5 Hatchgate Cottages, Cockpole Green, Berkshire

Bat Survey Report

June 2020

Bioscan Report No. E1906R3v1

COMMISSIONED BY: Chris Copland 1 Hall Cottages Crazies Hill Reading RG10 8ND

Written by - Ben Carpenter MCIEEM – Senior Ecologist

Approved by - Sam Watson MCIEEM - Principal Ecologist

5 HATCHGATE COTTAGES, COCKPOLE GREEN, BERKSHIRE BAT REPORT

June 2020

Bioscan Report No. E1906R3v1

BIOSCAN (UK) Ltd The Old Parlour Little Baldon Farm Little Baldon Oxford OX44 9PU

Tel: (01865) 341321 Fax: (01865) 343674 E-mail: [email protected]

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1

2 METHODS- 2020 3

3 RESULTS- 2020 5

4 EVALUATION AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 9

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11

Figure 1: Plans showing proposals for the site

Appendix 1. Site Photographs

Appendix 2. Bat Roost Trigger Index

Appendix 3. List of plants to encourage bats

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Bioscan (UK) Ltd was commissioned by Chris Copland in May 2020 to conduct a bat survey of 5 Hatchgate Cottages in Cockpole Green, Berkshire (grid reference: SU799811).

1.1.2 A planning application for the refurbishment and extension of the property was recently submitted to Wokingham Borough Council. As part of the validation of the planning application the Council’s ecologist provided the following:

“The application site is located in an area suitable for bat roosts as identified on the Wokingham Planning Constraints Map. Proposals for demolition, modifications to a roof, work to a bridge, cellar, air raid shelter or tunnel in these areas therefore requires the submission of a daylight bat survey undertaken by a qualified ecologist in the last 12 months. Please complete a survey and email it to the address below.”

1.1.3 This report therefore provides the results of the bat surveys conducted in May 2020 of the property, and provides the mitigation and enhancements in relation to the scheme.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 On the 13th June 2017 the house was subject to an internal and external bat inspection by Urban Tree Experts. The following summary was provided in their report following the inspection:

“The building was in a moderate condition. Externally there were numerous slipped and missing tiles on the roof, which could provide potential access and egress points for bats. The building had been completely stripped internally, leaving no loft space. There were a number of scattered bat droppings across the floor and window sills, both recent and older droppings. The droppings were consistent in shape and size to that of brown long-eared or pipistrelle bat droppings indicating that bats are or have been using the building for roosting.”

1.2.2 It is understood that the house was stripped and the garden and garage cleared in April 2017. Within the house, the floor of the loft was removed at this time which resulted in the first floor being open to the internal roof rafters/sarking.

1.2.3 In July 2017, dusk emergence and dawn re-entry surveys were conducted by Bioscan in support of a planning application to renovate and extend the property. The survey involved two surveyors attending the building in order to check for emerging or re- entering bats. The two surveyors were positioned in locations such that full visual coverage of the building was achieved and each was equipped with a bat detector (Anabat SD1 or Anabat SD2) to record bats during the period of the survey. During these surveys, no bats were observed emerging or re-entering the structure.

1.2.4 In addition to the emergence/re-entry surveys, the house was checked by Bioscan using high powered torches on three occasions to search for evidence of bats. These surveys were conducted on the 27th June 2017, 5th July 2017 and the 13th July 2017. No direct observations of bats were found during these visits. Nevertheless, during the initial Bioscan survey, a collection of bat droppings was found at the base of the northern internal wall, located below what appeared to be a gap into the roof void of the adjoining semi-detached house (6 Hatchgate Cottages- No.6). As it was considered that bats could be moving between the two properties access was obtained to conduct an internal loft bat inspection of the neighbouring property. This inspection was conducted on the 5th July 2017, and no direct observations of bats were found; however, approximately 15 bat droppings were found scattered throughout the loft void. These droppings appeared to be consistent with those produced by long-eared bats.

