Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

“Field House Farm” Road, Stoke-on-Trent. ST11 9DL (NGR: SJ967424)

February 2017

Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

Notice to readers This report has been prepared by Charnia Ecology with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the contract with the client. The actions of the surveyor on site and during the production of the report were undertaken in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct for the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (www.ieem.org.uk).

No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Charnia Ecology.

Client details: Mr Simon Edwards

Application area: Field House Farm, Dilhorne Road, Stoke-on-Trent.

Postcode / OS grid ref: ST11 9DL (NGR: SJ967424)

Issue No: Final issue (1) Date issued: February 2017

Report written by: Mark Weston BSc (Hons), GradCIEEM, AMRSB

Principal Ecologist

Surveyor capability Ecological assessment and report preparation has been conducted by a Natural England licensed bat Ecologist (CLS00836 – Level 2) and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM), and an associate member of the Royal Society of Biology (AMRSB). The ecologist has a First Class Honours degree in Conservation Biology, and Vice Chancellors award for academic excellence. He has undertaken protected species surveys for over seven years, and is actively involved in scoping, presence/absence surveys and Natural England EPS licence applications with regard to planning and the law. The actions of the surveyor on site and during the production of written reports are undertaken in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct for the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM).

2 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY  Report rationale 1. Charnia Ecology was commissioned to undertake a Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) on behalf of the applicant Mr. Simon Edwards of Field House Farm, Dilhorne Road, Stoke-on-Trent ST11 9DL (NGR: SJ993424).

2. The objective of the report is to identify the presence of protected bat and bird species within the proposed application area, and to recommend any further actions/mitigation measures required as a result of the survey findings. The survey was conducted on the 1st February 2017 by a Natural England [class 2] licensed bat ecologist and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental

Management (CIEEM).

 Proposed works 3. It is understood that the proposed planning application considers the conversion of the main barn building into a dwelling which is attached to the existing farmhouse building. The site currently provides residential care and accommodation for vulnerable adults integrating back into the community.

 Site description 4. Field House Farm is situated in Green belt on Dilhorne Road between Forsbrook and Dilhorne. The site comprises of a Grade II listed Farmhouse with associated farm buildings, hard standing and gardens. In context to the wider landscape, the application area is surrounded by open agricultural farmland, gently undulating hills, hedgerows, and intermittent blocks of ancient woodland.

5. The building inspection considered both the structure proposed for redevelopment (B2) whilst also assessing associated structures considered to be within the Zone of Influence (Farmhouse B1 and Farm building B3).

st 6. Evidence of roosting bats, by way of droppings and possible feeding remains, were recorded in the 1 floor area of B2; whilst droppings were also recorded in the roof void of the attached Farm house B1, although exact status is not clear.

7. Evidence of a small colony of nesting Barn swallow was recorded in the ground-floor area of B2. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded.

 Survey constraints 8. There were no survey constraints encountered during the building inspection, although some of the floor area in B2 were considered as being unstable.

 Impact assessment BATS BIRDS BARN OWL Main structure proposed for development B2 Building HIGH HIGH LOW Associated structures within the Zone of Influence B1 Farmhouse HIGH LOW NEGLIGIBLE B3 Building LOW TO MODERATE NEGLIGIBLE MODERATE

3 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

9. At this juncture, it is speculated that two species of bat may be roosting onsite. Common pipistrelle is considered to be most likely species to utilize the dimensions of the roof void in B1, whilst the voluminous roof void area inside B2 provides excellent potential for void dwelling Brown Long-eared bat.

 Designated sites 10. As the proposed development retains the existing size and physical form of the existing building (s) footprint (with no additional land up-take considered), NO impact on any designated sites in the surrounding landscape is predicted.

 Recommendations Bats 11. As both building B1 (proposed for conversion) and the attached Farmhouse (within the zone of influence) found evidence of roosting bats, it is recommended that additional Phase 2 survey activity surveys are required to establish exact roost status and foraging and commuting habitat onsite. These should include a minimum of 2 x emergence and 1 x re-entry surveys, which should be carried out between May and September.

12. The findings from the Phase 2 survey report will then determine the appropriate level of mitigation, and whether or not a Natural England License will be required in compliance to current conservation legislation and planning policy guidelines.

