Bat Survey and Mitigation Report Horrocks Farm Stoneyhurst, Clitheroe
July 2020
Prepared for: Mr and Mrs Kruse
Report prepared by: Verity Webster BSc (Hons) MSc CEcol CMIEEM Document Reference: 2002-09
PAGE 2 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
Executive Summary
§ In March 2020 a Preliminary Roost Assessment (bats) as part of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal was undertaken at Horrocks Farm, Stonyhurst, Clitheroe.
Bats
§ The inspection of the cottage in March 2020 confirmed that the cottage supported a bat roost, present within the loft void. The cottage also has suitability for crevice-roosting bats externally due to the crevices and cracks under the roof slates and under hanging tiles. .
§ DNA analysis confirms that the droppings within the loft void are those of whiskered bat (Myotis mystacinus).
§ Due to the confirmed use of the building by bats, and the suitability of the external fabric of the building for roosting bats, further survey work was recommended to determine the status of the existing roost and the presence or absence of other bat roosts.
§ Three evening emergence surveys were undertaken on 10th June, 18th June and 14th July 2020.
§ The surveys confirm that the cottage supports 5 bat roosts. Roosts recorded comprise:
o 3 x summer day roosts of a single common pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) located under the hanging tiles on the west elevation of the building o 1 x summer day roost of a single of common pipistrelle bat under a roof slate on the west elevation. o A day roost of a small number of whiskered bats (Myotis mystacinus) in the loft void.
§ It will be necessary to obtain a European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence for bats from Natural England prior to the start of works on site. The licence would detail the mitigation required to ensure the retention of the conservation status of the bat species present.
§ The proposals to demolish the cottage and construct a new dwelling provide capacity to mitigate for the potential impact upon the bat species through appropriate timing of the works, care during conversion works and installation of appropriate replacement roost sites for the two bat species.
Ecology and Protected Species Consultancy
Heath Charnock, Lancashire; www.ecologyconsultant.co.uk; tel: 07917 852 401; Email: [email protected]
PAGE 3 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
1 Introduction
1.1 Application Site
1.1.1. This report details bat survey work at Horrocks Farm, Stonyhurst, Clitheroe, BB7 9QX. Ordnance Survey grid reference (centre of site): SD 68283975.
1.1.2. Mr and Mrs Kruse commissioned Verity Webster Ltd to undertake the bat survey work to inform the planning application.
1.2 Objectives
1.2.1 The objectives of the Presence/Absence Surveys are to determine:
• Whether bats are currently using the building to roost and if so, how. • The species and number of bats present. • The status of any roost present. • How bats might be using the rest of the site (garden). • The potential impacts of the proposals on any roost present or on bats using the site. • How any impacts might be avoided, mitigated and / or ameliorated, including advice on European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) application if required.
1.3 Proposals
1.3.1 The proposals for the site comprise the demolition of the existing cottage and construction of a replacement dwelling.
1.4 Ecologist
1.4.1 The Bat Emergence Survey work was lead and undertaken by Verity Webster. Verity is a licensed bat surveyor (Bat Survey Class Licence WML CL18 (Class 2) Registration number: 2015-13858-CLS-CLS).
1.4.2 Verity has worked as an ecological consultant for over 12 years. She has undertaken preliminary bat assessments and further bat emergence / activity surveys for a large variety of projects and schemes, producing the required impact assessment and subsequent mitigation schemes / method statements when necessary.
PAGE 4 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
2 The Survey Site
2.1 Site Location
2.1.1 The Survey Site is located in a rural location of Stonyhurst, Clitheroe, approximately 1.4km north of the village of Hurst Green and 4.8km southwest of the outskirts of Clitheroe.
2.1.2 The surrounding landscape (2km) comprises a matrix of arable and grazing land divided by a matrix of tree lines and hedgerows. There are substantial plots of woodland, including Alghton, Bailey and Chaigley Country Park, which is composed mainly of conifer woodland. There are also numerous scattered plots of broadleaf woodland.
