PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT FARM, TIPPS END,

PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

FINAL

Prepared by: Prepared for: Philip Parker Associate Ltd Angela Wright White Row Cottage Leziate Drove Pott Row KING’S LYNN Norfolk PE32 1DB

Report ref: P2021- 27 R1 FINAL Date: 5th May 2021

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 0

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

CONTENTS

1.0 Executive summary 2.0 Introduction 3.0 Data search 4.0 Description of the proposed development site 5.0 Fauna survey 6.0 Effects of the proposed development works on the species present and licensing requirements 7.0 Mitigation and enhancement strategy 8.0 References

Drawings D1 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Appendix A Protected Sites

DOCUMENT HISTORY Project reference: 2021-27 Document title: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Revision Status Originated Reviewed Date Rev. 1 Draft Rebecca Easter Philp Parker 28.04.21 Rev. 2 Final Rebecca Easter Philip Parker 05.05.21

Copyright © 2021 by Philip Parker Associates All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of Philip Parker Associates Ltd.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 1

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 GENERAL Swann Edwards Architecture have developed a planning application on behalf of Angela Wright in relation to the conversion of two barns at Croft Farm, Tipps End, Norfolk into a single, three- bedroomed dwelling. The local planning Authority (The Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk) have requested that an Ecological Assessment is prepared as part of the application. Philip Parker Associates Ltd have been instructed to undertake this assessment.

1.2 This report presents the results of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) and has been prepared following guidance prepared by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity : Code of practice for planning and development.

1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION The survey site relates to two separate attached barns (with no internal access between the two). For the purpose of this report, they are numbered Barn 1 (to the west) and Barn 2 (to the east).

1.4 The site was located to the west of Wisbech Road and to the north of Tipps End. The site was surrounded by arable farmland to the north, west and south, with a group of dwellings to the east.

1.5 DATA SEARCH A 2km data search was undertaken with the Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service (NBIS) and and Peterborough Environmental Records Centre. The following designated sites were noted within the search.

• No Natura 2000 or SSSI sites were noted within the 2km CPERC or NBIS data search. The Ouse Washes (Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Ramsar site) is the closest designated site, located 2.6km south-east of the proposed development site. • Soprano pipistrelle, natterer’s and pipistrelle species were the closest records for bats, located 1.7km south-west of the site. • The closest records for barn owls were 1.3km south-west of the site; • Water vole were noted 1.3km south-west of the site; • No reptile or amphibians were noted within 2km of the site.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 2

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

1.6 FAUNA SURVEYS Given the nature of the barns and their surroundings, the potential impact on bats, breeding birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians has been considered.

1.7 Bats A summary of bat evidence/roosting potential is shown on the following table. The gradings are based on Table 4.1 of the 2016 Bat Survey Guidelines.

Table 1 Summary of bat evidence and features Barn Roosting potential and evidence Barn 1 Limited roosting potential between the corrugated asbestos sheets and corrugated metal sheets. Three cracks and two cavities allowing access along with access over the wall tops. Single pipistrelle type dropping and light scatter of tortoiseshell butterfly wings. Barn 2 Roosting potential limited to externally between the corrugated asbestos sheets. Two small piles of tortoiseshell and peacock butterfly wings.

1.8 On the basis of the above assessment, both barns had low bat roosting potential. Barn 1 had potential evidence of use as a feeding perch (given the light scatter of tortoiseshell and peacock butterfly wings and their location under a roof beam with limited evidence of spider activity on cobwebs). The soil floor made searching for bat droppings difficult.

1.9 Badger No direct evidence of badgers was noted in the proposed development area, although the surrounding habitat did have the potential to support badgers.

1.10 Hedgehog/ small mammals The close proximity and connectivity to the surrounding habitat and suitable habitat on site (grassy areas and arable farmland) meant that there is a potential for hedgehog/ small mammals to occur on site.

1.11 Water vole/otter The ditch to the south had limited potential for water vole to occur due to due to the areas of mown bank, although the area directly to the south of the proposed site did have greater potential due to the vegetation on the bank providing cover. The ditch also had the potential for otter to occur although no direct evidence was found, it should be noted that the survey did not extend off site.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 3

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

1.12 Breeding birds Barn 1 Single blackbird nest Barn 2 Single wood pigeon nest Possible house sparrow roosting between the roof and the insulation (south-east corner).

1.13 Wren, goldfinch, skylark and chiffchaff were noted in the vicinity of the site during the survey.

1.14 Amphibians The closest pond was located 350m north-west of the site. A network of drains were noted within the vicinity of the site although these had been affected by run-off from the surrounding arable farmland.

1.15 Reptiles Areas of taller habitat with the potential to support reptiles were to the south and south-east of the site (bordered by a wet ditch to the south and a dry ditch to the east). The majority of the area around the two barns had limited potential to support reptiles (arable farmland and gravel). The lack of connectivity to other potentially suitable reptile habitat areas meant that the presence of common lizard and slow worm is considered unlikely. Due to their transient nature and the presence of drains close by, the presence of grass snake can never be completely discounted.

1.16 DEVELOPMENT/REPAIR PROPOSALS Drawings prepared by Swann Edwards Architecture indicate the conversion of the barns into a three-bedroomed dwelling.

1.17 Impact assessment There are no likely impacts on designated sites due to the distance and the nature of the development.

1.18 The likely impacts on protected species recorded are as follows: • The loss of potential bat roosting sites (not proven) and a potential bat feeding perch site through the conversion of the barns; • Potential Impacts on bat foraging if additional lighting is proposed as part of any future proposals; • The loss of bird nesting habitat through the development of the barns; • Impacts on habitat potentially used by common amphibians, transient grass snakes, hedgehogs and small mammals.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 4

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

1.19 Further surveys Although the barns are considered to have low roosting potential. As Barn 1 has a (potential) feeding perch, prior to any works being undertaken a minimum of two summer activity surveys should be undertaken (between the months of May and August) to determine the level of use by bats during the summer period prior to works being undertaken. The information gained during these surveys would be used to inform appropriate mitigation and any subsequent derogation licensing1. If the surveys confirm a feeding perch or any other roost activity a further survey will be required.

1.20 No further surveys in respect of badgers, small mammals, water vole, otter, reptiles, amphibians or breeding birds are deemed necessary providing precautionary mitigation outlined in Section 7 is followed.