13. It is understood that the client wishes to commence with remedial re-pointing structural repair works, whilst the planning application is under consideration. Should this be the case, then any re-pointing of brickwork should be carried out at ground-floor level only. NO re-pointing should be undertaken to any external brick-work >3.5m in elevation, until Phase 2 activity surveys have been completed.

Birds 14. All birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Mitigation should therefore give consideration to a small colony of nesting Barn Swallow in the ground-floor area of building B1.

It is understood that the client wishes to commence with remedial repair works within this ground-floor area, whilst the main planning application is under consideration. It is therefore recommended that all doors, windows and ingression points are sealed off in-order to exclude Barn Swallow from this building before summer uptake and re-instated in B3 (see recommendations). No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and NO further recommendations are considered with regard to this species.

4 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

Contents

 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

1. Introduction . Site description . Proposed works . Aims of survey

2. Survey methodology . Summary of survey methods . Pre-survey data search . Surveyor information . Field surveys . Habitat survey . Roost survey

3. Results . Pre-survey data search . Designated sites . Protected species . Field surveys . Habitat description . Roost survey

4. Impact assessment . Constraints on survey information . Constraints on equipment used . Potential impacts of development . Designated sites . Roosts . Foraging and commuting habitat . Legislation and Policy guidance

5. Recommendations . Further survey . Mitigation measures . Mitigation license . Preliminary mitigation outline recommendations

6. References 7. Appendices Conditions and Disclaimers

5 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

1. INTRODUCTION

1. Charnia Ecology was commissioned to undertake a Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) on behalf of the applicant Mr. Simon Edwards of Field House Farm, Dilhorne Road, Stoke-on-Trent ST11 9DL (NGR: SJ993424).

2. The objective of the report is to identify the presence of protected bat and bird species within the proposed application area, and to recommend any further actions/mitigation measures required as a result of the survey findings. The survey was conducted on the 1st February 2017 by a Natural England [class 2] licensed bat ecologist and member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM).

Figure 1. Location of proposed development area (red) in context to the wider landscape (source:0S Maps)

 SITE DESCRIPTION

3. Field House Farm is situated in Green belt on Dilhorne Road between Forsbrook and Dilhorne. The site comprises of a Grade II listed Farmhouse with associated farm buildings, hard standing and gardens. In context to the wider landscape, the application area is surrounded by open agricultural farmland, gently undulating hills, hedgerows, and intermittent blocks of ancient woodland.

 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

4. It is understood that the proposed planning application considers the conversion of the main barn building into a dwelling which is attached to the existing farmhouse building. The site currently provides residential care and accommodation for vulnerable adults integrating back into the community.

6 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

Figure 2. Building proposed for removal (red) in relation to other buildings and boundary onsite. (source:0S Maps)

 AIMS OF SURVEY

5. A Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) generally serves to provide initial advice at the pre-acquisition stage, with regards to any potential ecological impacts through development regarding protected bat and bird species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and/or the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (2); including species listed in the UK and local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). Assessment was undertaken in accordance to the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Code of Professional Conduct (www.ieem.org.uk).

6. The aims of the survey is as follows:  Probability of bats and their roost sites being present at the proposed development site i.e. buildings and trees;  To assess the roost status should bats be present;  To assess potential commuting and foraging habit that may be subject to impact from the proposed development  To provide an overall impact assessment in the absence of mitigation

7. The scope of this appraisal has been determined in line with the proportional approach to ecological survey, assessment and subsequent recommendations for avoidance and mitigation of impacts, which is encouraged in the emerging ‘BS 42020: Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development’. This report has been prepared with due consideration for various best practice guidance and methodologies including those of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM (2012)1, the emerging BS 42020 and BCT Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn) 2016.

8. Unless the client indicates to the contrary, information about the species found to be present on the site will be passed to the county biological records centre to update records held for the area. As defined in Planning Policy Statement 9 (ODPM, 2005) (now superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework - NPPF 2012), Biodiversity and Geological Conservation sites of biodiversity conservation value and protected species are material considerations in the planning process.

7 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

9. All species of bat are listed in Schedule 5 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and as such receive protection under Section 9 of this Act (See Appendix for a full index of legislation policy guidelines).