2.1.3 There are also numerous waterbodies scattered throughout the surrounding landscape, especially to the east of the site where there are a number of streams.
2.1.4 The River Hodder weaves through the landscape from the north to the southwest and lies approximately 1.5km to the east of the survey site at the closet point. See Figure 1.
2.2 Site Description
2.2.1 The survey site comprises a stone cottage and outbuilding set within mature gardens, and a sheep- grazed paddock. See Figure 3.
2.2.2 The site lies to the east of a quiet lane. A hedgerow dominated by hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) runs along the paddock boundary adjacent to the lane.
2.2.3 There are mature trees to the east of the cottage, adjacent to the lane and along the northern garden boundary. These include sycamore (Acer campestre), oak (Querus spp.) and holly (Ilex aquifolium).
2.2.4 The walled garden is composed of amenity grassland with mature shrubs around the boundary.
Structures
2.2.5 Structure A: The Cottage. This is a rectangular, two-storey stone structure with a pitched, slate roof. The cottage is oriented east to west and has gable ends. The roof slates are attached to the walls with mortar, much of which has fallen away. Externally the stonework has been rendered. The render has fallen away in part below the chimney on the west elevation. There are hanging slates the upper wall of the west elevation.
2.2.6 Internally there is a large loft void approximately 2.5m to the apex. The slates are unlined.
2.2.7 Structure B: The Outbuilding. This is a small roughly rectangular, single-storey stone structure with a pitched, slate roof. The structure is positioned to the northeast of the cottage and is open to the east. The slate roof is unlined.
PAGE 5 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
Structure A: The north elevation of the Structure B: The north elevation of the out- cottage building
The garden to the north of the cottage Looking east across the grazed paddock towards the hedgerow
PAGE 6 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
Figure 1: Ordnance Survey Map Showing the Location of the Proposed Development Site.
Ordnance Survey Map 1:25000
Key: Survey site
PAGE 7 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
Figure 2: Aerial Image of the Survey Site in Relation to the Surrounding Habitats
From Bing Maps 250m
Key: Survey site
PAGE 8 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
Figure 3: The Survey Site
From Bing Maps 25m
Key: Survey site boundary
PAGE 9 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
3 Legislation
Full details of relevant legislation and planning policy can be found in Appendix A.
3.1 UK and EU Legislation
3.1.1 Key legislation regarding the protection of bats:
• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) • The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CROW), 2000 • The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC, 2006) • The Conservation of Habitats and Species and Planning (Various Amendments) (England and Wales) Regulations 2018 (the Habitats Regs).
3.1.2 Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 201,it is a criminal offence to:
• Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat • Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats • Damage or destroy a bat roosting place (even if bats are not occupying the roost at the time) • Possess or advertise/sell/exchange a bat (dead or alive) or any part of a bat • Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a bat roost.
3.2 Planning Policy and Legislation
3.2.1 Under the NERC Act 2006, planning authorities are obliged to make sure that they have all the information on the presence of protected species on site before they make a decision on the planning permission.
3.2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages Local Planning Authorities to conserve and enhance biodiversity.
3.2.3 Under the NERC Act 2006, planning authorities are obliged to make sure that they have all the information on the presence of protected species on site before they make a decision on the planning permission. 3.2.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages Local Planning Authorities to conserve and enhance biodiversity.
Chapter 15, Para 170 of NPPF states: ’’The planning system 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….
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”.
Para 171 states: “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 Framework; 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.’’
Para 174 identifies that plans should do the following to protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity:
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
PAGE 10 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
biodiversity; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation; and
b) Promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and peruse opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.”
3.2.5 Para 175 states that “when determining planning applications, local authorities should apply the following principles:
a) if significant harm to biodiversity from a development cannot be avoided…,adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort compensated for, then planning permission should be refused’’
3.2.6 The local planning authority has a responsibility, therefore, to obtain all information regarding the potential for protected species on a site prior to making a decision about a proposal.
