Bat Survey The Old School, Albert Place, Washington
May 2021
JDDK Architects
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Client JDDK Architects
Project Name The Old School, Albert Place, Washington
Project Number 20171
Report Type Bat Survey
Version V2 (Final)
Name Position Date Report Originator James Streets Director 19th October 2020 Reviewed Mandy Rackham Senior Ecologist 23rd October 2020 Additional Survey Data James Streets Director 21st May 2020
This report is issued to the Client for the purpose stated in the Agreement between the Client and OS Ecology Ltd, under which this work was undertaken. The report may only be used for this aforementioned purpose and copyright remains with OS Ecology Ltd. The report is only intended for the Client and must not be relied upon or reproduced by anyone other than the Client without the express written agreement of OS Ecology Ltd. The use of this report by unauthorised persons is at their own risk. OS Ecology Ltd accepts no duty of care to any such party.
OS Ecology Ltd has exercised due care and attention in the preparation of this report. Unless specifically stated, there has been no independent verification of information provided by others. No other warranty, express or implied, is made in relation to the content of this report and OS Ecology Ltd accepts no liability for any loss or damage resulting from errors, omissions or misrepresentations of others.
The findings of the report and subsequent assessment and opinions of OS Ecology Ltd are based entirely on the facts and circumstances at the time the work was undertaken. OS Ecology Ltd have produced this report in line with best practice guidance and following the principles and requirements of British Standard BS42020. The report has been provided taking due regard of the provisions of the CIEEM Code of Professional Conduct.
It must be noted that the none of the information provided within this report constitutes legal opinion.
Where required to do so by law or regulatory authority, OS Ecology Ltd may disclose any information obtained from the Client to a third party. Should OS Ecology Ltd become aware that the Client has breached or is likely to breach legislation relating to wildlife or the environment, OS Ecology Ltd will be entitled to disclose such information to the relevant authority, including the relevant governmental body or the police.
P a g e | 2
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Contents
Summary ...... 5 1. Introduction ...... 7 Site Location ...... 7 Site Description ...... 7 Objectives of the Study ...... 7 Development Proposals ...... 7 2. Methodology ...... 8 Scope of Study ...... 8 Desk Study ...... 8 Field Survey ...... 8 Habitats/Protected Species ...... 8 Bats ...... 9 Limitations to Survey ...... 11 Analysis of Data ...... 11 Assessment Methodology ...... 12 3. Results ...... 13 Desk Study ...... 13 Designated Sites...... 13 European Protected Species Licensing...... 13 Local Bat Group ...... 13 General Land Use ...... 13 Field Survey ...... 13 Bats ...... 13 Additional Species Groups ...... 16 Birds ...... 16 Other Protected Species ...... 16 4. Site Assessment ...... 17 Assessment of Survey Findings ...... 17 Bats ...... 17 Nesting Birds ...... 17 Other Protected Species ...... 17 Designated Sites...... 17 5. Impacts ...... 18 6. Recommendations ...... 19 Further Survey ...... 19 Avoidance Measures ...... 19 Mitigation Strategy ...... 19 Compensation Scheme ...... 19 Appendix 1 – Bat Suitability and Survey Effort...... 20 Appendix 2 – Policy and Legislation ...... 22 Planning Policy ...... 22 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ...... 22
P a g e | 3
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Government Circular ODPM 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (England only) ...... 24 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 ...... 24 Appendix 3 – Bat Activity Survey Data Tables ...... 28 Appendix 4 – Figures ...... 37 Appendix 5 – Additional Photographs ...... 43
Tables
Table 1: Daytime Survey Conditions ...... 9 Table 2: Activity Survey Conditions ...... 10 Table 3: Bat Species Identification Parameters ...... 11 Table 4: Bat Risk Assessment ...... 14 Table 5: Guidelines for assessing the potential suitability of proposed development sites for bats ...... 20 Table 6: Survey effort and timing depending on suitability of the structure or tree (Tables 7.1-7.3 in the BCT Guidelines ...... 21 Table 7: Ecologically Relevant Paragraphs of the NPPF ...... 22 Table 8: UK Priority Habitats (excl. marine habitats) ...... 25 Table 9: European Protected Species relevant to the UK...... 27 Table 10: Other Protected Species ...... 27
P a g e | 4
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Summary
OS Ecology Ltd were commissioned by JDDK Architects in September 2020 to undertake a daytime bat risk assessment and bat activity survey work of the Old School, Albert Place, Washington. It is proposed to renovate the school and add to its footprint to bring it back into use. An additional dusk activity survey was completed in May 2021 to inform the application.
Summary Table
Impacts on Designated No impacts on sites designated for bats are predicted from the Sites development.
Daytime Bat Risk No evidence of bats was recorded associated with the daytime bat risk Assessment Findings assessment however there were a number of potential roosting opportunities associated with the structure, primarily associated with the roof structure, but also a number of gaps in the mortaring at the wall tops and associated with coping stones.
Activity Survey Dusk survey work on the 28th September 2020 recorded a number of Findings common pipistrelle bats emerging from two locations on the roof, and a single soprano pipistrelle bat emerging from a roosting location again associated with the roof structure. Based on the timing of the survey and number of bats these are considered to be day roosts used by small number of bats.
Survey work on the 21st May 2021 recorded no bats emerging from the property. Common and soprano pipistrelle were however recorded foraging in the local area.
Nesting Birds No evidence of use by nesting birds was recorded, but the property offers limited opportunities.
Other Species Montbretia, a species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was recorded on site.
Impacts • The loss of potential roosting locations in the location of the proposed extensions at the wall tops. • Potential disturbance and harm to roosting bats, should they be present at the time of the works in areas where the proposed extensions are proposed. • The low level disturbance of bats that may be present within areas of the roof which are to remain unaffected by the works. • Potential harm and/or disturbance to nesting birds, should works be undertaken in the breeding bird season (March to August inclusive). • Causing the potential spread of Montbretia. Recommendations • External lighting that may affect the site’s suitability for bats will be avoided to the east of the building. If required this will be limited to low level, avoiding use of high intensity security lighting. • No works will take place to the roof structure.
P a g e | 5
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
• Works will not be undertaken during the nesting bird season (March to August inclusive) unless the site is checked by an appropriately experienced ecologist and nests are confirmed to be absent.