 LEGISLATION AND POLICY GUIDANCE 10. In Britain all bat species and their roosts are legally protected, by both domestic and international legislation (See Appendix 5) .This means a criminal offence will be committed if you:

 Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat;  Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats;  Damage or destroy a bat roosting place (even if bats are not occupying the roost at the time);  Possess or advertise/sell/exchange a bat (dead or alive) or any part of a bat;  Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a bat roost.

11. A bat roost is interpreted as ‘any structure or place, which any wild bat uses for shelter or protection’ (i.e. buildings, trees, bridges, tunnels etc.). Bats tend to show a high fidelity to roosts; subsequently, legal opinion regards a roost to be protected whether or not the bats are present at the time. There are many types of roost used by temperate bats during their annual cycle:

12. Any structures found having evidence of bats will be further evaluated to assess which of the following roost categories may be present onsite (if any):

Roost category Description Summer Maternity / nursery roost Used by breeding bats, where pups are born and raised to independence (Anecdotal evidence may support this prospect despite sub optimal survey period). Hibernation site Where bats may be found during over-wintering. Daytime Summer roost Used by males and/or non-reproductive females (seasonal limitations can prevent robust assessment of this roost status). Night roost Where bats rest between feeding bouts during the night but are rarely present during the day. Feeding roost Where bats temporarily utilize feeding perches and stations to eat an item of prey. Transitional (or swarming) site Where bats may be present during the spring or autumn

Table 1. Bat roost status definitions.

13. The survey protocol also considers all common wild birds that are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended). This protection extends to bird nests during the breeding season, which makes it an offence to damage or destroy nests or eggs.

 Establish if birds are using the site;  Locate nest sites, if present;  Assess what types of activities were shown with the proposed application area;  Assess suitable food resources and habitat requirements;  Provide an impact assessment in the absence of mitigation.

8 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

14. Certain rare breeding birds such as Barn Owl Tyto alba, are listed on Schedule One of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and as amended). Under this legislation they are afforded the same protection as common wild birds and are also protected against disturbance whilst building a nest or on or near a nest containing eggs and unfledged young. Survey protocol considers the following:

 Establish presence onsite;  Establish potential nest sites (PNS);  Locate any active roost sites (ARS);  Locate any temporary roost sites (TRS);  Assess potential feeding and dispersal habitats (PFH);  Provide an impact assessment in the absence of mitigation.

 VALUED ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS (VERS) 15. Assessment also considers potential effects on Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs) and Zones of Influence (ZoI) during pre and post development, both onsite and off- site. The term Zone of Influence is used to describe the geographic extent of potential impacts of a proposed development.

16. Should a likely significance of negative impacts to bats and/or birds be identified during the survey period, then further surveys, mitigation and enhancement measures may be necessary to prevent, offset or reduce the degree of impact that may occur should development commence. Should bats be present onsite, then a European Protected Species (EPS) development license issued by Natural England (NE) may be required prior to any works taking place.

17. The purpose of this report will only provide a preliminary outline of a bat mitigation strategy. A detailed method statement will need to be determined through consultation with an appropriately qualified and experienced bat ecologist thereafter, to fully support the aforementioned license application.

2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY 18. In accordance with BCT 3rd edition (2016) guidelines, the following survey protocol is considered appropriate to provide a full ecological evaluation of the site in order to determine the following:

 PRE-SURVEY DATA SEARCH 19. Pre-survey data search provided historical records of any protected bat and bird species found within a 2km radius of the application area. Additional ecological data has been sourced to understand any constraints that the proposed planning application may have on species and habitat in the wider landscape. The National (UK) and local () Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) were also scrutinized for protected habitats and species relevant to the application area.

20. A number of electronic sources sites were also consulted including; www.magic.gov.uk;

www.naturalengland.org.uk; Google Earth and www.ordinancesurvey.co.uk.

9 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

 WALKOVER SURVEY 21. A walkover survey, including visual inspection of building and any trees, was undertaken to determine the availability of required resources for the protected species in the immediate area. The building was inspected both externally and internally for:

 Presence or absence of bats onsite (i.e. hibernating bats)  Evidence and/or potential of bat roosts onsite (i.e. summer roosts)  Whether additional surveys are required.