1.2.5 During the initial visit the bat droppings present in 5 Hatchgate Cottages (No.5) were collected up and removed from the house such that if droppings was found during subsequent visits it would be clear that they had accumulated during the interim and so confirm current use of the building by bats. In addition, some of the bat droppings removed were sent to Warwick University to be identified to species level. The results revealed that the droppings originated from brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus and noctule Nyctalus noctula.

1.2.6 In order to provide further information on the usage of the structure by bats, an automated bat detector was deployed within what would have been the loft of No.5 for 16 nights. No bat calls were recorded by the bat detector during this period.

2 METHODS- 2020

2.1 Bat building inspection

2.1.1 In order to update the 2017 survey, an internal and external inspection of the house for evidence of bats was carried out by Bioscan on the 17th May 2020. The aim of the inspection was to re-assess the potential of the house to support roosting bats, and to re-check potential roost sites for evidence of such use.

2.1.2 The methodology for this inspection was again based on the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) Good Practice Guidelines1 and involved a detailed internal and external survey of the house to check for evidence of use by bats, such as the presence of bat droppings, marks caused either by the oils in the bats’ fur or from urine, and prey residues (e.g. moth wings), as well as the bats themselves. Externally it involved identifying and where possible checking features on the building that bats might exploit for roosting. Such features include fascias/barge boards and soffits, loose or hanging tiles, cracks in brickwork or panelling, weatherboarding and loose covering materials ranging from lead flashing to loose roofing felt.

2.1.3 During the inspection bright (1 million candlepower) Clu-lite torches, an endoscope, binoculars and a 6m sectional ladder were used as necessary.

2.1.4 During the visit, the loft of the adjoining semi-detached house (No.6) was also re- inspected for evidence of bats in order to aid in placing the results of the survey into context.

2.2 Dusk emergence survey

2.2.1 In order to provide further evidence as to the current status of any bats roosting within No.5, a dusk emergence survey was conducted by Bioscan on the 17th May 2020. This involved two surveyors attending the building, each equipped with a bat detector (Anabat SD1 or Anabat SD2) in order to check for emerging bats. The two surveyors were positioned in locations such that full visual coverage of the building was achieved. Table 1 below provides a summary of the survey details.

Table 1. Survey details of dusk emergence survey. Date 17/05/2020 Start Time 20:35 End Time 22:35 Sunset 20:51 Temperature 15oC to 9oC Weather Cloud- 2/8. Little/ no wind

1 Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London.

2.2.2 Optimal weather conditions for bat activity were encountered during the survey. In addition, the survey was carried out at an optimal time of year for bat emergence surveys (within the peak activity window from May to August)2, as set out in the prevailing guidelines.

2.2.3 The building inspection and dusk emergence survey were carried out by Ben Carpenter3 and Rebecca Read4. Both are employees of Bioscan (UK) Ltd. and are registered on Natural England’s bat survey class licence WML-CL18.

2.2.4 The data collected by the Anabat bat detectors were analysed at the Bioscan offices using the propriety Analook software.

2.3 Automated bat survey

2.3.1 During the period of the dusk survey, an Anabat Express was deployed on the first floor of No.5 to assess if bats were flying within the structure at that time.

2.4 Bat Roost Trigger Index (BRTI)

2.4.1 In order to re-evaluate the suitability of the building to be used by roosting bats an Excel-based tool5 was used. The tool assesses the suitability of a structure for bat roosting based on 28 characteristics of the structure and its surroundings. Although this tool is a recent addition to the assessment process and as such has no formal status in the planning process, it can aid in forming a judgement as to the suitability of a building to support bat roosting.

2.5 Bat dropping DNA analysis

2.5.1 A sample of the bat droppings found within No.5 were sent to Swift Ecology to be identified to species level.

2.6 Desk Study

2.6.1 In order to place the results of the surveys into context, a review of MAGIC6 was conducted to search for granted bat licence application within 2km of the site.

