and their age/condition, buildings of this type often provide appropriate opportunities and conditions for significant numbers of bats to roost such as in maternity colonies. Furthermore, buildings of this type typically provide numerous cavity or crevice habitats for smaller roosts, and can provide good sheltered foraging habitat.

4.2.6 Although no roosts or signs of bat presence were discovered during the preliminary survey, the potential of the building to support roosting bats is considered to be

13 770 Back Dane – Ecology Report

high due to the number and quality of suitable features available. This barn provides copious opportunities within wall crevices, lintel cracks and gaps in the stonework, and there are a number of entry points into the building. Photographs 5 and 6 show some of these suitable features. There are many opportunities for bat roosts, both internally and externally.

Photograph 5: Example a wooden lintel gap. This Photograph 6: Example of the external brick work – particular lintel is on the inside of the barn. with obvious gaps and suitable roosting features

Building 3. Roosting Potential: Moderate 4.2.7 Similarly to B2 this building also has a high number of suitable features to support roosting bats. These features include cracks and crevices in the stonework and mortar. Despite these features, it has not been given a high suitability status due to its size, exposure to the environment, and high level of use by people Photograph 7 and 8 show suitable features and entry points, but also highlight the size and environmental exposure.

Photograph 7: Building 3 (attached outbuilding). Photograph 8: Another example of Building 3. Showing crevices in the walls – suitable for roosting bats.

14 770 Back Dane - Ecology Report

Building 4. Roosting Potential: Moderate 4.2.8 This detached outbuilding will not be developed as part of the current development proposals, however due to its proximity to the main buildings (<5m), it was considered appropriate to make an assessment of this building in relation to its potential to support roosting bats.

4.2.9 This building is considered to have moderate potential to support roosting bats. Similarly to Building 3, there are numerous gaps and crevices in the stonework and roof, particularly on the north side of the property. The interior of the building is well sealed and humans regularly use the building – it is currently a wood workshop and storeroom. Photographs 9 and 10 show the exterior of the property.

Photograph 9: Building 4 (detached outbuilding). Photograph 10: South view of Building 4. Relatively Showing crevices in the walls – suitable for roosting well sealed. bats.

Other Protected / Notable Species or Habitats 4.2.10 A number of vacant passerine bird nests were discovered within Building 2 and 3. The nests in Building 3 are understood to belong to swallows Hirundo rustica, and a jackdaw Coloeus monedula and small passerine nests were present in the barn (Building 3). Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that birds regularly use Building 3 during the breeding season. The barn building has the potential to support barn owls Tyto alba, however no evidence of their presence was noted by the surveyor.

4.2.11 Some suitable refugia, which have the potential to support reptiles, amphibians and small mammals, were located around the buildings in the yard/garden. These include large dry stone rubble piles, and dry stone walls.

4.2.12 The rubble piles are situated towards the northwest and to the rear of the main property, and within a small and disused toilet block in the garden area. The dry stone wall is located at the front of the property and runs from northeast to southwest. Photographs 11 and 12 show the rubble features, which have the potential to provide suitable refugia for a range of species.

15 770 Back Dane – Ecology Report

Photograph 11: Rubble pile at the rear of the Photograph 12: Rubble pile in the disused toilet property. block.

4.2.13 There was no evidence of any other protected species within the four buildings on the site, and no other field signs were discovered within the habitats in the immediate vicinity of the buildings.

16 770 Back Dane - Ecology Report

5 Legislation and Policy

General 5.1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is intended to help deliver sustainable development, with environmental issues being one of the three dimensions within this. It includes a range of statements and policies relating to biodiversity and nature conservation, with the aim of ‘moving from a net loss of biodiversity to achieving net gains for nature’ (Paragraph 9). Key sections of the NPPF are highlighted below:

Paragraph 109 ‘The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by --- minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’ commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity’ Paragraph 118 Local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity when determining planning applications by ensuring that: significant harm is avoided, mitigated or compensated (especially for irreplaceable habitats); impacts on designated sites are prevented; and, biodiversity is incorporated in and around developments. Paragraph 165 To allow the appropriate consideration of ecological issues within applications, planning decisions, ‘should be based on up-to-date information about the natural environment – this should include an assessment of existing and potential components of ecological networks’.

5.1.2 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 places a duty on every public authority to have regard to conserving biodiversity. Section 41 of the same Act requires that the Secretary of State must publish a list of the living organisms and types of habitats that are of ‘Principal Importance’ for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. The Secretary of State must take steps, as appear reasonably practicable, to further the conservation of those living organisms and habitats in any list published under this section.

5.1.3 The list of species and habitats of principal importance currently includes 943 species and 56 habitats, and includes seven bat species. These bat species are those listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, of which three are widespread in the Cheshire/Staffordshire regions: noctule, soprano pipistrelle, and the brown long- eared bat.

Bats 5.1.4 Bats and their roosts and habitats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) as European Protected Species (EPS). This legislation ultimately makes it a prosecutable offence with strict liability to:

a) Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat;

17 770 Back Dane – Ecology Report

b) Deliberately disturb any bat, in particular any disturbance which is likely to (i) impair their ability to survive, breed, reproduce or to rear or nurture their young; or in the case of hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or (ii) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong;

c) To be in possession or control of any live or dead bat or any part of, or anything derived from a bat;

d) Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a bat;

e) Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any place that bat uses for shelter or protection; and intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection.

