LAND OFF BELVEDERE ROAD, BURTON-UPON-TRENT,

SURVEY FOR BATS

Prepared for Staffordshire County Council

June 2012

LAND OFF BELVEDERE ROAD, BURTON-UPON-TRENT, STAFFORDSHIRE

SURVEY FOR BATS

Prepared for

STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Prepared by

APEX ECOLOGY LIMITED

Synchro House 512 Etruria Road Newcastle-under-Lyme Staffordshire ST5 0SY

01782 346494 [email protected]

Survey undertaken by Max Robinson and Helen Ball

Report produced by Helen Ball, MSc, CEnv, MIEEM

Report checked by Max Robinson, BSc, MIEEM

June 2012

Printed on recycled paper Land off Belvedere Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire Survey for Bats

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Search of Existing Bat Records 2.3 Survey Methodology 2.5 Inspection of Buildings 2.10 Evening Activity Survey 2.14 Constraints to the Survey

3. FINDINGS & INTERPRETATION

3.1 Review of Existing Bat Records 3.3 Survey Findings 2.4 Inspection of Buildings 3.9 Evening Activity Survey 3.12 Interpretation of the Survey Findings

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

5. REFERENCES

PLATES

I Pumphouse II Interior of pumphouse III Mortar missing on southern wall verge of pumphouse IV Pavilion

FIGURE

1 Location of Buildings and Bat Activity Transect Route and Findings

APPENDIX

I Legislation Relating to Bats

Apex Ecology Limited June 2012 Report HB/120603 Land off Belvedere Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire Survey for Bats

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report presents the results of surveys for bats on land off Belvedere Road in Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire undertaken by Apex Ecology Limited. The report is based on field surveys that were carried out during May 2012, which comprised an inspection of the existing buildings on site for evidence of roosting bats and assessment of the wider site for use by foraging bats.

1.2 The project was undertaken for Staffordshire County Council. The proposal is to construct a new primary school on the site.

1.3 Bats and their roosts are legally protected under European and domestic legislation and they are a material consideration during determination of planning applications. A summary of the key legislation protecting bats is provided in Appendix I.

1.4 The three buildings that were surveyed include: the pumphouse, a single-storey brick building with a steeply pitched and slated roof; a wooden pavilion; and a small wooden shed. The clubhouse (a large building that was located in the northern part of the site) has been demolished. The site is made up of a large area of amenity grassland that is now unmanaged, along with bowling greens, hardstanding, rough grassland and both native and ornamental scrub.

1.5 The site is located in the west of Burton-upon-Trent at approximate OS grid reference SK 238 245. It is surrounded by residential housing and the A38 dual- carriageway lies c.125m to the east. Open farmland lies 550m to the southwest.

1.6 The methods used for the surveys and any constraints encountered are described in the following chapter of the report. The results of the surveys are presented, along with a description of the buildings and any evidence of bats recorded. An assessment of the survey findings is then made, along with recommendations in light of the proposals.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2012 Report HB/120603 Land off Belvedere Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire Survey for Bats

2. METHODOLOGY

Search of Existing Bat Records

2.1 Staffordshire Ecological Record, the local records centre for Staffordshire, was contacted for existing records of bats lying within 2km of the site.

2.2 The results of record searches can help to set a site into the context of its surroundings, as well as provide valuable information on the known presence of bats in the local area.

Survey Methodology

2.3 The buildings on site were inspected on the 22nd May 2012. This was followed by an evening survey to record bat activity across the wider site. A second evening survey to record bat activity was undertaken on the 29th May 2012.

2.4 The surveys were undertaken by Helen Ball and Max Robinson who are both licensed by Natural to survey for bats (Natural England licence numbers 20113290 and 20120746). Both are experienced ecologists each having over ten year’s experience working in the ecology sector.

Inspection of the Buildings

2.5 An assessment of buildings was made in terms of their suitability to support roosting bats. A number of factors were considered, including internal conditions, presence of features suitable for use by crevice dwelling and free hanging bats, proximity to foraging habitats/cover and potential for disturbance.