4 Survey Methodology
4.0.1 The Bat Surveys were undertaken in accordance with current accepted guidance: Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London.
4.1 Desk Study
4.1.1 Data sources used to establish background information about bats and their likely presence in the locality: • Magic Map, Natural England (2016) • Bing Maps (2017) • Biological Records Data from Lancashire Biological Records Network (LERN) (2020)
4.1.2 Satellite mapping, Ordnance survey, road map, habitat and designated site data from Magic Map (Natural England, 2014) was used to assess the value of the surrounding habitat for bats in the area at a landscape scale (5km), including any potentially important habitat corridors (linear habitat features), feeding grounds or potential roost opportunities, such as large expanses of woodland. The features and habitats immediately surrounding the site (local area) were also assessed at a finer scale as these influence the likely presence of bats within the survey site.
4.1.3 Data from LERN details protected species, species of biological importance or conservation concern and designated sites within a 2km radius of the survey site.
4.2 Preliminary Roost Assessment
4.2.1 An internal and external inspection of the cottage was undertaken during daylight on 3rd March 2020 to determine the suitability for bats and establish, if possible, whether bats are using the structures or have been using the structures in the past.
4.2.2 All accessible parts of the structure were inspected to look for bats and signs of the presence of bats, including:
• Droppings. • Feeding remains including moth and butterfly wings. • Staining from urine or oils near crevices or holes or on timber (such as roof beams), walls, chimney breasts etc. • Scratch marks on walls and timber.
PAGE 11 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
• Squeaking or chattering calls.
4.2.3 The systematic search inside the building included inspection of beams, floors, surfaces of stored materials, loose roof insulation or felt covering, junctions between roof timbers and timbers and the walls, crevices within brickwork. Potential access into the building was also inspected by searching for holes in insulation and any light penetration into the interior from the outside.
4.2.4 The assessment outside the building included inspection of all walls, windows, window sills, fascias, soffits, eaves and tiles, including a search for any crevices under tiles, under lifted lead flashing or lifted roofing felt, missing mortar, gaps in the ridge or gable end of the roofs, crevices in brickwork or under flaking paintwork or render, gaps in cladding or hanging tiles and any other potential bat roost opportunities.
4.2.5 Equipment: During the survey a strong torch with directional beam was used to inspect the buildings.
4.2.6 As a result of the preliminary roost assessment, the structure on site was characterised as having ‘negligible’, ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’ suitability for bats. It may also be possible to confirm presence of a roost.
4.2.7 Buildings or structures typically characterised as having:
§ Negligible suitability for bats will lack features with any potential to support roosting bats. Modern or newly-built well-sealed structures may fall into this category. Structures that are metal clad with metal internal beams might have negligible potential if there are no favourable roosting spaces. Structures may also be unfavourable due to the level of disrepair, being subject to poor weather conditions.
§ Low suitability for bats will have sub-optimal roost features with limited potential for roosting bats. Features may be used by single bats opportunistically, but do not provide enough space, shelter, protection, appropriate conditions and / or suitable surrounding habitat to be used on a regular basis by large numbers of bats.
§ Medium suitability for bats may have few features with potential for bats, that provide enough space, shelter, protection and other suitable conditions, or several features with limited potential for bats. It may also be that a potentially suitable structure is situated in an area with habitat that has only low potential for foraging and commuting bats.
§ High suitability for bats will support at least one or more features that provide opportunities for roosting bats such that they might be used regularly, for longer periods by larger numbers of bats. These may be external features, such as lifted weatherboard or crevices in brick or stonework, or internal, such as large loft spaces with potential access. Barns, with open doorways and windows with wooden rafters and beams may fall into this category. If a structure is close to good habitat, such as a waterway, marshland or woodland, this also increases potential for roosting bats.