• No works to the roof structure or within the loft voids is proposed and will not take place unless a licence from Natural England has been obtained to allow this work to take place. • Vegetation clearance to be completed to an invasive species method statement. • Works on the building to be undertaken to a detailed method statement, including: o Pre-commencement checking survey; o No works to take place to walls within the hibernation period (November to March); o Removal of key features around potential bat roosting features by hand; o Supervision of the removal of key features by a suitably qualified ecologist. • Bat roosting opportunities will be included within the building either as retained features, or more likely as bat boxes fixed to the structure. These should provide crevice roosting opportunities for pipistrelle bats. • The incorporation of opportunities for nesting birds within the development. • Should demolition works not take place within 12 months of the date of the most recent survey in this report, additional updating survey work for bats is likely to be required. • Bat roosts have been recorded associated with the building’s roof which will not be affected by the works however there are potential additional features on the building that bats could use which may be affected by the development.
P a g e | 6
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
1. Introduction
Site Location
1.1 The site is located in the town of Washington, Tyne and Wear at approximate central grid reference of NZ315555. The site location is illustrated within figure 1 in the appendices.
Site Description
1.2 The site comprises a former school and area of hard standing comprising the former playground.
Objectives of the Study
1.3 The objectives of this report are:
• To identify and describe any potential ecological receptors that may be present on site or within an identified zone of influence. • To identify and assess whether proposals may impact on the identified receptors. • To identify potential mitigation, compensation or enhancement measures if required. • To identify and detail further surveys if required.
Development Proposals
1.4 Proposals include:
• Internal renovation; • External landscaping; and • Extensions to the north eastern and north western wings as well as an extension to the south east.
P a g e | 7
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
2. Methodology
Scope of Study
2.1 The site was surveyed to identify whether the following were present for legislative and planning purposes:
• Habitats of conservation value • Priority Habitats • Protected and Priority Species
2.2 The ecological characteristics of the site were reviewed to identify the scope of the assessment, with the zone of influence determined through professional judgement.
2.3 The survey area comprised the “site” defined within figure 3 (Appendix 4) and where access was available an approximate 50m buffer1.
2.4 Access permitting, all potential bat roosting sites within the survey area were assessed.
Desk Study
2.5 Desk study was undertaken to assess the nature of the surrounding habitats and included:
• Assessment of aerial imagery and Ordnance Survey mapping. • A search of the MAGIC website2 for designated sites and European protected species within 2km of the survey area. • Data search submitted to the local Bat Group.
Field Survey Habitats/Protected Species
2.6 During the preliminary survey the site was checked for evidence of protected species and habitats were assessed for their potential to support such species. For this site, the development site comprises a built structure and as such the assessment focussed on the risk of bats being present within the structure.
1 The survey buffer may be increased depending on the species present and their identified core sustenance zones. 2 Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (www.magic.gov.uk) P a g e | 8
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Bats Daytime Risk Assessment
2.7 Survey effort has been based on the that provided by the Bat Conservation Trust Good Practice Survey Guidelines3.
2.8 Structures and trees within the site and adjacent to the site, were inspected4, where access was available, for potential roosting features (PRFs) and to record any field signs, including bats, if present5.
2.9 Assessment follows the Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines6, which classifies the suitability (negligible, low, moderate or high) of the potential roosting, foraging and commuting habitats within the site. Full details of the classifications are provided within the table in Appendix 1.
2.10 Survey was undertaken by James Streets CEcol MCIEEM, an experienced bat surveyor who holds a Class 2 Natural England survey licence (2017-29117-CLS-CLS).
2.11 The following equipment was utilised during survey:
• Clulite CB2 high powered torch. • Digital Endoscope. • Binoculars. • Digital camera.
2.12 The survey was undertaken on the 28th September 2020 in the following weather conditions:
Table 1: Daytime Survey Conditions
Date Temperature Cloud Cover Precipitation Wind Conditions
28th September 2020 15°C 90% None 0-1
Activity Surveys
2.13 The daytime risk assessment indicated that the building site was of low suitability to roosting bats. Activity surveys were therefore completed in line with the current
3 Collins, J. (ed) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition). Bat Conservation Trust 4 It should be noted that assessment relates entirely on the structure or tree’s suitability to support bats and or other protected species. Assessment must in no way be taken as an assessment of the structure’s integrity or safety. 5 If bats are recorded during appropriate measures are undertaken to limit any potential disturbance 6 Collins, J. (ed) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition). Bat Conservation Trust P a g e | 9
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
guidance provided by the Bat Conservation Trust7 for and comprised a single dusk activity survey of the site initially, with a second survey completed in order to categorise the roost.
Table 2: Activity Survey Conditions
Temperature Cloud Sunset/ (ⷪC) Wind Survey Date Cover Precipitation Sunrise Conditions Period Start End (%) Time
28th September Light rain - 18.27 – 13 12 100 0-1 18.49 2020 intermittent 20.19
Light 21.00 - 21st May 2021 10 10 100 intermittent 0-1 21.15 22.45 rain
2.14 Activity surveys were undertaken in suitable weather conditions (no constant rain or high winds and sunset temperature of at least 10oC).
2.15 Surveyor locations are chosen to enclose the site to identify whether bats enter or leave the site.
2.16 Surveyors are placed where practicable to cover all potential entry/exits sites.
2.17 All surveyors are equipped with full spectrum detectors to enable high quality recordings to be taken and analysed following the survey, to allow for any potential surveyor error and to enable the cross referencing of calls.
2.18 Detectors enable the surveyors to listen to all activity during the survey.
2.19 Where required Infra-red cameras and lighting are used to provide more robust data.
2.20 The activity surveys were undertaken by James Streets (2017-29117-CLS-CLS) and a number of assistants: Becky White, Willem Robinson-Hill, Amie Nevin, Alex Douglas and Amy McCallum, Joe Connor, Matt Breadin, Ali Vitali and Hannah Jones.
2.21 The following equipment was utilised during survey:
• Anabat Scout. • Anabat Walkabout. • Anabat Swift.
7 Collins, J. (ed) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition). Bat Conservation Trust P a g e | 10
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Limitations to Survey
2.22 There was rainfall during both surveys, however it was not continuous throughout the survey and was only light. Bats were active throughout the survey periods and this is not considered to have deterred them from emerging from their roosting sites.
Analysis of Data
2.23 Following the survey, all bat calls are manually assessed and analysed using Analook Insight and or Bat Explorer software, enabling the full spectrum of the call to be assessed.
2.24 Where possible bat calls are identified to species, referencing call parameters as detailed within Russ (2012)8, Middleton et al (2014)9 and Barataud (2015)10.
2.25 Bats are identified to species, where possible, though it is noted that there can be a significant overlap in call parameters in some species, particularly the Myotis genus.