2 Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London. 3 Natural England’s Bat Class Licence WML-CL18 ref: 2015-10462-CLS-CLS 4 Natural England’s Bat Class Licence WML-CL18 ref: 2015-15454-CLS-CLS 5 Developed by Swift Ecology 6 https://magic.defra.gov.uk/ [Accessed: 22/05/2020]

3 RESULTS- 2020

3.1 Building Inspection Survey

Description of building 3.1.1 The house is a brick-built semi-detached property with a pitched roof. The exterior walls are painted white, with the roof comprising red clay tiles. A chimney is located towards the centre of the two semi-detached properties, and a porch is located on the front of the house. Photograph 1 in Appendix 1 shows a general view of the house.

3.1.2 As detailed at paragraph 1.2.2, it is understood that the building was stripped in April 2017 with the ceiling to the loft removed. It is also understood that since at least this time the house has been unoccupied and there continues to be no enclosed loft void above the first floor. Photograph 2 in Appendix 1 shows a general view of the loft from the first floor.

3.1.3 The roof is supported on wooden rafters, with wooden sarking lining the loft internally throughout. The size of what would have been the loft void is approximately 7.6m in length, 4.7m in width and 2.15m in height (with the length of the ridge line measuring 5.1m). The overall volume of the former loft void is calculated to be approximately 35 cubic metres. The design of the roof trusses means that the void space would have been clutter free with just one cross beam present midway along the void, although it is not known if the loft was used for storage previously. Minor accumulations of cobwebs were noted beneath the ridge beam during the inspection.

3.1.4 The survey of the first floor of the structure during the 2020 inspection revealed approximately eight bat droppings. These were located in the northern part of the house near the wall to the adjoining semi-detached dwelling (No.6). Whilst it is difficult to accurately age bat droppings, the droppings were all dry and had the appearance of being old. It was noted during the survey that the floors of the building did not appear to have been swept since the previous Bioscan surveys in 2017 (when all bat droppings were considered to have been removed), and therefore, these droppings are likely to have been deposited within the house at some point since the 2017 surveys.

3.1.5 Externally, two crevices were noted between the wooden support and tiles on the gable end of the porch (see Photograph 3 in Appendix 1). These crevices appear to have arisen where small pockets of concrete have fallen out of the porch roof. In addition, there continue to be a small number of missing and slipped tiles on the roof particularly on the front elevation. The lead flashing around the chimney appears to be in good condition, and no obvious gaps for bats to access under the lead were seen. The soffits and fascias are largely well-sealed with no obvious gaps noted.

3.1.6 Overall, no direct observations of bats were found during the inspection of No.5 in 2020. Nevertheless, a small number of bat droppings were found beneath the former loft void on the first floor.

3.1.7 In respect of the inspection of the adjoining No.6, no direct observations of bats were found; however, two old bat droppings were found (along with numerous mouse droppings). The bat droppings appeared to be consistent with long-eared bats, and easily crumbled when touched. The majority of the rafters supported small amounts of old cobwebs, although there were some rafters which were clearer than others which could possibly suggest previous roosting. The eastern end of the loft, of what is likely to be a historic extension, contained a louvre which could allow bats unimpeded access. During the inspection, it was confirmed that there was a gap at the apex of the wall between Nos.5 and 6, with light visible emanating from No.5 indicating a possible route between the two buildings (although it would appear that no free-flight access would be possible). Photograph 4 in Appendix 1 provides a photograph of this gap. Cobwebs were covering this gap which indicates no recent movement in this area. A brief external inspection of the exterior of No.6 identified three or four recent bat droppings on some hanging tiles to the rear of the property. Nevertheless, a check of the tiles with an endoscope where accessible, did not identify any bats themselves.

3.2 Dusk emergence survey

3.2.1 During the dusk emergence survey, a single common pipistrelle7 was noted to emerge at 21:11 (20 minutes after sunset) from a crevice in the porch of No.5 (the upper right circled crevice on Photograph 3 in Appendix 1 provides the location of the crevice). No other bats were identified emerging from any other part of the house. Table 2 below provides a summary of the bat activity during the survey.