4.2.8 Confirmed roost presence when it is evident as a result of signs from inspection, such as droppings, or sight of bats, that a roost exists within the building. It is not always possible to ascertain presence or absence of a roost even if some signs, such as droppings or feeding remains are found.
PAGE 12 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
4.3 Bat Emergence, Re-entry Surveys and Assessment of Activity
4.3.1 Following the Preliminary Roost Assessment, the cottage was considered to have high suitability for bats, with confirmed presence of a bat roost (droppings present).
4.3.2 Three evening emergence surveys are considered sufficient to provide information about the status of the existing roost and the presence or absence of any other bat roost.
4.3.3 The bat emergence surveys were undertaken on 10th June, 18th June and 14th July 2020. The emergence surveys were undertaken from 20 minutes before sunset to 1.5 hours after sunset. Two surveyors were positioned to observe all elevations of the cottage.
4.3.4 Batbox Duet detectors and Echo Meter Touch detectors were used so that any calls heard that could not be identified were recorded for later analysis.
4.3.5 The time, activity (emergence, foraging, commuting) and species of bats (where possible) were recorded when observed. Notes were made of the activity of bats elsewhere on site as well as around the building. The number of bat passes were recorded to provide an indication of bat activity level within the site.
4.4 DNA Analysis
4.4.1 DNA analysis of droppings found present within the loft space of the cottage was undertaken by SureSreen Scientific. The analysis confirmed the presence of whiskered bat (Myotis mystacinus) droppings.
4.5 Survey Reasoning and Limitations
4.5.1 The survey work was spread out through June and July 2020. In June and July the summer roosts of bats, including whiskered bats, which sometimes establish their maternity roosts later in the season, are expected to be present. Bats absent at one time, may be present at a different time of the season and some species may move roosts. The spread of the surveys across the two month period allows for the variation in the use of the structure on site and the varying behaviour of bats during the summer.
4.5.2 Dawn surveys were not undertaken due to the weather conditions; rain in the night prior to dawn may result in distortion of the results of a dawn survey. That is, bats may return to roost earlier than anticipated in the night.
4.5.3 There were no other notable limitations during the survey. It was possible to see the flight of bats around the building relatively easily due to the clear sky-line.
4.5.4 DNA analysis of droppings confirmed the presence of whiskered bat, indicating the presence of this roost irrespective of the activity survey findings (no whiskered bats were recorded emerging).
4.5.5 The surveys undertaken are considered sufficient to give confidence in the findings and therefore, the reliability of the assessment of potential impacts and the suitability of the mitigation proposed.
PAGE 13 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
5 Findings: Preliminary Roost Assessment (Bats)
5.0 Desk Study
Potential for Bats
5.0.1 At a landscape level, the area surrounding the survey site is very good for bats. Refer to Figure 2.
5.0.2 Countryside extends in all directions. The landscape within 2km comprises a matrix of grassland divided by hedgerows and treelines, and scattered plots of woodland and waterbodies. The habitat will support a variety of bat species including widespread species such as common and soprano pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Pipistrellus pygmaeus respectively) and brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus). Species that favour wooded habitat, such as Natterer’s bat (Myotis natterri), whiskered bat (Myotis mystacinus) and Brandt’s bat (Myotis brandtii) are also likely to be abundant. Species that favour open habitats such as Leisler’s (Nyctalus leisleri) and noctule bat (Nyctalus noctula) would also be expected.
5.0.3 The linear features (hedgerows and tree lines) provide good habitat links that are likely utilised by commuting bats and will facilitate the movement of bats through the landscape.
Records Data
5.0.4 Data obtained from LERN include records for six bat species within 2km of the survey site: • Brant’s bat • Brown long-eared bat • Natterer’s bat • Noctule • Common pipistrelle • Soprano pipistrelle
5.0.5 All the records are from locations over 500m from the survey site.
5.0.6 The data include records for 8 roost sites of Brant’s bat, Natterer’s bat, brown long-eared bat and common and soprano pipistrelle.