2.6 A description of each of the buildings was made and they were assessed in terms of their suitability to support roosting bats and assigned to one of the following categories:

• Bat roost – evidence of use by bats present. Works affecting the roost would need to be undertaken under a statutory licence from Natural England, with precautionary and mitigation measures implemented as specified by the licence.

• High Potential – building exhibiting features very suitable for use by roosting bats (such as gaps between tiles and underfelt, gaps below ridge tiles, significant crevices within the walls) and offering optimal roosting opportunity. Often a number of suitable features will be present. Further survey (such as evening emergence surveys) would normally be undertaken to establish use by bats and, if confirmed, the type of roost and number of bats present, etc. If no roost is identified, precautionary measures would need to be implemented during works to the building.

• Moderate Potential – building exhibiting features less suitable for roosting bats (such as superficial gaps within walls, gaps containing debris or cobwebs, limited areas of tiles or generally well-sealed tiling) and offering sub-optimal roosting opportunity. Suitable roosting opportunity may be limited to a single or small number of features that can be searched for signs of use. No further survey Apex Ecology Limited June 2012 Report HB/120603 Land off Belvedere Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire Survey for Bats

required, although precautionary measures needed during works to building, such as hand stripping of tiles.

• Low Potential – building exhibiting features very unlikely to be used for roosting or no features suitable for roosting. In practice, such buildings may have negligible potential for roosting. No further action required.

2.7 A visual inspection of the interiors and exteriors of the buildings for evidence of bats was undertaken. This followed standard methodologies set out in the Bat Mitigation Guidelines (Mitchell-Jones, 2004) and Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines (Bat Conservation Trust, 2007).

2.8 Externally, the buildings were walked around and a visual inspection of features such as windows and window ledges and gaps in the building fabric was made for evidence of bat use. Evidence searched for included droppings and staining from fur-oil and urine. Features such as lifted or broken ridge and common tiles, gaps at the tops of walls, open windows and doorways were noted that could provide potential access points for bats to enter and roost within the building. The survey was undertaken from the ground and aided by the use of close-focusing binoculars and high-powered torches where necessary.

2.9 The internal survey of the buildings followed a similar approach, with a search made for bat droppings, prey residues (such as fly or moth wings) and urine stains, as well as resident bats.

Evening Activity Survey

2.10 Two surveys were carried out during the evening to assess the use of the site by foraging and commuting bats. Certain bat species favour woodland edge and hedgerows, whilst other species use open areas such as parkland and areas where agricultural fields are interspersed with woodland, hedgerow and tree- lines. Some species also regularly frequent urban areas. The surveys were undertaken to assess how the proposals may impact upon foraging and commuting bats as the loss of habitats and landscape features can affect both the feeding resources used by bats and also the bats ability to move through the landscape.

2.11 A transect across the site was walked on two occasions. The aim of the transect survey was to record bat activity generally across the site and to identify ‘hotspots’ of activity. The transect incorporated most of the site, including the large former amenity grassland forming the bulk of the habitat present and the bordering hedgerow/scrub, as well as the bowling greens and associated ornamental shrub. The transect was approximately 850m in length and was walked in opposite directions during the two surveys. Both of the surveys commenced just after dusk.

2.12 As well as electronic recordings, notes on location, bat species and activity were made on standard recording sheets. The weather conditions during the surveys are given in the table below.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2012 Report HB/120603 Land off Belvedere Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire Survey for Bats

Date Conditions start Temperatures 22/05/2012 Gentle breeze, dry, Start 16.2˚C. warm, <5% high cirrus End 14.4˚C cloud cover. Had been hot and sunny during the day. 29/05/2012 Warm, still, dry, <5% Start 18.4˚C cloud cover. Again, had End 18.2˚C been warm and sunny during the day.

2.13 The bat detectors used were Batbox Duets (Batbox Ltd, Horsham Rd, Steyning, West Sussex BN44 3AA) and the Anabat SD1 (Titley Electronics, 4 Endeavour Cl, Ballina NSW 2478, Australia). Along with providing information in the field, the Anabat SD1 also records any detected calls to compact flash cards for later analysis via software to allow greater detail of calls to be seen and aid in identifying the bat species recorded where necessary. The software used for analysing the recorded files is Analook W (http://users.lmi.net/corben/Beta/).