Table 2. Summary of bat activity during the dusk emergence survey. Date 17/05/2020 Survey type Dusk emergence Bat observed emerging from the house? Yes- one common pipistrelle Approximately 91% of the bat registrations recorded during the survey comprised common pipistrelle, with 7% comprising soprano pipistrelle, and 1.5% noctule. Small numbers of common pipistrelles (or possibly the same individual) were observed flying south-east along the back gardens to the north before flying in the gap between 5 and 4 Hatchgate Cottages and circling the front garden of No.5 before returning back along Summary of bat activity the same route.

7 Identified to species level from the Anabat recording.

3.3 Automated bat survey

3.3.1 The bat detector deployed within what would have been the loft of No.5 for the duration of the emergence survey did not register any bat calls of any species. Due to the open nature of the first floor and what would have been the void, it is considered that any bats flying and calling within this area would have been recorded by the detector.

3.4 Bat Roost Trigger Index

3.4.1 Based on the current conditions of the house, the index returned a trigger index score of 0.58. This places the house into the ‘low’ bat roost suitability (with the ‘low’ category score running between 0.5 and 0.6). Appendix 2 provides the values for each of the 28 parameters.

3.5 Bat dropping DNA analysis

3.5.1 The results from the 2020 DNA analysis reveal that the droppings found on the first floor of No.5 originate from brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus.

3.6 Desk study

3.6.1 The review of MAGIC revealed that there were seven granted licence applications within 2km of the site (although three of the applications appear to refer to the same site). All the applications were to allow the destruction of a resting place. Table 3 below provides a summary of these applications.

Table 3. Summary of granted bat licence applications within 2km of the site as provided by MAGIC. Distance/ Granted licence Licence Licence orientation from application reference Species start date end date the site. EPSM2013-6116 Brown long-eared bat 02/09/2013 31/07/2015 0.65km/south 2014-2875-EPS-MIT Brown long-eared bat 12/09/2014 30/09/2019 1.2km/ south-east Brown long-eared bat, common 2015-7300-EPS-MIT pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle 07/04/2015 30/03/2020 1.2km/ south-west Brown long-eared bat, common 2015-7300-EPS-MIT-1 pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle 09/06/2015 30/04/2020 1.2km/ south-west Brown long-eared bat, common 2015-7300-EPS-MIT-2 pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle 19/11/2015 30/04/2020 1.2km/ south-west EPSM2011-2958 Common pipistrelle 19/04/2011 31/08/2012 1.6km/ west Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, EPSM2011-2915 brown long-eared bat, whiskered bat 08/03/2011 28/02/2013 1.9km/ west

3.7 Other observations

3.7.1 Two recently dead blue tits were found on the ground floor (possibly having entered the building and were then unable to leave). Also noted during the visit was an old house martin nest under the eaves above the front door.

4 EVALUATION AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

4.1 Evaluation

4.1.1 The most significant result of the survey was the confirmation of a common pipistrelle emerging from a roost within the porch during the emergence survey. It is considered that the roost is a minor (i.e. non-maternity) day roost that is likely to be used on an intermittent basis by individual bats. Common pipistrelle is a common and widespread species in the UK and in Berkshire. On the basis that the roost was used by an individual bat of this common species it is assessed to be of ‘low’ conservation significance. The presence of this roost is not assessed to elevate the value of the site above the immediate local level, with other roosts of this species highly likely to be present in the wider area. As such the loss of this roost due to the development would not be expected to result in a significant impact on the local population of this species.

4.1.2 In addition, approximately eight old brown long-eared bat droppings were found on the first floor of the house. As it was considered that all the bat droppings found in 2017 were collected up, and the house does not appear to have been swept since, this indicates that bat/s have entered into what would have been the roof void of No.5 at some point since 2017. Nevertheless, it is difficult to ascertain when the droppings were deposited and the number of bats involved due to the dropping appearing to be old and with few present.