 FIELD SURVEYS 22. Phase 1 Preliminary Roost Assessment can be conducted throughout the year, as opposed to Phase 2 bat and bird activity surveys which should be conducted from April to October (see Table 2 below). The survey inspection incorporated visual assessment with the use of binoculars, torch, endoscope and ladders where necessary. There were no access or survey constraints during the survey period(s).

Table 2. Annual survey optimality for bats.

 HABITAT SURVEY 23. The survey assessed habitat onsite in context to the wider landscape with regard to any important bat roosts, commuting / foraging areas that may be affected by the proposed development.

 ROOST SURVEY 24. All potential roost structures (i.e. buildings) onsite or within the Zone of Influence of the proposed development were assessed, based on standard methodologies set out by Natural England, the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). The use of binoculars, torch, endoscope and ladders are used where necessary to inspect the building

 External inspection of structure 25. A visual assessment during daylight hours is initially undertaken to locate potential ingression points that bats and birds (including Barn owl) could use to gain access into the structure to roost and/or nest, and assessed using the following criteria:

 Type and age of building;  Type of construction;  Condition of roof i.e. missing or raised roof tiles;  Condition of windows and doors i.e. broken panes;  Potential ingression points around ridges and apex of the buildings;  Evidence of bats (i.e. presence of live or dead bats, droppings, grease marks, urine stains, characteristic smell of bats;  Any evidence of birds i.e. nest material, droppings.

10 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

 Internal inspection of structure 26. An internal inspection of the structure considers areas which provide appropriate features and environmental conditions for bats and birds, and considers the following criteria:  To look for warm dark areas, joints, crevices, beams and cavities for possible bat roost sites and nests.  To locate roost/nest sites.  To listen for bats and birds.  To examine floors, walls and structural elements for physical evidence of bats and birds;  To record any anecdotal evidence (i.e. presence of live or dead bats, droppings, grease marks, urine stains, feeding remains and characteristic odour of bats;

 BUILDING RATING

27. In the absence of any evidence, trees and structures were assigned a rating of suitability from negligible to high potential for supporting bats. The rating is based on the number and type of features suitable for use by bats (such as rot holes, cavities and raised bark), location of the structure in the surrounding landscape and surveyor’s experience

28. For example; a structure with a high level of regular disturbance with few opportunities for access by bats, that is in a highly urbanized area with few or no mature trees, parkland, woodland or wetland would generally equate to having negligible potential. Conversely, a pre 20th century or early 20th century building with many features suitable for use by bats close to good foraging habitat would have high potential).

Table 3. Roost habitat assessment (BCT, 2016)

11 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

3. RESULTS

 Designated sites 29. Pre-survey data search shows the application area falls within Area 64 Potteries and Churnet Special Landscape Area. There are no international (i.e. SAC, SPA, or Ramsar Site), national (i.e. SSSI, or NNR) or local (i.e. Local Nature Reserve (LNR)) statutory designated nature conservation sites recorded within 2km of the application site.

30. There are four non-statutory designated nature conservation sites within 2km of the proposed application site that include three Sites of Biological Importance (SBI) and one Biodiversity Alert Site (BAS).

31. The settlement is contained under 64 Potteries and Churnet Valley &. Special Landscape Area. There are No Statutory Nature Reserves, RIGS, SSSIs, SPAs recorded within the area. The nearest designated site is Creswellford Crossing.

Designated Areas of Ecological Significance • Green Belt area / Conservation area • Special Landscape Area - Land to east of , east of Handley Banks and Finger Post Farm Biodiversity Alert Sites: • Caverswall Castle, The Dams, • Creswellford Crossing. • Woods, centre of Caverswall nr. Cresswellford Farm, approx. adjacent to , approx. 900m E. of Caverswall 1.5 km south of Caverswall along Caverswall Rd.