Constraints to Survey

2.14 Access to the loft space in the pumphouse was prohibited due to the height of the ceiling and loft hatch. It was only viewed from ground level through the already open loft hatch door.

2.15 Evening surveys (often referred to as ‘emergence’ surveys) or morning surveys (often referred to as dawn ‘swarming’ surveys) to watch for bats emerging or returning to roosting sites that may be present in the buildings were not undertaken. This is important to note, as alone, physical inspections of buildings are not always sufficient to determine the full extent and nature of roosting by bats. This is particularly relevant for buildings identified as holding high potential for roosting (low and moderate potential buildings generally do not need to be subject to further survey, although precautionary measures during any works to these buildings is often advised).

Apex Ecology Limited June 2012 Report HB/120603 Land off Belvedere Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire Survey for Bats

3. SURVEY FINDINGS & INTERPRETATION

Review of Existing Bat Records

3.1 Bats have not been previously recorded as using the site, although there are 31 known records of bats from the surrounding area. At least five species of bat are known to inhabit the local area – common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus; brown long-eared Plecotus auritus; noctule Nyctalus noctula; Daubenton’s Myotis daubentonii; and whiskered/Brandt’s/Alcathoe M. mystacinus/brandtii/alcathoe.

3.2 The nearest known record of a bat is a whiskered/Brandt’s/Alcathoe found dead in a building 500m to the east of the site on the opposite side of the A38 and the . A possible roost of brown long-eared was recorded in 2004 from a site 600m to the northeast and possible roosts of common pipistrelle lie 1km to the southwest and 1km to the north. Daubenton’s are known to use the river Trent extensively for foraging.

Survey Findings

3.3 The locations of the buildings and route of the evening transect surveys are shown on Figure 1. The buildings are also shown on Plates I-IV.

Inspection of Buildings

3.4 The pumphouse is a brick building with a pitched and slated roof. The thick walls are built from brick and are generally well sealed with no obvious gaps being present that bats could use to access the building or for roosting. There are solid stone lintels above the windows on the side walls. The slate tiles are well fitting, although a number of gaps are present below the ridge ties. Gaps are also present on the southern gable end wall at the wall verge where mortar has fallen away from below the tiles.

3.5 The interior of the pumphouse consists of a single large room with a small room on the eastern side. The walls consist of painted brick and are generally well- sealed. There is a single glazed window and large double doors in the gable end walls and the interior is poorly lit. The apex of the roof is boarded out to form a void at the roof apex, with wooden sarking cladding the lower half of the roof pitches. The roof void was not entered due to the height of the access hatch. The roof could be viewed from the ground via the loft hatch. The tiles are visible below and no torching or underfelt is present. Some cobwebs are present at the ridge, but it appeared generally clean. No signs of bats were found in the parts of the building that were surveyed. The building holds high potential for bats to use for roosting.

3.6 The pavilion is a low, single-storey building. It is clad in wood and has large glazed windows along each side wall. The roof has a very gentle pitch and is covered in felt. The wooden soffits and fascia boards are generally very well sealed. Where gaps are present, these are filled with cobwebs and dust or extend in only superficially as they are sealed with a strip of wooden batten behind the fascia boarding.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2012 Report HB/120603 Land off Belvedere Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire Survey for Bats

3.7 The interior of the pavilion is divided into a large room for seating, along with smaller rooms housing a kitchen and WCs. The ceiling consists of wooden painted boards and the walls are painted or lined with wall paper. The interior rooms are well lit and well sealed and unsuitable for use by bats. A low roof void is present, c. 400mm in height, and is filled with pipes and ducting. The building holds low potential to be used by bats for roosting.

3.8 A medium-sized garden shed lies at the rear (eastern side) of the pavilion. It is constructed from wood and has a pitched wooden roof. It has double-skin walls filled with rockwool insulation. It holds no potential to be used by bats for roosting.

Evening Activity Survey

3.9 Two species of bat were recorded using the site during the evening activity surveys – common pipistrelle and noctule. Activity by bats was fairly limited, although activity surveys are merely a ‘snapshot’ of bat activity across a site and activity at other times could be markedly higher.