5.0.7 The high number of roost sites within 2km is likely a reflection of the high quality of the surrounding habitat.
PAGE 14 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
5.1 Preliminary Roost Assessment
5.1.1 The building inspection and bat roost assessment was undertaken in daylight on 3rd March 2020.
The Cottage
5.1.2 A bat roost is confirmed present in the cottage.
5.1.3 Externally there are numerous features that might support roosting bats, including crevices beneath lifted slates and between the slates and the wall at each gable, where the Hanging slates on the west elevation mortar has fallen away.
5.1.4 There are also crevices beneath flaking render on the west gable, and beneath the hanging slates on the west gable.
5.1.5 Internally, the roof is unlined, which provides easier access for bats into the internal void.
5.1.6 The loft void is large, and approximately 2.5m to the apex and the width and length of the cottage.
5.1.7 Many bat droppings (over 500 in number) are present scattered throughout the loft void. The droppings vary in age.
5.1.8 The number and distribution of the droppings suggest the presence of a significant roost, such as a maternity roost.
5.1.9 Further survey work in the spring and summer months will be necessary to determine the status of the roost and the species present. The survey work will inform the mitigation required to Bat droppings on the loft floor replace the roost site and ensure the conservation status of the species is retained.
5.1.10 It will be necessary to obtain a European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence for bats prior to the start of works to the building.
The Outbuilding
5.1.11 The roof of the outbuilding contains are crevices beneath the slates, but these are unlined and no evidence of use of the structure by bats was found upon external and internal inspection.
5.1.12 Given the small size of the structure and its proximity to the ground, it is considered unlikely that it will be utilised by bats, even upon occasion.
5.1.13 Overall this structure is considered to have negligible suitability for bats.
The loft void
PAGE 15 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
6 Findings: Presence / Absence Surveys and Activity Assessment (Bats)
6.0 Survey 1: Evening Emergence on 10th June 2020
Surveyors: Verity Webster Bsc MSc CEcol MCIEEM (bat licence Class 2) and Derren Bailey (single seasons bat survey experience)
Weather: 10.6oc, 100% cloud, dry, humidity 75%. Very light breeze Sunset: 21:40 Time on site: 21:20 – 23:10
Findings
6.0.1 A single bat species was recorded during the survey: common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus).
6.0.2 The first bat was recorded at 21:43 commuting southeast to northwest to the trees to the north of the cottage and flew to the east and began foraging.
6.0.3 At 21:47 two common pipistrelles were recorded emerging from under the hanging tiles on the west elevation of the cottage and flew north.
6.0.4 Two common pipistrelle bats were recorded foraging in the trees to the east of the cottage at 21:50. At 12:54 a single common pipistrelle was recorded foraging in the trees to the north of the cottage and occasionally flying over the cottage.
6.0.5 The foraging of three bats was constant until the end of the survey period.
6.0.6 No bats were recorded emerging from the building.
Table 1: Evening Emergence Survey 10th June 2020
Location Time Species Notes
A 21:43 *Cpip Commuted northwest to trees over cottage
B 21:43 Cpip Commuted from southeast to northwest towards trees
B 21:45 Cpip Foraging to the east of the cottage in the trees
A 21:47 Cpip 2 x bats emerged from the west elevation of the cottage and flew north (Roost C and Roost E)
B 21:50 – end of Cpip Two common pipistrelles recorded foraging in trees to the survey period east of the cottage, occasionally flying over the grassand to the south of the cottage.
A/B 21:54-end of Cpip A single bat was recorded foraging in the trees to the north of survey period the cottage.
*Cpip: Common pipistrelle
PAGE 16 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
6.1 Survey 2: Evening Emergence on 18th June 2020
Surveyors: Verity Webster Bsc MSc CEcol MCIEEM (bat licence Class 2) and Derren Bailey (single seasons bat survey experience)
Weather: 15.7oc, 100% cloud, humidity 68%, still. Sunset: 21:25 Time on site: 21:05– 22:55
Findings
6.1.1 Two bat species were recorded during the survey : common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and a Myotis bat species (likely whiskered or Brandt’s bat).