4.1.3 Further, although bat droppings were found within the loft void of the adjoining building (No.6) the number was very low and the droppings appeared old suggesting no recent activity (i.e. within the previous few months). It is notable that this loft void appears more suitable for bats due to the presence of a means of access, the more stable temperature (due to the presence of the occupants), and the absence of high levels of light when compared with No.5. It would be reasonable to suggest that if bats were currently roosting in the more suitable neighbouring property, that they may also access No.5 through the gap in the loft between the two houses.

4.1.4 The above indicates that the void of No.5 has not been recently used by bats, and therefore along with the open nature of the void and the relatively high light levels during the day (due to the windows), it suggests that the void is unlikely to be currently used as a bat roost. As the loft space appears to be sub-optimal for bats to roost, the droppings within No.5 could have originated from a bat exploring the house but did not remain to roost (with this bat possibly accessing the house through the gap to the neighbouring house).

4.1.5 The previous inspection carried out in 2017 identified the presence of droppings originating from noctule. However, no noctule droppings were encountered during the 2020 inspection, and it is considered that the house is sub-optimal for roosting for this species particularly as this species is known to primarily roost in trees.

4.2 Legislative Framework

4.2.1 All bat species and their roosts receive full protection under Regulation 43 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the ‘Habitat Regulations’). Any works which would adversely affect a bat roost must be carried out under a European Protected Species licence from Natural England. On this basis a European Protected Species licence will need to be obtained from Natural England prior to commencement of the proposed redevelopment works.

4.2.2 In accordance with Natural England’s bat mitigation guidelines8, the mitigation / compensation requirement for ‘Small numbers of common species. Not a maternity site’ falls between:

‘Flexibility over provision of bat-boxes, access to new buildings etc. No conditions about timing or monitoring’ and

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

4.2.3 Given the presence of a single common pipistrelle roosting within the porch, and the presence of the low numbers of old brown long-eared bat droppings on the first floor, and taking a precautionary approach, the second (higher) level of mitigation/compensation requirement is considered proportionate in this instance.

4.2.4 For the purposes of providing replacement roosting as part of the bat derogation licence, it is proposed to incorporate two integrated bat boxes9 into a southerly or westerly aspect of the building on the upper part of the walls, around eave height. This box is of a design that provides a suitable roosting feature for species such as pipistrelles and long-eared bats.

4.2.5 In terms of licensing, due to the current low conservation significance of the roost it is anticipated that the renovation and extension of the property could be covered by registering the site onto the bat low impact class licence with the named ecologist likely to be Samuel Watson (registered consultant reference: RC102), an employee of Bioscan.

8 English Nature (January 2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines English Nature publications. 9 1FE Schwegler bat access panel or similar

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

5.1.1 During the dusk emergence survey, a single common pipistrelle was observed emerging from the porch. During the building inspection a small number of old brown long-eared bat droppings were found on the first floor in the northern part of the structure. However, it is considered that as the internal part of the house appears sub-optimal for roosting bats due to the high light levels during the day, and the open nature of the loft/first floor, that the droppings are likely to have originated from a bat exploring the building rather than remaining to roost. This suggests that the void is unlikely to be currently used as a bat roost.

5.2 Recommendations

5.2.1 To enhance the property in respect of biodiversity over and above the mitigation required in respect of the bat roosting confirmed, it has been agreed with the client that the following will also be included as part of the scheme: - Incorporation of a third bat box of a similar design to the other two boxes (as provided within paragraph 4.2.4 above), and installed within the vicinity of the other two; - Incorporation of two double entrance house martin nests10 under the eaves in a sheltered location; - In the grounds of the property at least two of the species in the ‘Trees, shrubs & climbers’ list in Appendix 3, and at least two of the species in the ‘Flowers for borders’ and ‘Herbs’ lists will be grown to encourage moths which will in turn provide a foraging resource for bats; - No external lighting will permanently illuminate the house (i.e. sensored lighting will be used).