3.10 During the survey on the 22nd May, common pipistrelles were recorded across much of the site except for the bowling greens and adjacent hard standing. Activity by this species was concentrated in the southern part of the site along the edge of the amenity grassland, adjacent hedgerow and area of scrub. Bats were seen foraging low (3-4m) over the grassland, as well as chasing each other in flight whilst emitting social calls. Single passes by common pipistrelles were also heard in the centre of the grassland, as well as along the coniferous hedge on the northern boundary close to where the clubhouse has been demolished. A distant single pass by a noctule was heard towards the start of the survey near to the pumphouse and again later during the survey over the amenity grassland. These were likely noctule bats foraging high up.

3.11 Common pipistrelles were the only species recorded during the survey on the 29th May. Passes by foraging and commuting bats were recorded from over the large amenity grassland, with bats also recorded foraging along the ornamental shrubs and trees edging the bowling greens.

Interpretation of the Survey Results

3.12 No signs of bats were found in the parts of the pumphouse that were surveyed. The roof void could not be accessed for survey and the building contains gaps below the ridge tiles and along the southern gable end wall verge. It holds high potential to be used by bats for roosting. The pavilion holds low potential for roosting and the shed is unsuitable for bats to use for roosting.

3.13 Apart from two passes by a noctule during the first evening survey, all the bats recorded using the site for foraging and commuting were common pipistrelles. They were recorded using the majority of the habitats, particularly in areas adjacent to hedgerows or ornamental or native scrub. It is likely that a number of roosts, including maternity roosts are present in houses surrounding the site, with the bats using the site, along with nearby gardens and green spaces for foraging and commuting. Apex Ecology Limited June 2012 Report HB/120603 Land off Belvedere Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire Survey for Bats

3.14 The common pipistrelle is considered to be under-recorded but frequent in Staffordshire with a distribution across the whole of Staffordshire (Crawley et al., 2007). Their affiliation with human habitation tends to concentrate the numbers around the edges of cities but they are also widespread throughout rural areas too. They are the bat most commonly seen feeding in and around gardens. The common pipistrelle is known to be heavily associated with human habitation.

3.15 The loss of habitats on site is unlikely to adversely affect the local common pipistrelle population, although it may affect individual bats and roosts that occupy areas close to the site.

3.16 Two passes by a noctule were encountered during the first evening survey indicating that this species does not extensively use the site for foraging. Use of the site by noctules may vary across the course of the year, although it is unlikely that development of the site as a primary school would adversely affect the local population of this species.

3.17 The noctule is a widespread species, although it is considered uncommon and under-recorded in Staffordshire and is likely present in low numbers (Crawley et al., 2007). It almost exclusively roosts in trees. Noctule bats fly at height and consume large insects. To fulfil this need, noctules regularly forage at greater height than other bats to catch larger insect prey such as cockchafer Melolontha melolontha beetles.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2012 Report HB/120603 Land off Belvedere Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire Survey for Bats

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 To maintain habitat on site suitable for bats to use for foraging and commuting, it is recommended that the existing hedgerows along the boundaries of the site be retained and enhanced as part of the development. This could be achieved by planting of shrubs in gaps and allowing the hedgerows to become thicker and taller and to contain a wider rage of native trees and shrubs. Where possible, the removal of any hedgerow or scrub should be off-set by the planting of new hedgerow or scrub thickets. The trees and shrubs used would need to be native and locally suitable (and preferably of local provenance). Suitable species would include hawthorn, hazel and field maple, along with holly to provide cover and shelter during the winter months.

4.2 Retaining a wide belt of grassland, mown once a year in late summer, along the edges of the hedgerows and scrub would also help to provide additional foraging habitat.

4.3 Post development there would be increases in the level of lighting that may impact on bats. To reduce the impacts of lighting, it is recommended that the lighting scheme is designed to reduce light spill into habitats away from the key areas that require lighting. Low and High Sodium lights that emit less UV radiation than other lighting (such as metal halide, mercury, etc) would be preferable for use. To reduce UV emissions and light spill further, the use of UV filters could be explored, along with the use of asymmetric luminaires. The use of low lux intensity lighting coupled with low level designs, possibly with timers or motion detectors would also help to reduce light spill.