2.26 Myotis bat calls are assessed using a range of indicators, though due their modulated calls a number of external factors can impact the reliability. As such Myotis bats will often be identified as Myotis sp. where identification to species cannot be confirmed.
2.27 Where possible further detail on the Myotis species will be gathered, such as DNA. The use of full spectrum detectors gives a greater success rate in identification. This can also be backed up by computer programmes such as Bat Classify.
2.28 Although a greater certainty can be provided in other species, there is still an overlap in calls between other genera of bats such as Pipistrellus and Nyctalus, which can be affected by a range of environmental factors. The following table details the parameters utilised by OS Ecology Ltd and are based on “typical” open flight calls.
Table 3: Bat Species Identification Parameters Species Peak Frequency Range (KHz)8
Pipistrellus Common pipistrelle >42 and <49 Soprano pipistrelle ≥51 Nathusius’ pipistrelle <39 Common or soprano pipistrelle (‘50KHz pip’) ≥49 and <51 Common or Nathusius’ pipistrelle (‘40KHz pip’) ≥40 and ≤42 Nyctalus Noctule ≥17 and <23.5 Leisler’s ≥23.5 and <29.9
8 Russ, J. (2012) British Bat Calls: A Guide to Species Identification. Pelagic Publishing 9 Middleton, N., Froud, A. and French, K. (2014) Social Calls of the Bats of Britain and Ireland. Pelagic Publishing 10 Barataud, M. (2015) Acoustic Ecology of European Bats – Species Identification, Study of their Habitats and Foraging Behaviour P a g e | 11
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Eptesicus Serotine ≥24.1 and <32.2 Plectocus Brown Long-eared Bat ≥25.5 and <42.1 Barbastellus Barbastelle ≥29.2 and <44.7 Rhinolophus Greater Horseshoe 77-84 Lesser Horseshoe 107-114
2.29 Where there is uncertainty in species identification species are identified to genus.
Assessment Methodology
2.30 Guidance from the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) is utilised to provide habitat valuations.
2.31 The level of value of specific ecological receptors is assigned using a geographic frame of reference. For, example international value being most important (SACs, SPAs and pSPAs), then national (SSSIs), regional, county (LWS), district (LNR), local and lastly, within the immediate zone of influence of the site only (low).
2.32 In terms of species, for example breeding birds, should the population within the site constitute greater than 1% of the geographic population, it would be considered significant at that level. In addition, presence of designated sites, scarce species and or quality11/diversity of habitats are used to guide that valuation
2.33 Assessment methods for bats have been undertaken with reference to Wray et al. (2007)12, which correlates with the geographic frame of reference. Within which they define the relative rarity of each species based on the known distribution13 at the time and the value of the roost type, assuming that roosts such as feeding perches are of lower value that maternity roosts or sites that have a high level of fidelity.
11 Quality can be subjective and vary in different geographic areas. Reasoned professional judgement is therefore used to inform the assessment. 12 Wray et al (2007) Valuing Bats in Ecological Impact Assessment. In Practice. Based on a presentation at the Mammal Society – Specific Issues with Bats 13 It should be noted that there are regular changes to our understanding of distribution as further studies are undertaken. P a g e | 12
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
3. Results
Desk Study Designated Sites
3.1 A search of the Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) Website14 indicated that there are no statutorily designated sites for bats within 2km of the development area.
European Protected Species Licensing
3.2 A check of the MAGIC website found that there were no Natural England mitigation licences granted for bats within 2km, with the nearest to the south east and comprising licences for common and soprano pipistrelle resting places. There have been licences granted for great crested newt 2km to the north east of the site, however these are severed from the site by significant urban development.
Local Bat Group
3.3 Full Durham Bat Group has been provided and is within the appendices. Only common pipistrelle bats were recorded within the search grid square.
General Land Use
3.4 A review of aerial imagery and Ordnance Survey mapping highlighted that the general land use in the surrounding area is dominated by urban development, however to the east of the site is a tree belt which has been planted along the A195 which provides some connectivity between the site and surrounding area. This habitat is likely to be suitable for pipistrelle bats, but given its narrow width and lighting in the local area, the risk of it being used by rarer woodland species such as brown long eared bats is considered to be low.
Field Survey Bats Daytime Risk Assessment
3.5 The results of the bat risk assessment of the structures on site is provided below:
14 Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) www.magic.gov.uk (Accessed October 2020) P a g e | 13
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Table 4: Bat Risk Assessment
Overview of Roosting Opportunities
Overall, there are considered to be potential roosting opportunities in association with the roof structure under ridge tiles and small sections of lead flashing, as well as areas of the brick work associated with wall tops and coping stones.
External
The building is a single storey former school building. It is of brick construction with a complicated, multi-pitch roof. The roof is of slate construction with coping stones on the gable ends. The roof has ornate ridge tiles and five of chimneys within the structure. The roof also has a small spire to the east which has a cylindrical, slate covering. There are a small number of slipped slates across the roof, however generally these are sufficiently well sealed with the surrounding slates such that they do not create suitable roosting locations for bats.
There are small sections of dormer like windows on some of the sections of the structure, which have small hipped roofs which are of a similar construction to the other elements of the building.
The small spire is connected to the building with lead flashing which is generally well sealed with no obvious gaps apparent.
The walls are in generally good condition. The windows have stone lintels and sills which are generally well sealed with the surrounding brick work. The window frames are wooden and well-sealed with the surrounding brickwork.
There are ventilation gaps at the gable ends on the western elevation above the windows which are netted and therefore are not considered to provide access into the loft voids into which the ventilation leads.
There are gaps at the wall tops in places where the brickwork meets the coping stones and the mortaring has fallen away which provides possible shallow gaps for roosting bats.
There are also a small number of gaps associated with the stone quoins which are present in places, in association with the gable ends.
No evidence of roosting bats was recorded in association with any of the features recorded however.
Internal
Internal access into the building was made, however due to health and safety concerns the lofts themselves could not be accessed due to their height above the ground floor, as well as the risk of asbestos being present.
P a g e | 14
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
There is a single poplar to the east of the building, however this appears well sealed with no obvious roosting opportunities within the trunk or branches.
Local Foraging Habitats
To the east of the site is a band of mixed plantation woodland around 30 years in age which provides habitats for bats, namely local pipistrelles due to the narrow, urban nature of these features which are adjacent to lit carriageways
Commuting Routes
The aforementioned woodland corridor provides commuting routes to and from the site to the east of the development. To the north and west of the site there is further urban development which limits commuting
P a g e | 15
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
opportunities for woodland bat species, but which could be used by more tolerant species such as pipistrelle bats.