6.1.2 The first bat was recorded at 21:41 and was heard by not seen. At 21:44 a common pipistrelle was observed emerging from beneath the roof slates on the west gable of the cottage. At 21:47 a second common pipistrelle was recorded emerging from under hanging tiles on the west elevation of the cottage.
6.1.3 A single common pipistrelle was recorded foraging between 21:44 and 21:49 in the trees and over the garden to the north of the cottage, occasionally flying to the south. A single bat (probably the same bat) was also recorded foraging bat 21:51.
6.1.4 At 22:02 – 22:12 two common pipistelles were recorded foraging constantly over the grassland to the south of the cottage.
6.1.5 A single Myotis bat species was recorded foraging briefly to the south of the cottage at 22:10-22:11.
6.1.6 Common pipistrelles were recorded foraging sporadically over the garden to the north of the cottage between 21:51 and 22:12.
PAGE 17 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
th Table 2: Evening Emergence Survey 18 June 2020
Location Time Species Notes
A 21:41 *Cpip Heard not seen
B 21:42 Cpip Heard not seen
A 21:44 Cpip Emerged from beneath roof slates on the west gable (Roost B)
A 21:47 Cpip Emerged from beneath hanging tiles on the west elevation (Roost C)
B 21:44 – 21:49 Cpip A single bat flew from the southeast to the trees north of the cottage and continued to forage.
B/A 21:51 Cpip Foraging in the garden to the east of the cottage
B 21:59 Cpip Flew from the north to the south to forage.
B 21:02 – 21:26 Cpip 2 x bats were foraging over the grassland to the south of the cottage.
B 22:10 – 22:11 Myotis A single bat was recorded foraging along boundary vegetation to the south of the cottage.
A 22:08 Cpip Flew from the west around to the north of the cottage
A 22:09 Cpip Foraging around cottage – flew from the north around the west of the cottage to the south.
A 22:12 Cpip Foraging high to the west of the cottage.
A 22:20 – 22:22 Cpip Foraging over the grassland to the north of the cottage and occasionally flying to the west of the cottage.
B 21:34-21:43 Cpip Foraging to the east of the cottage and occasionally to the south over the grassland.
A 22:48-22:51 Cpip Foraging around the cottage, flying form the north to the south and back.
*Cpip : Common pipistrelle
PAGE 18 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
6.2 Survey 3: Evening Emergence on 14th July 2020
Surveyors: Verity Webster Bsc MSc CEcol MCIEEM (bat licence Class 2) and Derren Bailey (single seasons bat survey experience)
Weather: 15oc, 100% cloud, humidity 80%, light rain between 21:15 and 21:50. Sunset: 21:34 Time on site: 21:15– 23:05
Findings
6.2.1 A single species of bat was recorded during the survey : common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus).
6.2.2 The first bat was recorded at 21:43 and emerged from beneath the roof slates on the west gable of the cottage. Between 21:47 and 22:04 four more common pipistrelles emerged from beneath hanging tiles on the west elevation.
6.2.3 Common pipistrelles were recorded foraging to the north, east and west of the cottage throughout the evening.
Table 3: Evening Emergence Survey 14th July 2020
Location Time Species Notes
D 21:43 *Cpip Emerged from beneath the roof slates on the west gable (Roost B). Was not echolocating.
C 21:43 – 22:04 Cpip Foraging in the trees to the north of the cottage
C 21:50 – 23:05 Cpip Two bats foraging to the north of the cottage, occasionally passing the west gable and going down the drive before returning.
D 21:47 Cpip Emerged from beneath the roof slates on the west gable (Roost B).
D 21:52 Cpip Foraging to the north of the cottage
D 21:54 Cpip Emerged from beneath hanging tiles on the west elevation (Roost C).