5.2.2 The provision of the measures above should secure an overall enhancement to bats, birds and invertebrates in accordance with obligations set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

10 9A Schwegler House Martin nest or similar

Figure 1-

Plan showing proposals for the site

12 E

Ground Floor Plan

1:100 @ A1 Outbuilding Plans & Elevations: T No. 6 E Proposed Site Plan 1:200 @ A1 T

Garden Room E 1 T No. 5

E T Hatchgate Lane E N E E E E E E E

Roof Plan E 1:100 @ A1

T T

E No. 4

N North-east Elevation 1:100 @ A1 N Proposed House Floor Plans: North-east Elevation Proposed House Elevations: Ground Floor Plan 1:100 @ A1 1:100 @ A1 South-east Elevation 1:100 @ A1 Living St Coats Kitchen Entrance Dining Lobby Up North-west Elevation 1:100 @ A1 Cl Living Utility

N First Floor Plan 1:100 @ A1 Bedroom 4 0m 1:100 @ A1 South-east Elevation Scale 1:200 E/S 5m Up Bathroom Bedroom 3 10m 1:100 @ A1 South-west Elevation 15m Bedroom 2 Bedroom 1 1:100 @ A1 South-west Elevation 0m Scale 1:100

1m N 2m North-west Elevation 1:100 @ A1 3m 4m Roof Plan 1:100 @ A1 5m 6m 7m 8m 9m 10m Drawing No: Date: Drawing: Project: Scale: Client: Revision: Date: Change: commencement of any construction. - All dimensions to be checked on site prior the N The Studio, 22 Tower Close, Emmer Green, Berkshire, RG4 8UU masters Tel: 07966489926, E-mail: [email protected] - March 2020 1:200 & 1:100 @ A1 Proposed Plans & Elevations 5 Hatchgate Cottages, Cockpole Green, RG108NE Mr & Mrs Copland 1708 - 20 -

Materials Key: ARCHITECTURE Drawn by: This drawing may not be reproduced without ALL COPYRIGHT RESERVED written consent from Masters Architecture. LM Painted Brickwork. Clay Tile Roof Approved: C

Appendix 1

Site Photographs

Photograph 1. General view of 5 Hatchgate Cottages (with 6 Hatchgate Cottages on the right).

Photograph 2. General view of the loft space (photo taken from the first floor).

Photograph 3. Two crevices (encircled in red) within the porch.

Photograph 4. Probable gap between the lofts of 5 and 6 Hatchgate Cottages.

Appendix 2

Bat Roost Trigger Index

BAT ROOST TRIGGER INDEX (TI): RESULTS

5 Hatchgate Project: Evidence: 0 Cottages Code: E1904 Constraints: 0 Date: 22/05/2020 Surveyor: BC TRIGGER INDICES CATEGORY TI VALUE A) Location, habitat and environmental context of structure T1: General location Rural 1 T2: Foraging opportunities within 250 m Moderate 0.67 T3: Foraging opportunities within 5 km Good 1 T4: Commuting opportunities Moderate 0.67 T5: Cover in vicinity of structure Moderate 0.67 T6: External lighting in vicinity of structure None 1 T7: Number and character of nearby buildings Mixture of old and new 0.67 T8: Structure/building exposure Low 1 B) Exterior features and characteristics of structure or building T9: Structure/building Old 1 age T10: Size of Building Intermediate size 0.67 T11: Main wall construction material Mixture of materials 0.67 T12: Condition of wall/roof pointing/render Tightly sealed 0.33 T13: Condition of lintel/door frame features Tightly sealed 0.33 T14: Condition of eaves/soffits/bargeboards Tightly sealed 0.33 T15: Condition of weatherboarding/cladding No boarding present 0.2 T16: Condition of lead flashing No flashing 0.2 T17: Roofing material Modern tiling or mixture 0.67 T18: Bat access Several small gaps noted 0.67 potential C) Interior features and characteristics of structure or building T19: Character of roof void/roof space No void or very limited roof space 0.33 Tightly sealed modern T20: Character and condition of roof supports 0.33 timbers/supports T21: Presence and extent of cobwebbing Some cobwebs 0.67 T22: Presence and condition of roof lining Lined with few gaps or mixture 0.67 T23: Light levels in roof void/space Light 0.33 T24: Protection from weather/wind Well protected 1 T25: Temperature Intermediate 0.67 regime T26: Level of (human, animal) disturbance Low 1 T27: Flight Space Good 1 T28: Flying Access (Horseshoe bats) None 0.33 TRIGGER INDEX SCORE = 0.58 BAT ROOST SUITABILITY = LOW

Appendix 3

List of plant species to encourage insects (and in turn bats) Source: Bat Conservation Trust. Encouraging Bats- A guide for bat-friendly gardening and living.