Activity Surveys
3.6 Full details of the bat activity survey results are provided in the appendices.
3.7 Survey on the 28th September 2020 recorded low levels of bat activity in the main. Activity was recorded from the start of the survey by a small number of common pipistrelle in the local area that then left the area at around 18.40.
3.8 Three roosts were recorded, two from common pipistrelle roosts totalling 3 bats recorded by two surveyors and a single soprano pipistrelle from a location to the south of the building. All came from the roof structure of the building, bats all emerged around 15-20 minutes after sunset from two locations to the north of the structure, with the soprano pipistrelle
3.9 Silent bats were recorded however given the light levels when these were recorded, these were considered to be non-calling pipistrelles rather than quieter species which generally require darker conditions. These bats also had similar flight characteristics to pipistrelles.
3.10 Overall, three roosting locations used by small numbers of common and soprano pipistrelles were recorded during the survey work.
3.11 During the survey work on the 21st May 2021, no bats were seen to emerge from the structure. Small numbers of common and soprano pipistrelle were heard in the local area and a single bat was seen flying into the site.
3.12 No other species were recorded during the survey work.
Additional Species Groups Birds
3.13 No evidence of nesting birds was recorded, however the survey was completed outside of the nesting season, normally considered to be between March and August inclusive.
Other Protected Species
3.14 It is considered that other protected species are likely absent, although a small patch of Montbretia (listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981)) was recorded to the north east of the building with an area of introduced shrubbery.
P a g e | 16
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
4. Site Assessment
Assessment of Survey Findings
4.1 The assessment is based on survey effort undertaken to date.
Bats
4.2 Survey has confirmed the presence of two species using three roosting locations on the roof of the structure. At the time of the survey work these features were being used by small numbers of common pipistrelle bats and a single soprano pipistrelle bat.
4.3 In addition to these roosts a small number of other potential roosting locations were recorded in association with the building, at the wall tops in the main where stonework was present in association with the more dominant brickwork. Gaps were also apparent in places associated with the lead flashing on the roofs and other locations along the ridge tiles.
4.4 The school is disused and as such has no heating and there is evidence of damp in the building due to the lack of use. It is therefore considered that the risk of the building being used by a maternity colony is low given the number of alternative sites in the local area that could be used. In addition, survey work in late May 2021 recorded no evidence of a maternity roost.
4.5 Any potential for maternity roosting bats is considered to be in association with the slate roof structure. The potential opportunities associated with the walls are considered unlikely to provide sufficiently warm roosting locations for bats, being relatively shallow in nature.
4.6 The building has the potential to be used by hibernating bats with the walls having the potential to provide suitably stable climates which are damp in areas of the double skinned walls.
Nesting Birds
4.7 The site provides opportunities for nesting birds, although no evidence was recorded during the survey.
Other Protected Species
4.8 Other protected species are considered likely absent, however the invasive species, Montbretia was recorded on site.
Designated Sites
4.9 There are no designated sites within the local area which are designated for bats.
P a g e | 17
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
5. Impacts
5.1 The following impacts are based on the survey work to date and the understanding that the Client wishes to undertake the following:
• Internal renovation. • External landscaping. • Extensions to the north eastern and north western wings as well as an extension to the south east. • No works are proposed to the roof or loft structures.
5.2 As a result of the assessment completed and the nature of the proposed works, the likely impacts, without appropriate avoidance measures, mitigation and/or compensation scheme, are:
• The loss of potential roosting locations in the location of the proposed extensions at the wall tops. • Potential disturbance and harm to roosting bats, should they be present at the time of the works in areas where the proposed extensions are proposed. • The low level disturbance of bats that may be present within areas of the roof which are to remain unaffected by the works. • Potential harm and/or disturbance to nesting birds, should works be undertaken in the breeding bird season (March to August inclusive). • Causing the potential spread of Montbretia.
P a g e | 18
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
6. Recommendations
Further Survey
6.1 Should demolition works not take place within 12 months of the date of the most recent survey in this report, additional updating survey work for bats is likely to be required.
Avoidance Measures
6.2 The following measures should be incorporated into the design of the scheme to avoid impacts on wildlife:
• External lighting that may affect the site’s suitability for bats will be avoided to the east of the building. If required this will be limited to low level, avoiding use of high intensity security lighting. • No works will take place to the roof structure. • Works will not be undertaken during the nesting bird season (March to August inclusive) unless the site is checked by an appropriately experienced ecologist and nests are confirmed to be absent.
Mitigation Strategy
6.3 In order to address the impacts of the scheme the mitigation strategy includes:
• No works to the roof structure or within the loft voids is proposed and will not take place unless a licence from Natural England has been obtained to allow this work to take place.
• Vegetation clearance to be completed to an invasive species method statement.
• Works on the building to be undertaken to a detailed method statement, including:
a) Pre-commencement checking survey; b) No works to take place to walls within the hibernation period (November to March); c) Removal of key features around potential bat roosting features by hand; d) Supervision of the removal of key features by a suitably qualified ecologist.
Compensation Scheme
6.4 Compensation for the development should include:
• Bat roosting opportunities will be included within the building either as retained features, or more likely as bat boxes fixed to the structure. These should provide crevice roosting opportunities for pipistrelle bats. • The incorporation of opportunities for nesting birds within the development.
P a g e | 19
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Appendix 1 – Bat Suitability and Survey Effort
Classifications of suitability are based on those provided within the Bat Conservation Trust Good Practice Survey Guidelines15, with the table below taken from page 35 of the guidelines (table 4.1).
Table 5: Guidelines for assessing the potential suitability of proposed development sites for bats (based on the presence of habitat features within the landscape, to be applied using professional judgement) Description Suitability Roosting Habitats Commuting and foraging habitats Negligible Negligible habitat features on site, likely to Negligible habitat features on site, likely be used by roosting bats to be used by commuting and foraging bats Low A structure with one or more potential roost Habitat that could be used by small sites that could be used by individual bats numbers of commuting bats such as opportunistically. gappy hedgerow or unvegetated However, these potential roost sites do not stream, but isolated, i.e not very well provide enough space, shelter, protection, connected to the surrounding landscape appropriate conditionsa and/or suitable by other habitat. surrounding habitat to be used on a regular basis or by larger numbers of bats (i.e unlikely Suitable but isolated habitat that could to be suitable for maternity or hibernationb. be used by small numbers of foraging bats such as a lone tree (not in a A tree of sufficient size and age to contain parkland situation) or a patch of scrub. PRFs but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potentialc. Moderate A structure or tree with one or more potential Continuous habitat connected to the roost sites that could be used by bats due to wider landscape that could be used by their size, shelter, protection, conditionsa and bats for commuting such as lines of trees surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a and scrub or linked back gardens. roost of high conservation status (with respect to roost type only – the assessments Habitat that is connected to the wider in this table are made irrespective of species landscape that could be used by bats for conservation status, which is established after foraging such as trees, scrub, grassland presence is confirmed). or water. High A structure or tree with one or more potential Continuous high-quality habitat that is roost sites that are obviously suitable for use well connected to the wider landscape by larger numbers of bats on a more regular that is likely to be used regularly by basis and potentially for longer periods of commuting bats such as river valleys, time due to their size, shelter, protection, streams, hedgerows, lines of trees and conditionsa and surrounding habitat woodland edge.