C 21:58 Cpip Flew across the south north to south
D 22:00 Cpip Emerged from beneath higher hanging tiles on west elevation (Roost C)
D 22:04 Cpip Emerged from hanging tiles on west elevation (Roost D)
D 22:06 – 22:11 Cpip Foraging to the north of the cottage
*Cpip : Common pipistrelle
PAGE 19 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
Figure 4: Locations of Surveyors
C A
D B
From Bing Maps 10m
Key: The Cottage
A Surveyor positions survey 1 and 2
C Surveyor Cpositions survey 3
PAGE 20 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
7 Findings: Roost Locations
Myotis (whiskered bat) roost
9.0.1 Whiskered bats occupy crevice roost sites. The distribution of droppings internally, and the emergence point recorded during the first survey, under the arch suggest the roost is located within a roof crevice in the apex of the internal void.
Common pipistrelle roosts
9.0.2 Four day roosts of common pipistrelle bats were recorded under the hanging tiles on the west elevation on the cottage. A single roost was recorded under a slate on the west elevation.
Figure 5: Survey Findings
Roost A
Roost C Roost B
Roost E
From Bing Maps 10m Roost D Key:
Whiskered bat roost location
The Location of Common Pipistrelle day roosts
PAGE 21 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
10 Findings: DNA Analysis
10.0.1 DNA analysis of a droppings within the loft void of the cottage indicate the presence of whiskered bat.
10.0.2 The presence of numerous (approximately 150) droppings suggest that the roost is a day roost of a small number of whiskered bats, used occasionally.
11 Appraisal and Assessment of Impact
Bats
11.0.1 The survey work undertaken confirms the use of the cottage by two bat species. Roosts recorded comprise:
o 3 x summer day roosts of a single common pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) located under the hanging tiles on the west elevation of the building (Roosts C, D and E) o 1 x summer day roost of a single of common pipistrelle bat under a roof slate on the west elevation (Roost B) o A day roost of a small number of whiskered bats (Myotis mystacinus) in the loft void (Roost A)
11.0.2 It will be necessary to obtain a European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence for bats from Natural England prior to the start of works on site. The licence would detail the mitigation required to ensure the retention of the conservation status of the bat species present.
11.1 Impact Assessment
11.1.1 Natural England require detail of the potential impacts of the species in the absence of mitigation.
11.1.2 The potential negative impacts are categorised into initial impacts, long-term impacts and post- development impacts. The impact level has been decided upon having assessed the significance of the roosts and the conservation status of the species at a site level, local level (Clitheroe), county level (Lancashire) and regional level (northwest).
PAGE 22 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
Initial impacts
11.1.3 Initial impacts include activities undertaken on site pre-development and during works.
11.1.4 These are likely to include:
Table 4 : Initial Impacts Activity Impact Duration Impact level
Unsupervised demolition of Potential to injure or kill Permanent Whiskered bat is a the building approximately 5 no. widespread species, but whiskered bat species infrequently recorded. This is considered to be a major negative impact at site level, a moderate negative impact at local level and a negligible negative impact at county level.
Permanent Common pipistrelles are Potential to injure or kill 7 commonly recorded in no. common pipistrelle bats. Lancashire. They are generally a common and widespread species. This is
considered to be a major negative impact at site
level, a low impact at local level and a negligible
impact at county level and above.
.
Destruction of roost Loss of a day roost, Permanent Moderate negative impact without replacement occasionally used, for at site level, low negative approximately 5 no. impact at local level and Whiskered bats. negligible negative impact at county level.
Loss of 4 no. day roosts for a single common pipistrelle Permanent Moderate negative impact bats at site level, negligible negative impact at local level and above.
PAGE 23 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
Long-term impacts
11.1.5 Long term impacts on the species comprise the effect of the works on the population, as follows:
Table 5 : Long-term Impacts Activity Impact Duration Impact level
Destruction of roosts Loss of a day roost for Permanent Moderate negative impact without replacement approximately 5 no. at site level, low negative Whiskered bats. impact at local level and negligible negative impact at county level.