16 Which plants should I choose? Bat-friendly gardeners should aim to plant a mixture of flowering plants, vegetables, trees and shrubs to encourage a diversity of insects, which in turn may attract different bat species. Flowers that bloom throughout the year, including both annuals and herbaceous perennials, are a good idea: night- flowering blossoms attract night-flying insects. Trees and shrubs provide food for insects and roosting opportunities for bats.

Approximate flowering periods are listed below, although they may vary according to area and weather conditions!

Flowers for borders Ox-eye daisy (summer) *Aubretia (spring to early summer) *Phacelia (summer to autumn) *Candytuft (summer to autumn) *Poached egg plant (summer) *Cherry pie (summer to autumn) Primrose (spring) Corncockle Red campion (spring) Cornflower *Red valerian Corn marigold (summer to autumn) Corn poppy Scabious (summer) *Echinacea St John’s wort (spring) *Sweet William (spring) English Bluebell (summer) *Evening primrose (summer to autumn) *Tobacco plant Field poppies (summer) *Verbena *Honesty (spring) (summer to autumn) *Ice plant ‘Pink lady’ (early autumn) *Wallflowers Knapweed (summer to autumn) (spring to early summer) Mallow (summer to autumn) Wood forget-me-not (spring) *Mexican aster (summer to autumn) Yarrow (early summer) *Michaelmas daisy (summer to autumn) *Night-scented stock (summer) Plants marked * are hybrids or exotics that may be useful in the garden

Herbs (both leaves & flowers are fragrant)

Angelica Hyssop (summer to early autumn) Bergamot (summer to early autumn) Lavenders Borage (spring to early autumn) Lemon balm Coriander (summer) Marjoram (summer) English marigolds Rosemary (spring) Fennel (summer to early autumn) Sweet Cicely (spring to early summer) Feverfew (summer to autumn) Thyme (summer)

Things to remember H Pesticide-free gardens tend to be better for wildlife and bats. H Wherever possible, try to choose native plants and trees. H Never dig up plants from the wild. Buy native plants from reputable suppliers who breed their own stock. H Use peat-free compost or peat-substitutes such as coir. Peat extraction is unsustainable and seriously damages our unique bog habitats. Gardeners can help by reducing the demand for this product. H Creating a range of habitats such as a pond, vegetable garden and hedgerow makes your garden more attractive to insects and in turn bats. H Add a seat, put your feet up and watch your garden come to life! H Hedge and tree lines are important to help bats navigate. H Use lighting sensitively in your garden and do not point it at a bat box or roost.

Trees, shrubs & climbers

Bramble (climber) Hawthorn (suitable for coppicing) *Buddleia (shrub) Hazel (suitable for coppicing) Common alder Honeysuckle (native honeysuckle) (suitable for coppicing) Hornbeam Dog rose (climber) Ivy (climber) Elder (small) *Jasmine (night-scented) English oak (large gardens only) Pussy willow (suitable for coppicing) Gorse (shrub) Rowan Guelder rose (shrub) Silver birch

Wild flowers for pond edges & marshy areas Bog bean Marsh woundwort Bugle Meadowsweet Creeping Jenny (spring to summer) (summer to early autumn) Flag iris Purple loosestrife (summer) Hemp agrimony (summer) Water avens Lady’s smock (spring to summer) Water forget-me-not (summer to autumn) Marsh mallow Water mint (summer to autumn) Marsh marigold (spring)