1.21 Appropriate mitigation for the impacts of the proposed development would be as follows: • Consider the addition of bat boxes, mounted onto a pole or on the building; • Limitations on external lighting; • Avoidance of bird nest period and the provision of alternative bird nesting habitat; • Careful clearance of surrounding vegetation to prevent impacts on amphibians, reptiles and small mammals;

1.22 The need for a derogation licence would be determined by the results of the further bat surveys.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Swann Edwards Architecture have developed a planning application on behalf of Angela Wright in relation to the conversion of two barns at Croft Farm, Tipps End, Norfolk into a single, three- bedroom dwelling. The local planning Authority (The Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk) have requested that a Ecological Assessment is prepared as part of the application. Philip Parker Associates Ltd have been instructed to undertake this assessment.

2.2 This report presents the results of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) and has been prepared following guidance prepared by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity : Code of practice for planning and development.

2.3 The Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) of the barns was undertaken on the 21st April 2021 by Senior Ecologist Karl Charters and Assistant Ecologist Rebecca Easter.

1 A derogation licence is issued by Natural and allows works in relation to bats which would otherwise be illegal

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 5

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

2.4 The site was located to the north of Tipps End and to the west of Wisbech Road at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference TL 50820 95254 (refer to Ordnance Survey plan and aerial photograph extracts below).

Figure 1 – Ordnance Survey location plan Crown Figure 2 – Aerial photograph location plan copyright and database right 2021 Imagery C 2021 DigitalGlobe, Getmapping plc, Intorfera Ltd & Bluesky.

2.5 National Character Area The site falls within The Fens National Character Area.

2.6 The Fens National Character Area (NCA) is a distinctive, historic and human-influenced wetland landscape lying to the west of the Wash estuary, which formerly constituted the largest wetland area in England. The area is notable for its large-scale, flat, open landscape with extensive vistas to level horizons. The level, open topography shapes the impression of huge skies which convey a strong sense of place, tranquillity and inspiration.

2.7 It is a large, low-lying, flat landscape with many drainage ditches, dykes and rivers that slowly drain towards the Wash, England’s largest tidal estuary. The single obvious factor uniting the Fens is the low-lying, level terrain reflecting its geological past. With the exception of the Isle of Ely, which reaches above 20 m, elevations rarely pass the 10 m contour, and typically vary by little more than one or two metres over long distances. Much of the land is below sea level, relying on pumped drainage and the control of sluices at high and low tides to maintain its agricultural viability. The level horizons and the huge scale of the landscape create a strong sense of isolation and tranquillity, and a distinctive sense of place. There are, typically, large open panoramas and enormous skies, whose changing weather patterns have a strong influence on the observer. Four major rivers drain into the Wash: the Witham, Welland, Nene and Great Ouse. All rivers now have artificial canalised courses that run straight for long distances and are bounded by high banks to contain the watercourse from the lower adjacent fields.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 6

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

3.0 DATA SEARCH

3.1 In order to assess whether there are any protected species records for the development site (grid reference TL 50820 95254) and the surrounding area (2km radius), a data search was undertaken with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Environmental Records Centre and the Norfolk Biodiversity Information Services, the results of this data search can be found below. The results of the CPERC data search are in a green typeface for ease of reading.

3.2 They have provided the following information:

Figure 3 – NBIS data search results

3.3 Results of the data search No Natura 2000 or SSSI sites were noted within the 2km CPERC or NBIS data search. The closest nationally/ internationally designated site is The Ouse Washes, located 2.6km south- east of the site (SAC, SPA, RAMSAR and SSSI) details are given in Appendix A.

3.4 Natura 2000 Sites The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992) requires EU Member States to create a network of protected wildlife areas, known as Natura 2000, across the European Union. This network consists of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs), established to protect wild birds under the Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2nd April 1979). These sites are part of a range of measures aimed at conserving important or threatened habitats and species.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 7

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

3.5 Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Special Areas of Conservation have been given special protection under the European Union’s Habitats Directive. They provide increased protection to a variety of wild animals, plants and habitats and are a vital part of global efforts to conserve the world’s biodiversity.

3.6 The Ouse Washes (SAC) – Located 2.6km south-east The Ouse Washes supports spined loach Cobitis taenia populations within the River Ouse catchment. The Counter Drain, with its clear water and abundant macrophytes, is particularly important, and a healthy population of spined loach is known to occur.

3.7 Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Protection Areas are strictly protected sites classified in accordance with Article 4 of the EC Directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC), also known as the Birds Directive, which came into force in April 1979. They are classified for rare and vulnerable birds, listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive, and for regularly occurring migratory species.

3.8 The Ouse Washes (SPA) – Located 2.6km south-east This site qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of european importance listed on Annex I of the Directive:

3.9 During the breeding season Ruff Philomachus pugnax, 1 individual representing at least 9.1% of the breeding population in Great Britain (5 year mean 1983-1987)

3.10 RAMSAR Sites Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention.

3.11 Sites proposed for selection are advised by the UK statutory nature conservation agencies, or the relevant administration in the case of overseas territories and crown dependencies, co- ordinated through JNCC. In selecting sites, the relevant authorities are guided by the criteria set out in the convention. The UK also has a national Ramsar Committee composed of experts who provide further advice.

3.12 In the UK, the first Ramsar sites were designated in 1976. Since then, many more have been designated. Compared to many other countries, the UK has a relatively large number of Ramsar sites, but they tend to be smaller in size than many countries. The initial emphasis was on selecting sites of importance to water birds within the UK, and consequently many Ramsar sites are also Special Protection Areas (SPA) classified under the Birds Directive. However, greater

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 8

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

attention is now being directed towards the selection of Ramsar sites in UK overseas territories and Crown Dependencies; the first of these was designated in 1990. Both within the UK and overseas, non-bird features are increasingly taken into account, both in the selection of new sites and when reviewing existing ones.

3.13 The Ouse Washes (RAMSAR) – Located 2.6km south-east This site is an area of seasonally-flooded washland habitat managed in a traditional agricultural manner. The washlands support nationally and internationally important numbers of wintering waterfowl and nationally important numbers of breeding waterfowl. The site is also of note for the large area of unimproved neutral grassland communities which it holds, and for the richness of the aquatic flora within the associated watercourses.