High-quality habitat that is well connected to the wider landscape that is likely to be used regularly by foraging bats such as broadleaved woodland, tree lined watercourse and grazed parkland.
15 Collins, J. (ed) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition). Bat Conservation Trust P a g e | 20
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Site is close to and connected to known roosts.
a. For example in terms of temperature, humidity, height above ground level, light levels or levels of disturbance. b. Evidence from the Netherlands shows mass swarming events of common pipistrelle bats in the autumn followed by mass hibernation in a diverse range of building types in urban environments (Korsten et al., 2015). This phenomenon requires some research in the UK but ecologists should be aware of potential for larger numbers of this species to be present during the autumn and winter in larger buildings in highly urbanised environments. c. The system of categorisation aligns with BS 8596:2015 Surveying for bats in trees and woodland (BSI, 2015)
The classification of the suitability relates to the level of further survey recommended.
Table 6: Survey effort and timing depending on suitability of the structure or tree (Tables 7.1-7.3 in the BCT Guidelines Low roost suitability Moderate roost High roost suitability suitability Survey Effort One survey visit Two separate visits Three separate visits
One dusk emergence or One dusk emergence and At least one dusk dawn re-entry survey a separate dawn re-entry emergence and a separate survey dawn re-entry survey. The third can be either dusk or dawn. Timings May-August (structures) May to September. At May to September. two No further survey (trees) least one must be in the must be in the optimum optimum period (May to period (May to August) August) If bats are recorded If bats emerge during surveys, the survey schedule will be adjusted to increase the survey effort so that enough information can be collected to characterise the roost and provide data should a Natural England Licence be required.
P a g e | 21
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Appendix 2 – Policy and Legislation
Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)16 The revised National Planning Policy Framework sets out the government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It provides a framework within which locally-prepared plans for housing and other development can be produced. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan. The key paragraphs from the relating to the natural environment are detailed below:
Table 7: Ecologically Relevant Paragraphs of the NPPF Paragraph Statement 170 Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into account relevant information such as river basin management plans; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate. 171 Plans should: distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites; allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework17; take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries. 172 Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads18. The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major
16 NPPF February 2019 (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2) 17 Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality. 18 English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 provides further guidance and information about their statutory purposes, management and other matters. P a g e | 22
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Table 7: Ecologically Relevant Paragraphs of the NPPF Paragraph Statement development19 other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated. 173 Within areas defined as Heritage Coast (and that do not already fall within one of the designated areas mentioned in paragraph 172), planning policies and decisions should be consistent with the special character of the area and the importance of its conservation. Major development within a Heritage Coast is unlikely to be appropriate, unless it is compatible with its special character. 174 To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should:
a) Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity20; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation21; and promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.
175 When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:
a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), b) adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; c) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; d) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons22 and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be
19 For the purposes of paragraphs 172 and 173, whether a proposal is ‘major development’ is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined. 20 Circular 06/2005 provides further guidance in respect of statutory obligations for biodiversity and geological conservation and their impact within the planning system. 21 Where areas that are part of the Nature Recovery Network are identified in plans, it may be appropriate to specify the types of development that may be suitable within them. 22 For example, infrastructure projects (including nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport and Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat. P a g e | 23
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Table 7: Ecologically Relevant Paragraphs of the NPPF Paragraph Statement supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity. 176 The following should be given the same protection as habitats sites: a) potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation; b) listed or proposed Ramsar sites23; and sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on habitats sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites. 177 The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a habitats site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), unless an appropriate assessment has concluded that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the habitats site.
Government Circular ODPM 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation24 (England only)
This Circular provides administrative guidance on the application of the law relating to planning and nature conservation as it applies in England.
Part IV - Conservation of Species protected by Law details that the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when considering a development proposal that may result in harm to the species or its habitat and that planning authorities must have regard to species protected under the Habitat Regulations.
It goes on to say that: it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances, with the result that the surveys are carried out after planning permission has been granted.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 200625 26 Section 40 – To conserve biodiversity
Section 40 puts a duty on public authorities to conserve biodiversity when undertaking its duties and functions,
23 Potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation and proposed Ramsar sites are sites on which Government has initiated public consultation on the scientific case for designation as a Special Protection Area, candidate Special Area of Conservation or Ramsar site. 24ODPM Circular 06/2005 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SWIE 5DU Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System 25 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/section/40 26 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/section/41 P a g e | 24
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Section 41 – Biodiversity list and Action Section 41 – Requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of the living organisms and types of habitat which in the Secretary of State's opinion are of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. They must also take such steps as appear to the Secretary of State to be reasonably practicable to further the conservation of the living organisms and types of habitat included in any list published under this section or promote the taking by others of such steps.
The 2007 lists were superseded by the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework.
Table 8: UK Priority Habitats (excl. marine habitats)27
UK BAP broad habitat UK BAP priority habitat Rivers and Streams Rivers Standing Open Waters and Canals Oligotrophic and Dystrophic Lakes Ponds Mesotrophic Lakes Eutrophic Standing Waters Aquifer Fed Naturally Fluctuating Water Bodies Arable and Horticultural Arable Field Margins Boundary and Linear Features Hedgerows Broadleaved, Mixed and Yew Woodland Traditional Orchards Wood-Pasture and Parkland Upland Oakwood Lowland Beech and Yew Woodland Upland Mixed Ashwoods Wet Woodland Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland Upland Birchwoods Coniferous Woodland Native Pine Woodlands Acid Grassland Lowland Dry Acid Grassland Calcareous Grassland Lowland Calcareous Grassland Upland Calcareous Grassland Neutral Grassland Lowland Meadows Upland Hay Meadows Improved Grassland Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh Dwarf Shrub Heath Lowland Heathland Upland Heathland Fen, Marsh and Swamp Upland Flushes, Fens and Swamps Purple Moor Grass and Rush Pastures
27 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5706 P a g e | 25
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Lowland Fens Reedbeds Bogs Lowland Raised Bog Blanket Bog Montane Habitats Mountain Heaths and Willow Scrub Inland Rock Inland Rock Outcrop and Scree Habitats Calaminarian Grasslands Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land
Limestone Pavements Supralittoral Rock Maritime Cliff and Slopes Supralittoral Sediment Coastal Vegetated Shingle Machair Coastal Sand Dunes
Protected Species Legislation
European Protected Species
European Protected Species (EPS) are species of plants and animals (other than birds) protected by law throughout the European Union. They are listed in Annexes II and IV of the European Habitats Directive and receive full protection under The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended). This make it an offence to:
• deliberately capture, injure or kill any European Protected Species (EPS) • to deliberately disturb any European Protected Species (EPS); • to damage or destroy a breeding site or place of rest or shelter used by any European Protected Species (EPS).