SBIs: Stansmore Grassland, approx. 1.3 km ENE Stansmore Wood & Grassland, approx. 1.6 of Sycamore Farm km NE of Sycamore Farm Ancient Woodland • Sycamore Wood, approx. 1.7 km • Other Significant Woodland/Tree belts: NE of Caverswall Trees lining track which runs east of Caverswall • Woodland N of Caverswall Common, approx. 1.1km N of Cookshill • Nursery, Carmel Farm, 1.1km NNE of Cookshill • Blakeleybank Wood, 1.1km E of Caverswall, to the E of Foxfield Railway Table 4. Designated Areas of Ecological Significance in 2km radius

32. Subsequently the application area is within a SSSI Impact Risk Zone [assesses planning applications for likely impacts on SSSIs/SACs/SPAs & Ramsar sites (England)].

 Protected species

33. Pre-survey data finds seven British bat species are currently given UK BAP (2007) Priority Species Status. National Biodiversity Network and Staffordshire Wildlife Trust (SWT) records show that 11 of the 17 resident UK bat species occur in the county with three UK BAP species being recorded within 2km of the proposed application area (highlighted in orange):

12 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

UKBAP Common name Species Recorded within 2km

 BROWN LONG-EARED BAT Plecotus auritus 

 BARBASTELLE BAT Barbastella barbastellus 

 BECHSTEIN'S BAT Myotis bechsteinii 

 NOCTULE Nyctalus noctula 

 GREATER HORSESHOE BAT Rhinolophus ferrumequinum 

 LESSER HORSESHOE BAT Rhinolophus hipposideros 

 SOPRANO PIPISTRELLE Pipistrellus pygmaeus  Table 5. UKBAP Bat species recorded within Staffordshire.

34. A further four/five bat species that are not currently given UK BAP consideration are also recorded within the county, whilst SER data and personal observations show three of these species are recorded within a 1km radius of the site (highlighted in orange):

UKBAP Common name Species Recorded within the county

 NATTERER'S BAT Myotis Nattereri 

 DAUBENTON’S BAT Myotis daubentonii 

 WHISKERED / BRANDT’S BAT Myotis mystacinus/brandtii 

 COMMON PIPISTRELLE Pipistrellus pipistrellus 

Table 6. Non UKBAP Bat species recorded in Staffordshire.

35. Pre-survey data show no records of any bat roosts within the application area itself. Barn Owl (Tyto alba) is recorded within a 2km radius of the application area.

 FIELD SURVEYS

 Habitat Description 36. The proposed application is situated in a semi-rural setting of the , and falls under the Regional (Joint) Character Area of 64 Potteries and Churnet Valley, comprising of 'Ancient Slope and Valley farmlands' landscape character types. The site sits on a topography of Dissected Sandstone Cloughs and Valleys character area along the edge of the Settled Plateau Farmland Slopes with non-calcareous stagnogley and poorly drained soils creating loamy and clayey pedology supporting rough grassland pasture.

37. In context to the wider landscape, the application area is situated in Green Belt, and surrounded predominantly by open agricultural farmland, gently undulating hills, hedgerows, water-bodies, and intermittent blocks of ancient woodland. Habitat onsite chiefly comprises of bare open ground with hardstanding, minor patches of ruderal herbs and scattered semi-mature trees around selected boundaries. These habitats provide ample opportunities for foraging and roosting bats and birds, with excellent connectivity considered overall.

13 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

 ROOST SURVEY

38. The building inspection considered both the structure proposed for redevelopment (B2) whilst also assessing associated structures considered to be within the Zone of Influence.

Figure 3. NE elevation. Figure 4. NW elevation

Figure 5. South elevation. Figure 6. SW elevation.

 External inspection 39. The former barn building B2 is attached to the main Farm house dwelling and a single storey structure on the SW elevation. All units were seen to be constructed of red brick with pitch and tiled roofs. Building B2 comprises of a staggered two-storey section which runs at 90 degrees to the main farmhouse in a north to south direction, with an existing footprint of ca. 100m2 (ca. 16.5m x 6m).

40. A moderate to high level of ingress potential for both bats and birds were recorded, by-way-of open air/ventilation slits present along the western elevation of B2, whilst a number of raised and missing roof/ridge tiles were recorded across all roof sections in the main, with open, missing or broken windows /doors.