3.14 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) The SSSI/ASSI series has developed since 1949 as the national suite of sites providing statutory protection for the best examples of the UK's flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features. These sites are also used to underpin other national and international nature conservation designations. Most SSSIs are privately-owned or managed; others are owned or managed by public bodies or non-government organisations. The SSSI/ASSI designation may extend into intertidal areas out to the jurisdictional limit of local authorities, generally Mean Low Water in England and Northern Ireland; Mean Low Water of Spring tides in Scotland. In Wales, the limit is Mean Low Water for SSSIs notified before 2002, and, for more recent notifications, the limit of Lowest Astronomical Tides, where the features of interest extend down to LAT. There is no provision for marine SSSIs/ASSIs beyond low water mark, although boundaries sometimes extend more widely within estuaries and other enclosed waters.

3.15 Originally notified under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, SSSIs have been re-notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Improved provisions for the protection and management of SSSIs were introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (in England and Wales) and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.

3.16 The Ouse Washes (SSSI) – Located 2.6km south-east of the site The site is one of the country’s few remaining areas of extensive washland habitat. It is of particular note for the large numbers of wildfowl and waders which it supports, for the large area of unimproved neutral grassland communities which it holds and for the richness of the aquatic fauna and flora within the associated watercourse. The capacity of the site to hold wintering and breeding waterfowl and waders is of international significance. Of particular note in the winter are the large numbers of teal Anas crecca, pintail Anas acuta, wigeon Anas penelope, shoveler Anas clypeata, pochard Aythya ferina and Bewick’s swan Cygnus bewickii.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 9

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

3.17 County Wildlife Sites County Wildlife Sites are second tier ecological sites, identified as they fulfil a range of select criteria for their ecological interest on a county level. They do not receive statutory protection but are usually offered some protection under local planning policy.

3.18 No County Wildlife Sites were noted within the 2km data search.

3.19 Protected Species No records for bats were noted within the 2km data search. Other species are as follows. Again, the results of the CPERC data search results are given in a green typeface.

Bats • Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus – 2 records, latest record 2012 - closest 2km north-west • Pipistrelle species Pipistrellus – 1 and 1 record, latest record 2012 and 2013 – 2km north-west and 1.7km south-west • Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus – 1 record, 2013 – 1.7km south-west • Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri – 1 record, 2013 – 1.7km south-west

Mammals • Eurasian badger Meles meles – 1 record, 2012 – location not given. • European water vole Arvicola amphibius – 3 records, latest record 2019 - closest record 1.3km south-west • Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus – 1 record, 2012 –2km north-west

Owls • Barn owl Tyto alba – 1 record and 2 records, 2009 and 2010 - closest 1.3km south-west and 2km south-east

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 10

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE

4.1 General The following description is based on the preliminary site visit undertaken on the 21st of April 2021 by senior ecologist Karl Charters (2015-13353-CLS-CLS) an assistant ecologist Rebecca Easter. The survey commenced at 10:00 and finished by 11:00.

4.2 The survey site relates to two attached barns (no internal access between the two), for the purpose of this report they are numbered Barn 1 (to the west) and Barn 2 (to the east).

Figure 4 – View of the barns from the north Figure 5 – View of the Barns from the south- east

Figure 7 – View of Barn 2 from the north-east

Figure 6 – View of Barn 1 from the west

4.3 Barn 1 Barn 1 had a sloping corrugated asbestos roof and was open to the roof. The barn comprised of breezeblock walls to 1.5m height with corrugated asbestos walls above (to the south and west) with a corrugated metal wall to 2m height with corrugated asbestos above. The frame of

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 11

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

the barn was metal RSJ. The floor of the barn comprised of soil. Access was via large sliding doors to the north.

Figure 8 – Internal view of Barn 1 looking south

4.4 Barn 2 Barn 2 was a large double height barn, open to the ridge. The barn comprised of corrugated metal and corrugated asbestos walls with a corrugated asbestos roof. A small section of wooden boarding was present on the northern wall of the barn (to the west) Access was via large sliding doors to the north.

Figure 9 – Internal view of Barn 2 looking south

4.5 Surrounding area To the south of the barns was an area of mown grass, with piles of hay and rubble. Towards the south-east there was an area of less regularly mown grass (10cm high) comprising of rubble piles with nettle urtica diioca over. Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium, red dead nettle Lamium purpureum, white dead nettle Lamium album, bristly oxtongue Helminthotheca echioides and thistle Cirsium spp were also noted in the taller grass towards the south-east of the site.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 12

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

Figure 10 – Area of rubble and taller grass to Figure 11 – Area of mown grass and piles of the south-east of the barns hay towards the south of the barns

5.0 FAUNA SURVEY

5.1 GENERAL The potential scope of works, data search and habitats within the site have informed the scope of the assessment. On this basis, the following protected and priority species have been considered further within this report. Further detail can be found in Drawing D1 at the end of the report. • Bats • Badger • Water vole • Otter • Hedgehog/ small mammals • Breeding birds • Reptiles • Amphibians

5.2 BATS Legislation In Britain, all bat species and their roosts are legally protected, by both domestic and international legislation, namely: • The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended); • The Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000 and • The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 13

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

5.3 This legislation makes it an offence amongst others to: • 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.

5.4 A bat roost is regarded as “any structure or place which any wild animal….uses for shelter or protection” As bats tend to reuse the same roosts, legal opinion is that the roost is protected whether or not the bats are present at the time.

5.5 Bats are also listed under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC, 2006). This is a list of habitats and species that are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. The list (including 56 habitats and 943 species) has been drawn up in consultation with Natural England and draws upon the UK BAP List of Priority Species and Habitats. The S41 list should be used to guide decision-makers such as local and regional authorities when implementing their duty: to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in the exercise of their normal duties.

5.6 Existing records Common pipistrelle, pipistrelle species, soprano pipistrelle and natterer’s were all noted within the 2km data search. The closest record was for the pipistrelle species, soprano pipistrelle and natterer’s all located 1.7km from the site.

5.7 Preliminary Survey Methodology In summer, bats typically roost in trees and buildings. They feed along hedgerows, woodland edge, old pasture and over water. In winter, hibernation sites can include trees and buildings but more usually underground structures such as caves and ice houses.