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) adds further protection by making it an offence to intentionally or recklessly28 disturb an EPS while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection, or to obstruct access to any structure or place the species uses for shelter or protection.
28 Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act) extended the protection to cover reckless damage or disturbance P a g e | 26
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Table 9: European Protected Species relevant to the UK
Animals Plants All bat species Great Crested Newt Shore dock Creeping marshwort
Large blue butterfly Otter Killarney fern Slender naiad
Wild cat Smooth snake Early gentian Fen Orchid Dolphins, porpoises and whales Floating-leaved water Sturgeon fish Lady's slipper (all species) plantain Yellow marsh Dormouse Natterjack toad saxifrage
Sand lizard Pool Frog
Snail, Lesser Whirlpool Fisher’s Estuarine Moth Ram’s-horn
Marine turtles
Other Protected Species
Table 10: Other Protected Species
Species Legislation Level of Protection
Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) it is an offence if any person:
• intentionally kills, injures or takes any wild bird • intentionally takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird whilst that nest is in use of being built; Wildlife and • intentionally takes, damages or destroys eggs of any wild bird; Birds Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) Wild birds listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) are protected from: • intentional or reckless disturbance whilst it is building a nest or is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; • disturbance of dependent young
P a g e | 27
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Appendix 3 – Bat Activity Survey Data Tables
Date 28th September 2020 Sunset 18.49 Start Time 18.27 End Time 20.19 Surveyor 2 Surveyor 6 Surveyor 1 Willem Robinson- Surveyor 3 Surveyor 4 Surveyor 5 Amy Time Becky White Hill Alex Douglas Amie Nevin James Streets McCallum 18:25 18.28 foraging 18.27 foraging 18.27 45 foraging from start of from start of from start of 18.34 45x2 Foraging 18:30 survey until survey until survey until 18.36 until 19.37 18.36 45 18.37 Silent 18.36 18.36 18:35 Foraging bat x2 SNH 18:40 18:45 18.52 Silent
18:50 bat SNH 18:55 18.56 45 HNS 18.56 45 HNS 19.00 45 likely 19.00 45 Foraging 19.03 45 19.00 45 19.03 45 emergence 19.03 45 HNS Foraging Commuting commuting 19:00 from roof 19.05 45x2 19.05 45x2 likely emergence 19.05 45 over 19.05 45 Foraging 19.05 45 Foraging emergence from roof 19.08 55 HNS the building 19.08 45 HNS until 19.07 from roof 19.08 55 from the east 19.06 45 emerged from 19:05 commuting roof 19.13 45 19.12 45 19.13 45 Foraging 19.12 45 19.12 45 Commuting 19.13 45 Foraging Foraging 19.14 45 foraging Commuting 19.13 45 Foraging 19:10 Foraging 19.15 45 19.16 45 19:15 19.16 45 Foraging 19.16 45 HNS Foraging commuting 19.23 45 19.24 45 19:20 19.23 45 HNS 19.24 45 Foraging Foraging Foraging 19.28 45 Foraging 19:25 19.39 45 HNS 19:30 19:35 19:40 19.40 45 HNS 19.40 45 HNS 19:45 19:50 19:55 20:00 20.05 45 HNS 20.08 45 HNS 20.05 45 HNS 20:05 20.08 45 HNS 20:10 20:15
P a g e | 28
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Date 20th May 2021 Sunset 21.15 Start Time 21.00 End Time 22.45
Surveyor 1 Surveyor 2 Surveyor 3 Surveyor 4 Surveyor 5 Surveyor 6 Time James Streets Matt Breadin Joe Connor Amie Nevin Hannah Jones Ali Vitali 21:00 21:05 21:10 21:15
21:20 21:25 21:30
21:35
21:40 21:45 21:50 21:55 22:00 No bats heard 22.01 – 45 HNS No bats heard 22.06 – 45 22.06 – 45 22:05 commuting HNS from off site 22:10
22:15
22:20
22.29 – 45
22:25 HNS
22:30
22:35
22:40 22:45
Flight Activity Species Potential Emergence 39 = Nathusius' pipistrelle Myo = Myotis sp. Confirmed Emergence 45 = Common pipistrelle 55 = Soprano pipistrelle HNS Heard Not Seen Noc = Noctule BLE = Brown long-eared bat SNH Seen Not Heard
P a g e | 29
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Appendix 4 – Data Search Results
Bat records from the area around Albert Place, Washington
The database has been checked for the block of 25 Ordnance Survey 1-km squares centred on NZ3155.