4.4 The pumphouse contains suitable roosting opportunities for bats and is considered to hold high potential for roosting. Should the building be affected by the proposals, it recommended that it is subject to follow-on survey. The survey would help to establish if the building is used by bats, the extent to which the building is used and identify the status of any roosts found to be present, enabling impacts of the proposed development to be fully assessed and appropriate mitigation to be designed to off-set impacts on bats. The recommendation for follow-on survey follows the advice on assessment of buildings contained within English Nature’s Bat Mitigation Guidelines (Mitchell- Jones, 2004) and Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines (BCT, 2007).

4.5 The further survey would need to consist of three evening emergence (or early morning ‘swarming’) surveys, with surveyors present externally and internally watching for bat emergence from, and activity associated with, the building. The surveys would need to be undertaken during a time of year when bats are most active. Such surveys can be undertaken between May and September following the Bat Conservation Trust guidelines, with mid-May to mid-August being the optimal period to obtain information on the presence of maternity roosts. (September is considered sub-optimal).

4.6 In view of the legal protection afforded to bats (see Appendix I), a statutory licence may need to be sought from Natural England if bats or their roost sites would be affected by the proposals. In order to issue a licence, Natural England would require detailed and up-to-date information about the status of bat roosts Apex Ecology Limited June 2012 Report HB/120603 Land off Belvedere Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire Survey for Bats

and bat use of the building and a commitment to mitigation measures. In addition, planning permission (usually full) would have to have been granted for the development (where applicable). The appropriate mitigation measures would need to be designed to ensure that overall there were no detrimental effects on bats.

4.7 In order to obtain a licence from Natural England, the following three tests would need to be satisfied:

• there is no satisfactory alternative; • the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range; and • the action authorised preserved public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2012 Report HB/120603 Land off Belvedere Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire Survey for Bats

5. REFERENCES

Bat Conservation Trust (2007). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, .

Crawley, D., Smith, D., Ball, H. and Mott, N. (2007). The Mammals of Staffordshire. Staffordshire Mammal Group/Staffordshire Wildlife Trust.

Mitchell-Jones, A. J. (2004). The Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2012 Report HB/120603 Land off Belvedere Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire Survey for Bats

PLATES

Plate I. Pumphouse Plate II. Interior of pumphouse

Plate III. Mortar missing on southern wall Plate IV. Pavilion verge of pumphouse

Apex Ecology Limited June 2012 Report HB/120603

Land off Belvedere Road, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire Survey for Bats

APPENDIX I - LEGISLATION RELATING TO BATS

The information below is intended only as guidance to the legislation relating to bats in England. It is recommended that the legislative documents be referred to for the full legal wording.

There are seventeen different species of bat in the UK; some are very rare whilst others are widespread. However, because the populations of most species have declined in past decades, all British bats have been protected by law.

Bats are protected in England under European Legislation via the Conservation (Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (92/43/EEC)) or ‘The Habitats Directive’. The Directive is transposed into UK law via the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Statutory Instrument 2010/0490 known as the Habitats Regulations), which came into force on the 1st April 2010. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the “Habitats Regulations”) consolidate and update the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (Statutory Instrument 1994/2716) and amendments. Due to their inclusion on Schedule 2 of the Habitats Regulations, bats are considered ‘European Protected Species’.

In summary, this legislation makes it an offence to:

• deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat; • deliberately disturb a bat; • damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of any bat; • possess a bat (alive or dead) or any part of a bat.

Disturbance of bats includes in particular any disturbance which is likely: (a) to impair their ability: (i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or (ii) to hibernate or migrate; or (b) to affect the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong. Bats are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), which has also been amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act, 2000. In summary, this legislation makes it an offence to:

• intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection; • intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any structure or place which any bat uses for shelter or protection.

In addition, under UK’s Biodiversity Action Plans seven British bat species are listed as ‘Priority Species’. These include barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus, Bechstein’s Myotis bechsteinii, noctule Nyctalus noctula, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, brown long-eared Plecotus auritus, greater horseshoe Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and lesser horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros.

Apex Ecology Limited June 2012 Report HB/120603