5.8 The Bat Mitigation Guidelines produced by English Nature (now Natural England) set out the timescales for survey work, as follows:

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 14

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

Table 2 Timescales for bat survey SEASON ROOST TYPE INSPECTION BAT DETECTOR AND EMERGENCE COUNTS Spring (Mar – May) Building Suitable (Signs, perhaps Limited, weather bats) dependent Trees Suitable (Signs only) Static detectors may be useful Underground Suitable (signs only) Static detectors may be useful Summer (June – August) Building Suitable (signs and bats) Suitable Trees Difficult Limited, use sunrise survey Underground Suitable (signs only) Rarely useful Autumn (September – Building Suitable (signs and bats) Limited, weather November) dependent Trees Difficult Rather limited, weather dependent; use sunrise survey Underground Suitable (signs, perhaps Static detectors may bats) be useful Winter (December – Building Suitable (signs, perhaps Rarely useful February) bats) Trees Difficult (best for signs Rarely useful after leaves have gone) Underground Suitable (signs and bats) Static detectors may be useful

5.9 Preliminary Survey Results The survey was conducted using an extending ladder to gain access to the upper levels, a pair of 8 x 42 binoculars and a powerful Clulite lamp (fitted with a red filter where appropriate to avoid disturbing any bats that might be present). A Rigid CA-100 endoscope was used to inspect cavities as appropriate.

5.10 The survey concentrated on checking horizontal surfaces on which bat droppings and feeding remains could rest (including windowsills, beams, gutters, stored goods) as well as vertical surfaces such as walls. Potential access points to cavities and possible roost spaces were checked for urine staining and fur rubbings.

5.11 Preliminary Survey results The results of the preliminary bat surveys are shown on the following tables.

Table 3 External and internal roosting potential and bat evidence in Barn 1

Roosting Potential Bat Evidence

External No bat evidence noted. Gaps along the wall tops (into the barn). Single cavity in corrugated asbestos sheets in the north- west and south-west corners. Single crack in the south-east corner and in the west wall (through corrugated asbestos sheets).

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 15

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

Roosting Potential Bat Evidence

Internal A single pipistrelle type dropping on stored Between the corrugated asbestos sheets and goods (centrally towards the west of the barn). corrugated metal sheet on the east wall – all with Light scatter of tortoiseshell butterfly wings limited roosting potential. towards the south of the barn.

Figure 12 – Tortoiseshell wings on the floor of Barn 1

Table 4 External and internal roosting potential and bat evidence in Barn 2

Roosting Potential Bat Evidence

External No bat evidence noted. Between the corrugated asbestos sheets. Single cavity in the south-east corner and a single crack in the northern elevation (where the wooden boards were present). Internal Tortoiseshell and peacock butterfly wings No roosting potential was noted internally. towards the south of the barn.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 16

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

Figure 13 – Gaps between the corrugated metal and corrugated asbestos sheeting on Barn 2

5.12 The potential of the various parts of the barns to support roosting bats has been assessed against Table 4.1 of the Bat Survey Guidelines 2016 (see Table 5 below).

Table 5 Suitability of structures for bat use Suitability Description of roosting habitats

Negligible Negligible habitat features on site likely to be used by roosting bats. Low A structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by individual bats opportunistically. However, these potential roost sites do not provide enough space, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions and/or suitable surrounding habitat to be used on a regular basis or by larger numbers of bats (i.e. unlikely to be suitable for maternity or hibernation). Moderate A structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status (with respect to roost type only – the assessments in this table are made irrespective of species conservation status, which is established after presence is confirmed). High A structure with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat. Confirmed roost Bats discovered roosting within the building or definitive evidence to suggest they do so.

5.13 A summary of bat evidence and grading of roosting potential can be found in Table 8 below.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 17

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

Table 6 Summary of bat evidence and features Barn Roosting potential and evidence Barn 1 Limited roosting potential between the corrugated asbestos sheets and corrugated metal sheets. Three cracks and two cavities allowing access along with access over the wall tops. Single pipistrelle type dropping and light scatter of tortoiseshell butterfly wings. Barn 2 Roosting potential limited to externally between the corrugated asbestos sheets. Two small piles of tortoiseshell and peacock butterfly wings.

5.14 On the basis of the above assessment, both barns had low bat roosting potential. Barn 1 did however have evidence of possible use as a feeding perch (given the light scatter of tortoiseshell and peacock butterfly wings and their location under a roof beam with limited evidence of spider activity on cobwebs).

5.15 Survey Constraints The soil floor made searching for bat droppings difficult.

5.16 BADGER Legislation Badgers are protected under Appendix III of the Bern Convention and are protected in Britain under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, and under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

5.17 A badger sett is defined in the legislation as “any occurrence which displays signs indicating current use by a badger” and includes seasonally used setts.

5.18 Badgers can be disturbed by work near the sett even if there is no direct interference or damage to the sett. A licence may be required for any working within 30m of a badger sett. The licensing authority is Natural England.

5.19 Existing records A single badger was noted within the 2km data search. Details on the location were not given.

5.20 Survey methodology The immediate site was searched to identify any evidence of badger residence, foraging or territorial activity. Particular emphasis was placed on location of badger setts, paths and signs of territorial activity such as dung piles and latrines.

5.21 Survey results No evidence of badger activity was noted on site; it should be noted that the survey did not extend off site.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 18

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

5.22 WATER VOLE Legislation Water vole Arvicola amphibius is protected through its inclusion on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This section of the Act protects water vole places of shelter from damage and disturbance as well as protecting the water vole itself. Legal protection makes it an offence to intentionally: • Damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place that water voles use for shelter or protection; • Kill, injure or take water voles whilst they are using shelter.

5.23 Existing records 3 records for water vole were noted within the 2km data search, all recorded 1.3km south-west of the site.

5.24 Survey Methodology Although a detailed survey was not undertaken during the preliminary assessment, the area on and immediately adjacent to the site was assessed for suitable habitat such as banks for burrows, water edge berms, vegetation cover, suitable water depth for swimming and diving and food source. Any obvious signs of the presence of water vole signs such as latrines, piles of eaten vegetation (feeding stations), burrows and runs were also noted. 5.25 Survey Results The ditch the south had limited potential for water vole to occur due to the areas of mown bank, although the area directly to the south of the proposed site did have greater potential due to the vegetation on the bank providing cover. No direct evidence of water voles was noted during the survey.

