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 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 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. 3 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).