NZ2957 NZ3057 NZ3157 NZ3257 NZ3357
NZ2956 NZ3056 NZ3156 NZ3256 NZ3356
NZ2955 NZ3055 NZ3155 NZ3255 NZ3355
NZ2954 NZ3054 NZ3154 NZ3254 NZ3354
NZ2953 NZ3053 NZ3153 NZ3253 NZ3353
NZ2953 2014 Linburn, Washington Species unknown, Grounded no count 2019 Bramhall Drive, Washington Species unknown, Roost no count “Bats in…property, have had bats for last 3 years in the loft…Last summer significant amounts of bat droppings.“ [From request for survey, mid-March 2020] NZ2853/2854/2953/2954 2015 Rickleton (no address provided) 2, species unknown Grounded NZ2954 2008 Larchwood, Washington 3+ Whiskered/Brandt’s Active roost then (NZ296543) One found dead; several emerging 2011 Vigo Lane, Harraton, Washington Common Pipistrelle Feeding (NZ298542) Soprano Pipistrelle Feeding 2012 School, Harraton, Washington 1 Common Pipistrelle Bat in building 2012 Harraton, Washington 1 Common Pipistrelle Bat in house 2016 Cedar Terrace, Harraton, Washington 1 Common Pipistrelle Single roost 2016 Cedar Terrace, Harraton, Washington 2 Common Pipistrelle Foraging NZ2957
2015 Sunderland City Council Depot, 1, species unknown Grounded Parsons Road, Washington 2017 A182/A194(M) junction, Washington Common Pipistrelle Flight (NZ291576/292575) (2 passes) Over about 57 metres NZ3053 2010 Lambton Park Estate Brown Long-eared, Possible roost no count Natural England record via Bat Conservation Trust
P a g e | 30
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
NZ3054
2004 Barn, Fatfield House, Vigo Road, Common Pipistrelle, Active roost then Washington no count 2004 Barn, Fatfield House, Vigo Road, Brown Long-eared(?) Feeding remains Washington 2004 Fatfield House, Vigo Road, Soprano Pipistrelle Flight Washington 1 Noctule Commuting 2012 Briarfield, Fatfield, Washington 1, species unknown Grounded 2012 Rowan Avenue, Washington 1, species unknown Grounded 2016 Pinewood Avenue, Washington Species unknown; Droppings; possible no count roost Roost visit record supplied by Bat Conservation Trust NZ3055 2013 28 Melrose, Washington 1 Common Pipistrelle Grounded (NZ306553) “Householder reported probable roost at neighbour’s house to north” NZ3055/3056 2010 Roche Court, Washington 1 Common Pipistrelle Grounded NZ3056 2010 McLennan Court, Washington 5 Pipistrelle Roost (NZ305565) 2011 Lanercost, Washington 1 Common Pipistrelle Grounded; active roost 2012 Byland Court, Washington Common Pipistrelle, Possible roost (NZ303565) no count Natural England record via Bat Conservation Trust NZ3057 2010 Laurens Court, Washington 1, species unknown Flight NZ3153 2010 Bishopdale, Mount Pleasant, 1, species unknown Bat in building Houghton-le-Spring Bats known to be flying in the area in summer 2017 A182 by Biddick Gill Wood 1 Common Pipistrelle Flight (NZ31298 53462) NZ3154 2011 Crindledykes, Washington 1, species unknown Grounded 2012 Leaplish, Washington 4 Common Pipistrelle Maternity roost Not a full count. Identification based on examination of baby bats and droppings NZ3155 2005 Biddick, Washington (NZ310559) 1 Common Pipistrelle Dead 2008 Beech Square, Washington 1 Common Pipistrelle Grounded 2008 The Woodlands, Oxclose Road, 3+ Common Pipistrelle Active roost then Washington [NZ314556] NZ3156 2008 John F. Kennedy Estate, Species unknown Active roost Washington [NZ312562] Several; thought to be Common Pipistrelle. Neighbours had been aware of roost for several years P a g e | 31
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
2012 Washington Old Hall Common Pipistrelle Flight (NZ311565) Soprano Pipistrelle Flight Bats had been getting into the hall, but no sign of any roost was found An undated survey of the hall some years earlier had suggested bats were entering a roost under a south-facing soffit, but that this was then a new site as extensive earlier surveys had not found any bats
2012 Barmston Centre, Washington 2 Common Pipistrelle Grounded (NZ316565) Mother and young (several weeks old) 2017 Glebe Crescent, Washington 1 Common Pipistrelle Grounded Apparently injured by a cat NZ3156/3256 2015 Horsley Road, Washington 1 Common Pipistrelle Possible roost Record supplied by Bat Conservation Trust Further records for Horsley Road listed under NZ3256 NZ3252/3253 1994 Redlands, Penshaw 25 Pipistrelle Exclusion carried out? NZ3253 1994 Briarwood, Station Road, 30 Pipistrelle Exclusion carried out? Penshaw 2001 Whitegate, Frederick Gardens, Species unknown, Active roost then Penshaw no count 2016 Monument Terrace, Penshaw 1 Common Pipistrelle Roost [NZ321537] 2016 Different address, Monument Terrace, 8 Soprano Pipistrelle Roost Penshaw [ NZ322538] “…roof… replaced under licence and alternative roosting provision made available” 2016 Teesdale Avenue, Penshaw 1 Common Pipistrelle Roost [NZ323537] “A bat roost unit was installed following licenced re-roofing works” 016 Wharfedale, Penshaw 1 Common Pipistrelle Roost [NZ324535] “A bat roost unit was installed following licenced re-roofing works” 2016 Allendale Crescent, Penshaw 1 Common Pipistrelle Roost [NZ325535] “A bat roost unit was installed following licenced re-roofing works”
2016 Avondale Avenue, Penshaw 1 Common Pipistrelle Roost [NZ327532] “Roost… replaced with bat roosting unit following roofing works” 2016 Tynedale Crescent, Penshaw 1 Common Pipistrelle Roost [NZ327533] 1 Soprano Pipistrelle Roost “Two separate roosting locations, alternative roosting provision made available following re-roofing works” 2016 The Oaks, Penshaw 4 Common Pipistrelle Roost [NZ327536] “A bat roost unit was installed following re-roofing works which were carried out under a low impact licence” P a g e | 32
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
2016 Clydesdale Avenue, Penshaw Species unknown Possible roost [NZ328532] “A single bat dropping was found under an opening at the rear of the outbuilding very early in the bat activity season.” 2016 Bleasdale Crescent, Penshaw 2 Common Pipistrelle Roost [NZ329532] “A small common pipistrelle roost was destroyed under licence and a bat roost unit was installed as part of a re-roofing project” NZ3255
2012 Pattinson, Washington [NZ320557] 2 Common Pipistrelle Active roost then 1 Soprano Pipistrelle Active roost then 2012 Pattinson, Washington [NZ321558] 3 Common Pipistrelle Active roost then 1 Soprano Pipistrelle Flight The area including the two sites above had been acquired for redevelopment 2018 Dovestone Close, Washington Common Pipistrelle, Possible roost no count October record, supplied by Bat Conservation Trust NZ3255?