5.26 OTTER Legislation Otters are protected both under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2017. Otters and their resting places are fully protected, and it is an offence to: 1) Disturb otters in their breeding or resting places; 2) Damage, destroy or obstruct their breeding or resting places.

5.27 Otter shelters are legally protected whether or not an otter is present.

5.28 Existing records No records for otter were noted within the NBIS 2km data search.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 19

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

5.29 Survey methodology The habitat on the site was searched for evidence of otter including laying up sites, commuting routes under cover, and potential feeding sites.

5.30 Survey results The ditch had the potential for otter to occur although no direct evidence was found. No direct evidence of otters was noted as part of the survey.

5.31 HEDGEHOGS/ SMALL MAMMALS Legislation Hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus are partially protected under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), making it illegal to trap or kill them without a licence. They are known to be in serious decline in the countryside at the moment.

5.32 Existing records A single record for hedgehog was noted within the 2km data search, this was located 2km north- west of the site.

5.33 Potential for hedgehog to occur The close proximity and connectivity to the surrounding habitat and suitable habitat on site (grassy areas and arable farmland) means that there is a potential for hedgehog and other small mammals to occur on the site.

5.34 BREEDING BIRDS Legislation The majority of breeding birds in Britain are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (plus amendments) from disturbance whilst nesting (generally from late April to the end of August).

5.35 Some birds such as barn owls receive special protection under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (plus amendments). This makes it an offence (amongst others) to intentionally or recklessly disturb the bird whilst building a nest, or when such a bird is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young, or intentionally or recklessly disturb dependent young.

5.36 An assessment was made of the site’s suitability to support breeding and wintering bird species. Nesting birds will utilise a broad range of habitats, including built structures, trees, scrub, isolated shrubs, dense herbaceous vegetation (terrestrial and aquatic) and open grassland. All bird species and evidence of breeding activity (active or inactive) observed on site was recorded.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 20

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

5.37 Existing records 3 records for barn owl were noted within the 2km data search. The closest record was 1.3km north-west of the site.

5.38 Survey results Evidence of the following nesting birds was noted during the survey

Barn 1 Single blackbird Turdus merula nest

Barn 2 Single wood pigeon Columba palumbus nest. Possible house sparrow Passer domesticus roosting between the roof and the insulation (south-east corner)

5.39 Wren Troglodytidae, goldfinch Carduelis carduelis, skylark Alauda arvensis and chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita were noted during the survey and could be nesting in the locality.

5.40 REPTILES Legislation The reptiles occurring in Norfolk (common lizard Zootoca vivipara, slow-worm Anguis fragilis, grass snake Natrix natrix, adder Vipera berus) are all given limited legal protection under part of Section 9 (1) and all of Section 9 (5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This means that it is an offence to intentionally kill, injure and offer for sale all of these reptiles.

5.41 Existing records No records for reptiles were noted within the 2km data search.

5.42 Survey methodology An assessment was made of the site’s suitability to support reptile populations. Key reptile habitat features include: tussocky/patchy grassland; scrub edge; linear watercourses; ponds; compost heaps; brash piles and rubble/soil heaps. Linkage to suitable habitat within the surrounding landscape will increase the potential for reptiles to occur, although populations can occur within isolated/fragmented habitats even within urban areas.

5.43 Survey results Areas of taller habitat with the potential to support reptiles were noted to the south and south- east of the site (bordered by a wet ditch to the south and a dry ditch to the east). However, the majority of the area around the two barns had limited potential to support reptiles (arable

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 21

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

farmland and gravel). Given the lack of connectivity to other potentially suitable reptile habitat areas, meant that the presence of common lizard, slow worm and adder is considered unlikely. Due to their transient nature and the location of wet ditches, the presence of grass snake can never be completely discounted.

5.44 AMPHIBIANS Legislation Great crested newts Triturus cristatus and their habitat (aquatic and terrestrial) are afforded full protection by The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Section 9, Schedule 5; and as amended) and The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994. It is an offence to: 1) Disturb, injure or kill recklessly a great crested newt; 2) Disturb or destroy recklessly great crested newt habitat (a breeding site or place of shelter).

5.45 Great crested newt is also listed in the National Biodiversity Action Plan.

5.46 Existing records No amphibians were noted within the 2km data search. 5.47 Survey methodology Great crested newts utilise ponds for breeding and grassland areas for foraging. Great crested newts are normally present in the breeding ponds between March and June and survey techniques to demonstrate presence or absence include torch survey, bottle trapping, netting and egg search. It is also possible to undertake a Habitat Suitability Index assessment (HSI), which assesses the potential of a pond to support great crested newts by looking at a range of environmental factors. Recent development in eDNA technology means that it is possible to test the pond water for the presence of Great crested newt eDNA between mid-April and the end of June.

5.48 Survey results The closest pond was located 350m north-west of the site. Given the distance to the nearest pond, no Habitat Suitability Index survey was undertaken. A network of drains was noted within the vicinity of the site although these had been heavily affected by run-off from the surrounding arable farmland and were covered with algae, these were considered unlikely to support great crested newts. A dry ditch was also noted to the east of the site.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 22

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

Figure 14 – The surrounding ditches are marked in blue, the dry ditch is marked in green. The barns are marked in red.

6.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WORKS ON THE SPECIES PRESENT AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS

6.1 GENERAL Drawings prepared by Swann Edwards Architecture (see below) indicate that the barns will be converted into a 3 bedroomed property, with double doors to the north and south. The plans indicate the use of timber boarding for the walls and cladding on the roof along with roof lights. The plans also indicate that the existing footprint and frame will be used in the construction of the new dwelling.

• Survey drawing – Floor Plan, Section Elevation, Site and Location Plan - 100 • Sketch Scheme - Floor Plan, Section Elevation, Site and Location Plan – SS1000

6.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Designated sites There are no likely impacts on designated sites due to the distance and the nature of the development

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 23

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

6.3 Protected species The likely impacts on protected species recorded are as follows: • The loss of low potential bat roosting sites and a potential bat feeding perch site through the conversion of the barns; This will be confirmed following the further surveys: • Potential Impacts on bat foraging if additional lighting is proposed as part of the proposals; • The loss of bird nesting habitat through the development of the barns; • Impacts on habitat potentially used by common amphibians, transient grass snakes, hedgehogs and small mammals.