41. No evidence of bats or birds was recorded during the external inspection.

14 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

 Internal inspection 42. The lower ground floor of B2 was accessed by a door way on the western elevation and found to be well illuminated by natural daylight. Evidence of nesting Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica was recorded on the underside of exposed timber beams. The first floor area was accessed via an external metal stair-way on the SW corner and was found to contain an internal corner compartment before entering into the main floor area on the northern elevation. All areas were found to be voluminous and open to roof height with roofing membrane and exposed timber truss work present. The floor areas were seen to be relatively clean and free of detritus. Light ingress was visible around barn door regions.

43. Minor evidence of bats was recorded on the most northerly floor section by way of two droppings and potential feeding remains (butterfly wings). These droppings were considered to be relatively fresh (1 or 2 seasons old). The area provides excellent opportunities for void dwelling bats with Brown long-eared bat considered most likely for this geographical region. No evidence of nesting birds (incl. Barn owl) was recorded in the first-floor roof section.

44. A further contained roof void is also present above the lower elevation section on the north gable-end. The area was gained via a loft hatch above an internal cut and cover passage way and was found to be semi illuminated by broken and missing roof tiles across the east facing pitch. The area was heavily contaminated in detritus hampering a thorough assessment at floor level.

 Structures within the zone of influence

 Farmhouse B1

45. Due to the integral nature of the structures onsite, the roof void of the main farmhouse building B1 Was inspected. Access was gained via a loft hatch in a third-floor bedroom area on the eastern elevation. All upper floor bedroom areas encroach into the roof section, thus resulting in a low (ca 800mm) apex roof void with A –frame timber and purlins visible. Evidence of bats, by-way-of droppings (ca.20) were recorded scattered in and amongst fibre glass insulation at floor level, and considered as being 2-3 seasons old. The roofing underfelt was found to be in good condition throughout with minimal little light recorded. A suspended ceiling above a toilet / bathroom area provides a further small and low contained void area (ca.500mm) although the area was considered as having low potential, with no evidence of bats recorded.

 Building B3

46. A low single storey farm-building is attached to B1 and B2 on the SW corner. The roof area was seen to be staggered and comprised of a combination of roof tiles and corrugated sheet roofing thus reducing overall roosting potential for bats. Internally, the building was seen to be divided into three sub-compartments open to roof height and used partially as a gym area and for storage with white washed brick walls. The roof was void of any roofing membrane/ under felt, with numerous areas showing areas of light ingress from missing roof tiles. No evidence of bats or birds (incl. Barn owl) was recorded. Building B3 is considered as having the lowest potential for roosting bats in comparison to that of B2 and B3 units, which are deemed as having high roost suitability overall.

15 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

 Survey constraints 47. There were no survey constraints encountered during the building inspection, although some of the floor area in B2 were considered as being unstable.

 Constraints on equipment used 48. No constraints were present with regards to the equipment used during the scoping effort (i.e. bat detectors, endoscope, ladders and high powered binoculars).

 DESIGNATED SITES 49. The scheme retains the existing size and physical form of the existing building (s) footprint with no additional land up-take considered. Due to the scale of the proposed development, NO detriment to the surrounding landscape is predicted.

 STRUCTURE RATING 50. The overall structures considered for development and within the ZoI have been assigned the following impact rating:

BATS BIRDS BARN OWL Main structure proposed for development B2 Building HIGH HIGH LOW Associated structures within the Zone of Influence B1 Farmhouse HIGH LOW NEGLIGIBLE B3 Building LOW TO MODERATE MODERATE NEGLIGIBLE Table 7. Structure / impact rating.

51. Based on building features and evidence of bats, Building B2 and B1 are considered as having high potential for roosting bats, although exact status is not clear.

52. It is speculated that two species of bat may be roosting onsite. Common pipistrelle is considered to be most likely to utilizing the roof section area of the attached farmhouse B1, whilst the voluminous roof void area inside barn-building B2 provides excellent potential for pre-emergent, void dwelling Brown Long-eared. A number of raised /missing and broken roof tiles plus cavities in brick work would also support the potential of crevice-dwelling bats such as Common pipistrelle.

53. All other structures onsite were considered as having low / low moderate potential for roosting bats

 FORAGING AND COMMUTING HABITAT 54. Whilst no immediate impact to foraging and commuting habitat is currently predicted, with no alteration to existing landscape proposed; Phase 2 presence/absence activity surveys should assess the use of the site by bats in context to the wider landscape with regard to potential deleterious effects (i.e. post development lighting and increased disturbance).