2016 James Steel Park Common Pipistrelle Flight Soprano Pipistrelle Flight Daubenton’s Flight “We have recently had daubentons, common and soprano pips and possible other myotis over the River Wear at James Steel Park close to the WWT” NZ3256 2015 88 Horsley Road, Barmston, Common Pipistrelle Commuting (“Few”) Washington [NZ320566] 2015 192 Horsley Road, Barmston, Common Pipistrelle Foraging (“Few”) Washington [NZ320562] 2020 Bridge under former railway 8 Myotis sp? Roost/hibernation [NZ32235650] The site came to the attention of DBG via a Facebook post from a member of the public in late October 2020 – people were concerned that bats “living in there” might be harmed by youngsters lighting fires under the bridge. In response to a request for further information the lady supplied photographs showing bats, apparently with light-coloured underparts, roosting in the crack in the bridge and said that “she has seen them in the walls for years and always sees them flying around. She counts averages of 8 bats at a time.” NZ3257 2006 Barmston Pond, Washington Whiskered/Brandt’s Feeding NZ3353 2009 Herrington Country Park 1 Pipistrelle Feeding NZ3354 2009 Herrington Country Park 1 Daubenton’s Feeding 2009 Location not disclosed 1+ Common Pipistrelle Feeding 2014 East Barnwell, Penshaw [NZ333543] Common Pipistrelle Flight (15 passes) NZ3355 P a g e | 33
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
2007 Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Pipistrelle Foraging Washington [NZ333559] “Few”
NZ3355/3356
2008 Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 3+ Common Pipistrelle Feeding Washington 1 Whiskered/Brandt’s Feeding 2+ Noctule Feeding 2+ Soprano Pipistrelle(?) Feeding 2012 Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, Soprano Pipistrelle Flight Washington “Quite a few…most of the bats that we recorded were Sopranos” [E-mail 17 September 2012] 2014 Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 1, species unknown Grounded Washington “Bat found injured when wooden gazebo structure was dismantled.” 2016 Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, Common Pipistrelle Trapped Washington Soprano Pipistrelle Trapped Daubenton’s Trapped “We caught 22 bats, 3 different species on Saturday night at Washington Wwt as part of our efforts for the national nathusius project. Unfortunately we didn't catch any nathusius.” 2016 Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, Washington – Bat boxes
09-2013 03-10-2014 03-10-2015 08-10-2016 Box 1 NZ33145622 1 Common Pipistrelle 1 Soprano Pipistrelle (m) Box 2 NZ33085615 Part bird nest 10 Soprano Pipistrelle 5 Soprano Pipistrelle Box 3 NZ33115600 4 Common Pipistrelle* Part bird nest Box 4 NZ33105599 2 Common Pipistrelle Full bird nest 2 Soprano Pipistrelle Box 5 NZ33105597 Box 6 NZ33095596 Bird flew out Blue Tit and bat 5 Treecreeper eggs/no Box 7 NZ33095597 droppings Part bird nest 1 Soprano Pipistrelle (f) nest Box 8 NZ33195576 Great Tit 4 Soprano Pipistrelle Full bird nest Box 9 NZ33235579 1 Common Pipistrelle 2 Common Pipistrelle* 2 Soprano Pipistrelle Box 10 NZ33255579 Bird nest Large bat droppings** 1 Soprano Pipistrelle (f) Part bird nest Box 11 NZ33295581 Bird nest Part bird nest Full bird nest 5 Pipistrelle sp* Box 12 NZ33595647 5 Common Pipistrelle Part bird nest 5 Soprano Pipistrelle Part bird nest Box 13 NZ33545645 Part bird nest and bat Box 14 NZ33565649 Nest Bat droppings on ivy droppings Bat droppings
Box 15
* plus full bird nest **“In the woodland near to the saline lagoon I found a good quantity of bat droppings inside the box that were long and bobbly” – possibly Brown Long-eared 2017 Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 6 Soprano Pipistrelle Trapped
P a g e | 34
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Washington 2 Nathusius’ Pipistrelle Trapped 1 Daubenton’s Trapped 2017 Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 27 Soprano Pipistrelle In bat boxes Washington – Bat boxes 2018 Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 3 Soprano Pipistrelle In bat boxes Washington – Bat boxes Three male bats in two separate boxes on 10th June, when all 23 boxes were checked 2018 Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, Soprano Pipistrelle In bat boxes Washington – Bat boxes “Lots of lovely sopranos today at wwt washington!” [Facebook, 16-09-2018] NZ3356 2006 Low Barmston Farm Common Pipistrelle Feeding 2007 Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 1 Pipistrelle Foraging Washington [NZ334561] 2007 Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 4 Noctule Foraging Washington [NZ334562] 2008 Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, 1 Pipistrelle Hibernation Washington “…attempting to hibernate under the corrugated roofing at the bike shed” in December. 2014 Mobility scooter lean-to, Wildfowl 1+, species unknown Roost and Wetland Trust, Washington
2018 Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, Common Pipistrelle Foraging & commuting Washington [NZ33507 56048] 5 Soprano Pipistrelle Trapped Noctule Foraging & commuting 1 Brown Long-eared Trapped Field records on the same evening (5th June) – “The bats put on a fabulous show for us down near wader Lake and the River Wear.” The western 60% of the area covered by the search is largely suburban/urban/industrial, though in its southern strip it includes part of the private Lambton Park Estate, where access has only occasionally been negotiated. The eastern 40% includes some areas of industry and some residential development, but is mainly green belt land. This includes farmland, a golf course, parkland and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust’s Washington Wetland Centre.
The River Wear flows through the search block from NZ3053 to NZ3356. This stretch is within its normal tidal limit. The River Wear corridor is generally considered to be bat-rich, at least in the context of North East England. There are other areas of open water at Barmston Pond, the Washington Wetland Centre, Herrington Country Park and on the Lambton Park Estate.
Five of the eight bat species “normally occurring” in North East England are identified on the list. In addition there are records of Whiskered/Brandt’s bat and of indeterminate Myotis sp, some of which are likely to refer to one of more of the other three species (Brandt’s Bat, Whiskered bat. Natterer’s bat). Brandt’s bat was identified on the basis of DNA analysis at a Myotis roost in NZ2647 in 2016 and Natterer’s bat is known from a small roost in NZ3560. A grounded Whiskered bat is recorded from Murton (NZ3847).
P a g e | 35
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
A roost (or roosts) of the high-flying and wide-ranging Noctule is suspected on the Lambton Park estate – up to 41 were reported on an evening in May 2008, leaving the estate at Houghton Gate (NZ2951) and heading approximately S.S.W. A small roost of Brown Long-eared bats is recorded from NZ2951, to the south of the area covered by the search, and there are field records from NZ2950 and NZ3451.
In addition to the commoner species, the list includes a record of the scarce Nathusius’ Pipistrelle from NZ3355/3356
P a g e | 36
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Appendix 5 – Figures
P a g e | 37
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
P a g e | 38
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
P a g e | 39
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
P a g e | 40
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
P a g e | 41
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
P a g e | 42
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
Appendix 6 – Additional Photographs
South western corner where the extension is proposed
P a g e | 43
20171 Bat v2 May 2021
North western corner where the extension is proposed
P a g e | 44