6.4 REQUIREMENT FOR FURTHER SURVEYS Bats Following the assessment of the value of the barns for roosting bats, consideration was given to the minimum number of activity surveys that might be required to confirm the level of bat use as follows (to comply with current survey guidelines).

Table 7 Recommended minimum number of survey visits for presence/absence surveys Potential Description

Negligible No surveys required. Low suitability One survey visit. One dusk emergence or dawn re-entry survey between May and August. Moderate suitability Two separate survey visits. One dusk emergence and a separate dawn re-entry survey between May and August. High suitability Three separate survey visits. At least one dusk emergence and a separate dawn re-entry survey. The third could be either dusk or dawn. At least 2 of the visits should be between May and August.

6.5 Although the barns are considered to have low roosting potential, as Barn 1 has a (potential) feeding perch, prior to any works being undertaken a minimum of two summer activity surveys should be undertaken (between the months of May and August) to determine the level of use by bats during the summer period prior to works being undertaken. The information gained during these surveys would be used to inform appropriate mitigation and any subsequent derogation licensing2. If the surveys confirm a feeding perch or any other roost activity a further survey will be required.

6.6 BADGER/ WATER VOLE/ OTTER/ HEDGEHOGS/SMALL MAMMALS Subject to the precautionary mitigation as set out in Section 7, no further surveys are considered necessary in relation to these species.

2 A derogation licence is issued by Natural England and allows works in relation to bats which would otherwise be illegal

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 24

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

6.7 BREEDING BIRDS Subject to the precautionary mitigation as set out in Section 7, no further surveys are considered necessary in relation to breeding birds.

6.8 REPTILES Due to the limited connectivity and the nature of the development (not directly impacting on the habitat) subject to the precautionary mitigation as set out in Section 7, no further surveys are considered necessary in relation to reptiles.

6.9 AMPHIBIANS Given the distance to the closest pond 350m north-west, and poor quality of the local ditches, subject to the precautionary mitigation as set out in Section 7, no further surveys are considered necessary in relation to amphibians.

6.10 LICENSING The findings of the preliminary survey confirm that a European Protected Species licence will be required from Natural England where the proposed development would result in an otherwise un-lawful activity. This includes: a. The killing or disturbance of a European Protected Species; b. Damage, destruction or obstruction of any place used by a European Protected Species for shelter or protection.

6.11 Any licence application will take a minimum of 30 working days to process and can only be processed once planning permission has been granted. Granting of planning permission is no guarantee that a licence will be granted.

6.12 Following changes to the Habitats Regulations in 2007, the threshold to which a person commits an offence of deliberately disturbing a European Protected species has changed, such that the disturbance is likely to affect; (i) the ability of any significant group of animals of that species to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young, or (ii) the local distribution or abundance of that species

6.13 Further changes took place in January 2009, but these generally relate to increased monitoring of licensed mitigation works.

6.14 Bats Guidance from Natural England in their EPS Mitigation Licensing – Latest Developments July 52011 – clarified that the destruction of a bat roost is an absolute offence and requires a

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 25

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

mitigation licence from Natural England. This relates even to a single roosting bat of a common species.

6.15 In April 2015, a new Bat Low Impact Class Licence (now renamed the Bat Mitigation Class Licence) was introduced which covers works that impact small numbers of common bat species. Philip Parker is a registered consultant to work under this licence.

6.16 Licences cannot normally be issued on a precautionary basis and normally require the benefit of supporting activity surveys to categorise the nature of the roost.

6.17 The need for a derogation licence in relation to bats will be determined by the results of the further surveys.

7.0 MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY

7.1 The proposed strategy to mitigate the potential impacts of the development on the various species has been developed as assessed from the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal undertaken in April 2021. The delivery of biodiversity enhancement on development sites is promoted by National Planning Policy Framework and Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

7.2 BATS The following table is based on the guidance within Table 8 given in the Bat Mitigation Guidelines. The level of mitigation required depends on the level of any roosting identified but should a feeding perch be confirmed the level of mitigation is shown toned in orange.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 26

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

Table 8 Guidelines for proportionate mitigation Roost status Mitigation/compensation depending on the impact

Feeding perches of common/rarer species Flexibility over provision of bat boxes, access to new buildings etc. No conditions about timing or monitoring

Individual bats of common species

Small numbers of common species. Not a maternity site Feeding perches of Annex II species

Provision of new roost facilities where possible. Need not be exactly like-for-like, but should be suitable, based on species’ requirements. Minimal timing constraints or monitoring requirements

Small numbers of rarer species. Not a maternity Site Hibernation sites for small numbers of common/rarer species Timing constraints. More or less like-for-like replacement. Bats not to be left without a roost and must be given time to find the replacement. Monitoring for 2 years preferred.

Maternity sites of common species Maternity sites of rarer species

Timing constraints. Like-for-like replacement as a minimum. No destruction of former roost until replacement completed, and usage demonstrated. Monitoring for at least 2 years.

Significant hibernation sites for rarer/rarest species or all species assemblages Sites meeting SSSI guidelines

Oppose interference with existing roosts or seek improved roost provision. Timing constraints. No destruction of former roost until replacement completed and significant usage demonstrated. Monitoring for as long as possible.

Maternity sites of rarest species

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 27

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

7.3 Timing of the work The Bat Mitigation Guidelines present the optimum seasons for works involving various types of roosts. Table 9 Optimum seasons for undertaking work in different types of roost Bat usage of the site Optimum period for carrying out works (some variation between species) Maternity 1st October – 1st May Summer (not a proven maternity site) 1st September – 1st May Hibernation 1st May – 1st October Mating/swarming 1st November – 1st August

7.4 Bats are most likely going to be present in the summer months albeit that the occasional roosting bat during the winter cannot be totally discounted. As a precautionary approach, works which have the potential to impact bats (i.e. stripping the roof) will need to be timed to avoid these key periods (undertaken either mid-September to October or April). This may change following the further surveys.

7.5 Bat ecologist attendance Subject to confirmation (or otherwise) of a bat roost, the licensed bat ecologist will need to undertake the following works during the course of the development works to comply with the terms of any derogation Licence: • Installation of new roosting provision (see below); • Toolbox talk to the builder prior to works commencing; • Checking and excluding any potential roosting cavities prior to development works commencing; • Supervision of roof stripping in any areas where bats have potential to be roosting. In the unlikely event that any bats are found during these works, they will be safely moved to one of the pre-erected bat boxes.