16 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

 LEGISLATION AND POLICY GUIDANCE 55. In Britain all bat species and their roosts are legally protected, by both domestic and international legislation (See Appendix 5) .This means a criminal offence will be committed if you:

 Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat  Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats  Damage or destroy a bat roosting place (even if bats are not occupying the roost at the time)  Possess or advertise/sell/exchange a bat (dead or alive) or any part of a bat  Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a bat roost

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

 FURTHER SURVEY 56. As both building B1 (proposed for conversion) and the attached Farmhouse (within the zone of influence) were considered as having high roost suitability, it is recommended that further survey effort is required in-order to fully establish presence/absence of bats onsite in-order that works adhere to current legislation and policy guidelines.

57. In accordance to BCT guidelines, three activity surveys are subsequently recommended, and should be carried out between May and September under suitable abiotic conditions.

Table 8. Survey effort in relation to roost suitability (BCT, 201).

58. It is understood that the client wishes to commence with remedial re-pointing structural repair works, whilst the planning application is under consideration. Should this be the case, then any re-pointing of brickwork should be carried out at ground-floor level only. NO re-pointing should be undertaken to any external brick-work >3.5m in elevation, until Phase 2 activity surveys have been completed.

59. Should any bats be discovered prior to, or during works (or suspicion arise about the possible presence of bats), then all works must cease immediately, and a licensed ecologist should be consulted, if not already present at that time.

17 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

 BIRDS 60. All birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Mitigation should therefore give consideration to a small colony of nesting Barn Swallow in the ground-floor area of building B1.

61. Any works encroaching into areas where evidence of nesting birds is present or considered likely should be undertaken outside the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive).

62. It is understood that the client wishes to commence with remedial repair works within this ground-floor area, whilst the planning application is under consideration. It is therefore recommended that all doors, windows and ingression points are sealed off in-order to exclude Barn Swallow from this building before summer uptake. Swallows arrive in the UK in April and May, returning to their wintering grounds in September and October.

63. Thereafter, it is recommended that the lower, most westerly section of building B3 is made accessible to prospecting Barn Swallow, by-way-of open doors and windows where possible. Installations of a minimum of eight pre-formed “cup-shaped nests” are recommended, and these should be fitted at height (preferably on beams), and at least 1m apart.

 Further information can be found on the RSPB website:www..rspb.org.uk/swallow-nest.html

64. Should works be carried out during the bird breeding season, then a check for nesting birds should be undertaken by an ecologist prior to works. Should any active bird nests be found, then these should be left undisturbed until offspring have fully fledged. It may be necessary to enforce an exclusion work zone of 5m to reduce disturbance and minimize potential displacement of nesting birds.

65. No evidence of Barn owl was recorded and NO further recommendations are considered with regard to this species at this juncture.

 Biodiversity enhancement 66. In accordance with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, development proposals should seek, where possible, to enhance opportunities for local biodiversity. It is recommended that a number of additional bat and bird boxes are also erected onsite to increase overall prospects for local bird populations. Quantity can be fully determined following recommended phase 2 activity surveys.

67. Should any landscaping be considered at a later date, then it is recommended that only native tree and shrub species are planted. In particular, no plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 should be planted during any landscaping around the conversions. For further details of Schedule 9 plants visit the Defra website: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/non- native.

18 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

6. REFERENCES  Bat Conservation Trust (2016). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. 3rd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust: London.  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c.37). London: HMSO.  Dietz, C., von Helversen, O. & Nill, D. (2009) Bats of Britain, Europe and Northwest Africa. London:A. C. Black.  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation . The Stationery Office, Norwich.  RSPB (2002) The Population Status of Birds in the UK 2002-2007  Rydell J & Racey, P A (1993) Street lamps and the feeding ecology of insectivorous bats. Recent Advances in Bat Biology, Zool. Soc. Lond. Symposium abstracts.  The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 . SI 2010/490. SI 2007/1843, London: HMSO.  UK Biodiversity Action Plan (2007). UK List of Priority Species. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/NewPriorityList.aspx [accessed on 20th October 2010].