5.1.5 A bat roost may be any structure a bat uses for breeding, resting, shelter or protection. It is important to note that since bats tend to re-use the same roost sites, a bat roost is protected whether or not the bats are present. Where development will result in damage to, or obstruct access to, any bat roost (whether occupied or not) or risks harming or significantly disturbing bats, an EPS mitigation / development licence is first required from Natural England, the regulatory body responsible for protected species in England, to allow the development to proceed.

Birds 5.1.6 All breeding wild birds, their nests and their eggs are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) against damage and destruction during the breeding season. The breeding season is generally considered to be March to August inclusive, although this may vary by species, geographic location, and prevailing climatic conditions. The nest sites of some wild birds, such as barn owl, are also afforded additional protection under Schedule 1, Part 1 of this legislation in that intentional or reckless disturbance of the nest or dependent young, or of the adult whilst building in or near a nest containing eggs or young, is illegal.

Amphibians and Reptiles

5.1.7 Amphibians and their habitats in water and on land have partial protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the CRoW Act 2000). Full protection is given to the great crested newt, which is also protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

5.1.8 All British reptiles are awarded some degree of protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Grass snake, slowworm, common lizard and adder are protected against intentional killing or injury and against sale. In addition, all British reptiles are UK Biodiversity Action Plan species and are listed as Species of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006.

18 770 Back Dane - Ecology Report

6 Assessment and Conclusion

6.1 Bats 6.1.1 Although no bat roosts or field signs for bats were discovered during the preliminary daytime survey, all of the buildings on site (Figure 1 reference 1-4) have varying degrees of potential to support roosting bats.

6.1.2 The only buildings to be developed as part of the current proposals are Buildings 2 and 3 - the barn and attached outbuilding, respectively. However, considering the close proximity of buildings 1 and 4 to the area of proposed development, it is possible that these buildings will also be affected by the development, particularly during the construction phase; and potential impacts may include vibration, noise and light disturbance.

6.1.3 Given the high roosting-potential of Building 2 and moderate potential of the other buildings, there is a high risk of the development having a significant impact upon bats, should they be occupying the buildings.

6.1.4 If appropriate surveys are carried out to determine the presence/absence of bats within the buildings, and the evidence shows that bats do indeed inhabit the structure, then a Natural England (NE) EPS Mitigation Licence will need to be acquired prior to any development. If, on the other hand, evidence shows that bats do not occupy the buildings, then the development may proceed with caution, without the requirement of a NE licence. See Recommendations for further details. 6.2 Birds 6.2.1 Due to the known presence of passerine nests within the buildings, the proposed development is likely to affect breeding birds nesting within the property during the breeding season (March-August inclusive). See recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures. 6.3 Other notable taxa 6.3.1 As previously mentioned, the rubble piles and dry stone walls on the site may provide suitable features for reptiles, amphibians and small mammals. Should these features be disturbed during the proposed development then it is possible that any species, potentially inhabiting these features, will be negatively affected by the disturbance.

6.3.2 Precautionary mitigation can prevent or reduce the likelihood of significant disturbance. See Recommendations for further details.

19 770 Back Dane – Ecology Report

7 Recommendations

7.1 Further Surveys 7.1.1 In order to give confidence in a negative survey result, and in accordance with the BCT Good Practice Guidelines (2012), it is recommended that, given the nature of the building, three dusk emergence and/or pre-dawn re-entry surveys be carried out on the buildings between April and September (with at least two surveys between mid-May and August). This recommendation will ensure that a negative result can be relied upon and that Natural England Mitigation Licence will not be required.

7.1.2 If the works are to be carried out between September and February inclusive, no further mitigation is required. If there is any delay and works must take place between March and August inclusive, it is recommended that a pre-works check be conducted immediately prior to any renovation or demolition commencing, in order to ensure that there are no active bird nests present. If active nests are present, works should not commence or should cease in that area until the nest is no longer in use. It is recommended that a suitably qualified ecologist carry out this check.

7.1.3 Should the rubble piles or dry stone walls be affected as part of this or future development, then it is recommended that a pre-works check be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist (SQE). This will ensure that any protected species potentially inhabiting the refugia, are safely removed and translocated prior to the development.

7.1.4 Note that it is considered best practice to repeat survey work should a period of two survey seasons elapse prior to the commencement of works, in order to ensure robust and up-to-date information about the site is used to accurately inform any assessment or mitigation strategy.

7.1.5 The potential for the site to support bats should not be considered a barrier to the progression of a planning application or the grant of permission. If a bat roost is found during further surveys then there is the opportunity for appropriate mitigation to be put in place and, based on our extensive professional experience, we consider it is highly likely that Natural England would grant a European Protected Species license to allow derogation from the protection afforded the these species.

20 770 Back Dane - Ecology Report

Recommendations Summary Survey Reason Timing

Three dusk emergence and/or To determine Between April-September (at least dawn re-entry bat surveys presence/absence/impact 2 between mid-May and August)

Pre-works bird/nest check To determine Immediately prior to development presence/absence/impact (within breeding season)

Pre-works refugia check (for To determine Immediately prior to development reptiles/amphibians/small presence/absence/impact (can be combined with bird/nest mammals) check) Repeat surveys Best practice Should two seasons elapse prior to works

8 References

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

Easton, M.A. et al (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3: The population status of birds in the united Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102, pp296-341

21 770 Back Dane – Ecology Report

22 770 Back Dane - Ecology Report

1