7.6 New Roosting Provision Provision of new roosting opportunities for bats will form part of the mitigation/enhancement strategy.

• If the summer surveys identify the use of the barns by a significant number of void dwelling bats (such as a brown long-eared roost), then it will be necessary to provide an enclosed roost void, either built into a section of the new roof void or otherwise free- standing to be acceptable. Note at this stage, this does seem unlikely given the lack of evidence. This will need to be a minimum of 5m x 5m wide at the eaves and 2m high at the ridge, insulated and provided with suitable access points. If only small numbers

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 28

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

of non-breeding brown long-eared or a feeding perch are noted during the summer surveys, then externally mounted Kent Bat Boxes on the building or a pole would be appropriate to mitigate the loss of roosting features.

• If the summer surveys identify the use of the building by a crevice dwelling species such as pipistrelle, additional provision of replacement/additional bat roosting habitat in the form of bat boxes will be required.

• As part of any development it is necessary to provide ecological enhancement to comply with current net gain planning guidance. This should include the incorporation of more bat roosting features compared to those to be lost.

Figure 15 – Kent bat boxes on a tree

Figure 16 – Internal bat box in wall

7.7 If bats are likely to be able to get under any new roof covering on the house, it is important that any accessible underfelt used is 1F bitumen hessian reinforced felt. Modern breathable felts have found to be hazardous to bats whose claws can get caught under the loops of the fibres. The following BCT webpage provides the findings of research undertaken into the impact of breathable membranes on bats: http://www.bats.org.uk/news.php/254/bats_and_breathable_roofing_membranes_update_of_fi ndings_%20

7.8 Lighting In order to limit any effects on foraging bats using the local area, the following should be adopted with respect to any future lighting strategy: • Any external lighting should be limited to only that absolutely necessary for safety purposes;

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 29

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

• The brightness of the lighting should be as low as possible and kept at a low level and directed away from the boundary vegetation and any existing/new bat boxes/roosting areas; • Narrow spectrum lighting with no UV light is preferred; • Luminaires should feature peak wavelengths higher than 550nm to avoid the component of light most disturbing to bats; • Lighting on sensors should not be so sensitive that foraging bats set them off and should be on short timers (1 minute).

7.9 BREEDING BIRDS Care should be taken that the development does not disturb breeding birds. Bird nests, when occupied or being built, receive legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is highly advisable to undertake initial disturbance works on potential bird nesting habitat outside the bird nesting season, which is generally seen as extending from March to the end of August, although it may extend for longer depending on local conditions. Note that this would clash with the spring demolition period for the bats. In respect of the removal of conifers this should be completed by the end of January as nesting birds are often present in such features in the early spring.

7.10 If there is no alternative to carrying out work in these areas during this period, then suitable nesting locations should be carefully inspected for evidence of nests prior to works commencing. If occupied nests are present, then works must stop in the area and can only recommence once the nest becomes unoccupied of its own accord.

7.11 It is also recommended that bird nesting enhancement is provided as part of any development through the provision of bird nesting boxes as part of any development. In this instance, a minimum of a single swift box and a house sparrow terrace should be incorporated (options can be found in Figures 17 - 18 below).

Figure 18 – Example of a Ecostyrocrete Figure 17 – Example of a Habitbat Sparrow terrace 003 swift nest box

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 30

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

7.12 REPTILES/ AMPHIBIANS/SMALL MAMMALS The potential for impacts on reptiles and protected amphibians is considered to be limited due to the lack of suitable habitat and connectivity to the wider habitat. Despite this a precautionary approach to the site development is still recommended:

a. Clearance of piles of vegetation debris, general debris and rough vegetation should take place outside the reptile hibernation period (typically October – March), in a careful and sensitive manner, by hand. b. All waste shall be placed directly into skips or designated areas so that debris piles and therefore potential refuge areas are not created; c. Piles of loose sand or other granular materials into which amphibians could bury themselves are not to be left around the site. All such materials should ideally be delivered in bags and kept in such bags until required for use. Bags should be stored on pallets. If it is essential that they are delivered loose, they should be retained in designated areas which are not accessible to reptiles; d. All trenches will be left covered at night. They must be checked in the morning before they are filled in. All trenches are to be provided with a small mammal ramp to allow any animals that get trapped are able to escape.

7.13 ADVISORY NOTE This report presents a true reflection of habitats present and wildlife usage at the site at the time of the survey and remains valid for a period of 12 months from its date. Even given the precautions set out above, it is always possible that protected species could be encountered at any time. In such a case, work should cease immediately and either Natural England or Philip Parker Associates (Mob: 07850275605) be contacted for further advice.

8.0 REFERENCES

• Altringham J D, 2003, British Bats, Collins New Naturalist • Bat Conservation Trust, 2016, BCT Bat Survey Guidelines Third edition • BS 42020:2013. Biodiversity. Code of practice for planning and development • English Nature, 2002, Barn owls on site – A guide for developers and planners • English Nature, 1995 Badgers- Guidelines for Developers • Froglife 1999, Reptile Survey- An introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation • Gent T and Gibson S 1998 Herpetofauna Workers Manual JNCC • Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 1993. A Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 31

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

Survey : A Technique for Environmental Audit. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. • Mitchell Jones AJ, 2004, Bat Mitigation guidelines, English Nature • Mitchell Jones AJ and McLeish A P, The Bat Workers Manual, JNCC • Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Ch 3, s. 40

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 32

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

DRAWING D1 PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 33

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

APPENDIX A PROTECTED SITES

NATURA 2000 SITES The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992) requires EU Member States to create a network of protected wildlife areas, known as Natura 2000, across the European Union. This network consists of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs), established to protect wild birds under the Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2nd April 1979). These sites are part of a range of measures aimed at conserving important or threatened habitats and species.

SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION (SAC) Special Areas of Conservation have been given special protection under the European Union’s Habitats Directive. They provide increased protection to a variety of wild animals, plants and habitats and are a vital part of global efforts to conserve the world’s biodiversity.

The Ouse Washes (SAC) – Located 2.6km south-east The Ouse Washes supports spined loach Cobitis taenia populations within the River Ouse catchment. The Counter Drain, with its clear water and abundant macrophytes, is particularly important, and a healthy population of spined loach is known to occur.

SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA (SPA) Special Protection Areas are strictly protected sites classified in accordance with Article 4 of the EC Directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC), also known as the Birds Directive, which came into force in April 1979. They are classified for rare and vulnerable birds, listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive, and for regularly occurring migratory species.

The Ouse Washes (SPA) – Located 2.6km south-east This site qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance listed on Annex I of the Directive:

During the breeding season Ruff Philomachus pugnax, 1 individual representing at least 9.1% of the breeding population in Great Britain (5 year mean 1983-1987)

Spotted Crake Porzana porzana, 3 individuals representing at least 6.0% of the breeding population in Great Britain (3-4 males = minimum)

Over Winter

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 34

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

Bewick's Swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii, 4,639 individuals representing at least 66.3% of the wintering population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6).

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus, 12 individuals representing at least 1.6% of the wintering population in Great Britain (6 year mean, 1982-1987).

Ruff Philomachus pugnax, 137 individuals representing at least 19.6% of the wintering population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6).

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus, 963 individuals representing at least 17.5% of the wintering population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6).

This site also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following migratory species:

During the breeding season Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa limosa, 26 pairs representing <0.1% of the breeding western Europe/W Africa population (Count, as at late 1980s-early 1990s);

Gadwall Anas strepera, 111 pairs representing at least 1.1% of the breeding north-western Europe population;

Shoveler Anas clypeata, 155 pairs representing at least 1.2% of the breeding north- western/central Europe population (Count, as at late 1980s-early 1990s);

Over winter Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica, 1,198 individuals representing at least 1.7% of the wintering Iceland - breeding population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6).

Gadwall Anas strepera, 342 individuals representing at least 1.1% of the wintering North- western Europe population (5-year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6).

Pintail Anas acuta, 1,755 individuals representing at least 2.9% of the wintering North-western Europe population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6).

Pochard Aythya ferina, 3,590 individuals representing at least 1.0% of the wintering north- western/north-eastern Europe population.

Shoveler Anas clypeata, 681 individuals representing at least 1.7% of the wintering north- western/central Europe population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6). Wigeon Anas penelope, 29,713 individuals representing at least 2.4% of the wintering western Siberia/north-western/north-eastern Europe population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6).

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 35

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

RAMSAR SITES Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention.

Sites proposed for selection are advised by the UK statutory nature conservation agencies, or the relevant administration in the case of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, co- ordinated through JNCC. In selecting sites, the relevant authorities are guided by the Criteria set out in the Convention. The UK also has a national Ramsar Committee composed of experts who provide further advice.

In the UK, the first Ramsar sites were designated in 1976. Since then, many more have been designated. Compared to many countries, the UK has a relatively large number of Ramsar sites, but they tend to be smaller in size than many countries. The initial emphasis was on selecting sites of importance to water birds within the UK, and consequently many Ramsar sites are also Special Protection Areas (SPA) classified under the Birds Directive. However, greater attention is now being directed towards the selection of Ramsar sites in UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies; the first of these was designated in 1990. Both within the UK and overseas, non-bird features are increasingly taken into account, both in the selection of new sites and when reviewing existing sites.

The Ouse Washe (RAMSAR) – Located 2.6km south-east This site is an area of seasonally-flooded washland habitat managed in a traditional agricultural manner. The washlands support nationally and internationally important numbers of wintering waterfowl and nationally important numbers of breeding waterfowl. The site is also of note for the large area of unimproved neutral grassland communities which it holds, and for the richness of the aquatic flora within the associated watercourses.

The site supports several nationally scarce plants, including small water pepper Polygonum minus, whorled water-milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum, greater water parsnip Sium latifolium, river water- dropwort Oenanthe fluviatilis, fringed water-lily Nymphoides peltata, long-stalked pondweed Potamogeton praelongus, hair-like pondweed Potamogeton trichoides, grass-wrack pondweed Potamogeton compressus, tasteless water-pepper Polygonum mite and marsh dock Rumex palustris.

Invertebrate records indicate that the site holds relict fenland fauna, including the British Red Data Book species Scarce chaser dragonfly Libellula fulva and the rifle beetle Oulimnius major.

The site also supports a diverse assemblage of nationally rare breeding waterfowl associated with seasonally-flooded wet grassland.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 36

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (SSSI) The SSSI/ASSI series has developed since 1949 as the national suite of sites providing statutory protection for the best examples of the UK's flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features. These sites are also used to underpin other national and international nature conservation designations. Most SSSIs are privately-owned or managed; others are owned or managed by public bodies or non-government organisations. The SSSI/ASSI designation may extend into intertidal areas out to the jurisdictional limit of local authorities, generally Mean Low Water in England and Northern Ireland; Mean Low Water of Spring tides in Scotland. In Wales, the limit is Mean Low Water for SSSIs notified before 2002, and, for more recent notifications, the limit of Lowest Astronomical Tides, where the features of interest extend down to LAT. There is no provision for marine SSSIs/ASSIs beyond low water mark, although boundaries sometimes extend more widely within estuaries and other enclosed waters.

Originally notified under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, SSSIs have been re-notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Improved provisions for the protection and management of SSSIs were introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (in England and Wales) and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.

The Ouse Washes (SSSI) – Located 2.6km south-east of the site The site is one of the country’s few remaining areas of extensive washland habitat. It is of particular note for the large numbers of wildfowl and waders which it supports, for the large area of unimproved neutral grassland communities which it holds and for the richness of the aquatic fauna and flora within the associated watercourse. The capacity of the site to hold wintering and breeding waterfowl and waders is of international significance. Of particular note in the winter are the large numbers of teal Anas crecca, pintail Anas acuta, wigeon Anas penelope, shoveler Anas clypeata, pochard Aythya ferina and Bewick’s swan Cygnus bewickii.

COUNTY WILDLIFE SITES County Wildlife Sites are second tier ecological sites, identified as they fulfil a range of select criteria for their ecological interest on a county level. They do not receive statutory protection but are usually offered some protection under local planning policy.

No County Wildlife Sites were noted within the 2km data search.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Page 37

PROPOSED BARN CONVERSION AT CROFT BARN, TIPPS END, WELNEY PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

Philip Parker Associates Ltd White Row Cottage Leziate Drove Pott Row King’s Lynn PE32 1DB

Tel : 01553 630842 Mob : 07850 275605 PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2021 – 27 R1 FINAL 5.5.21 Email : [email protected] Page 38