19 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Maps & forms

20 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

21 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

22 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

23 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

24 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

Building B2 (Proposed development area)

Fig. A 1ST Floor looking north Fig.C. 1st floor looking South Fig.C Exposed truss work /underfelt

Fig. D. Ground-floor area Fig. E. Swallow nests (6no.) Fig. F. Void above walkthrough area

Building B1 Farmhouse

Fig. G Bat droppings in roof void Fig.H Roof void of F/house Fig.I Suspended void area above W.C.

Building B3

Fig.I End compartment on West elevation Fig.J Central compartment area

25 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

26 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

Appendix 2 – Policy guidelines

PAS 2010 The published ‘PAS 2010’ ‘Planning to halt the loss of biodiversity’ which is the government’s new policy aimed at all authorities and developers involved in the planning process in the UK to halt biodiversity decline by 2010 and deliver net biodiversity gains as part of the green infrastructure provisions. National Planning The recently published framework in 2012, replaces the previous Planning Policy Statement Policy Framework, 9. Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reaffirms the Section 11: Government’s commitment to maintaining green belt protections and preventing urban sprawl, retains the protection of designated sites and preserves wildlife, aims to improve the quality of the natural environment, and halt declines in species and habitats, protects and enhances biodiversity and promotes wildlife corridors.

Article 10 of the EC The published Article requires government to develop features such as ‘stepping stones’ Habitats Directive: on the landscape, such as clusters of ponds, tracts of rough grassland or scrubland and vegetated railway line embankments. Wildlife and All species of bat are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Countryside Act European Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994, and the Countryside and 1981: Rights of Way Act 2000. This legislation makes it illegal to possess or control any live or dead specimens, to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter, protection or breeding, and to intentionally disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose. Conservation of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 consolidate all the various Habitats and Species amendments made to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, in respect Regulations (2010) of England and Wales. It is an offence to possess, sell or offer, or transport for sale any European species of bat or any part derived from such a species. These Regulations also remove the ‘incidental result defence’. In other words, it is no longer a defence to show that the killing, capture or disturbance of a species covered by the Regulations or the destruction or damage of their breeding sites or resting places was the incidental and unavoidable result of a lawful activity. Natural England can grant European Protected Species (EPS) licences in respect of development to permit activities that would otherwise be unlawful.

Natural Environment Under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006), public and Rural bodies, including Local and Regional Planning Authorities, have a duty to ‘have regard’ to Communities Act the conservation of biodiversity in England when carrying out their normal functions, which (2006) includes consideration of planning applications. In compliance with Section 41 of the Act, the Secretary of State has published a list of species considered to be of principal importance for conserving biodiversity in England. This is known as The England Biodiversity List, all of which make up the UK BAP Priority Species. Regional Planning Bodies and Local Planning Authorities will use it to identify the species that should be afforded priority to maintain, restore and enhance species and habitats.

Bird legislation Most resident nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which protects birds, nests, eggs and nestling’s. Some rarer species, such as barn owls, are afforded extra protection.

27 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

Appendix 3 – Annual life cycle of a temperate bat

30 Field House Farm ST11 9DL Preliminary Roost Assessment Final Issue (1) – February 2017

CONDITIONS & DISCLAIMERS

Services

This statement has been prepared with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the contract with the client. The actions of the surveyor on site and during the production of the report were undertaken in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (www.cieem.org.uk). No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of:

“Foxglove Cottage”, Boundary, Cheadle, Staffordshire. ST10 2NU.

Tel: 01538 750514

Email: [email protected]

 Should any part of this report be lost, or altered without the written consent of the author, then the entire report becomes invalid.

 The general format of reports is a certified product and cannot be shown, copied or distributed to third parties without the permission of the author. No liability is accepted for the contents of the report, other than to that of the client(s).

 The report will purport not to express any opinion or comment as to the condition or structural integrity of any building; and no reliance should be made on any such comments other than description regarding suitability of species.

 Every attempt has been made to provide an accurate ecological assessment under the current wildlife legislations at the time of surveying. The author cannot be made accountable for stochastic events over space and time.

 The author remains impartial to any decision making and attempts only to make recommendations in the interests of conserving protected species and biodiversity, whilst acknowledging sustainable development.

31