Loss of 4 no. day roost for a single common pipistrelle Permanent Low negative impact at site bats level, negligible negative impact at local level and above.
Post-development Impacts
11.1.6 Post-development interference impacts include potential disturbance of foraging and commuting bats with use of security lighting and increase in disturbance. It is proposed that lights with baffels, which are of low UV component are used on the exterior of the new dwelling. If recommendation the followed, these impacts will be minor-negligible at site level and negligible at local level and above.
Assessment
11.1.7 Whiskered bat and common pipistrelle bat recorded at the site are common and widespread species. Whiskered bat is less frequently recorded, but this species is more elusive to survey than the pipistrelles and has a lower population density.
11.1.8 The roosts are all of small numbers of common species and are therefore of low conservation significance (Mitchell-Jones, 2004).
11.1.9 It is proposed that mitigation for whiskered bat and the crevice dwelling pipistrelle species is undertaken to ensure retention of ecological functionality of the site for these species and the retention of the conservation status of the species present.
11.1.10 It is considered that that all the potential negative impacts foreseen can be addressed with appropriate mitigation such that all impacts will be reduced to negligible. If mitigation is undertaken under a European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence, it is considered there will be no detriment to the maintenance of the population status of the two bat species at a favourable conservation status.
PAGE 24 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
12 Summary and Mitigation
12.1 Bats
12.1.1 Survey work has confirmed the presence of the roosts of two bat species (whiskered bat and common pipistrelle bat).
12.1.2 Given the number of droppings, the whiskered bat roost is likely a day roost supporting up to 5 no. bats, used only occasionally.
12.1.3 Whiskered bat are crevice-dwelling bat species that roost in buildings. These species will fly within a space prior to leaving an internal roost in order to ‘light sample’.
12.1.4 It is important to retain an interior void for whiskered bat, such that the existing roost is replicated in the new dwelling. Creation of a roost void for this species would require retaining a space of at least 4 x 4m (length and width) and 2m to the ridge to allow the species to fly.
12.1.5 Common pipistrelle bats are also crevice-roosting bat species and are frequently recorded roosting under tiles in the external fabric of buildings, as they have been on site.
12.1.6 Crevice-roost sites should be installed on the new dwelling to allow common pipistrelle bats to continue roosting on stie.
Key Considerations
§ Creation of crevice-roost space for common pipistrelle bat externally on the new dwelling § Creation of roost space and egress/entry points for whiskered bat in the new dwelling.
Mitigation Proposed
12.1.7 Mitigation would be confirmed within the European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence following finalisation of plans. Outlined below are the requirements, with suggestions for suitable mitigation measures.
Roost Replacement
§ It is proposed that a void approximately 4mx4m (width and length) x2m (height) is created in the new dwelling as a dedicated roost space for whiskered bat. Access and egress points must be created in the roof to allow entry for bats (for example, ridge access tiles – see Figure 6).
The lining of the roof in the ‘bat loft’ must be bitumen felt. This is because breathable roofing membrane is hazardous for bats as the bats get caught in the fibres.
§ It is proposed 4 x bat crevice roost boxes or hanging tiles are installed on the west elevation of the new dwelling. This will allow roost space to be provided for common pipistrelle bats.
PAGE 25 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
12.1.8 The following measures will be required as part of the licenced works:
Pre-Start Mitigation
§ Appropriate timing of works: Works must be commenced in September/ October or March / April when bats are expected to be absent. § A toolbox talk on bats given to site operatives prior to the start of works to ensure they know what to look for and how to undertake the works appropriately to avoid harm to bats that may be present. § A pre-check for the presence of bats within the building prior to the start of works, which must be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist (licenced to undertake bat work).
Mitigation During Works
§ Removal of the external building materials around the roost sites and forming the roosts sites by hand, as far as possible prior to demolition. § These works must be undertaken in the presence of an ecologist suitably qualified (licenced to work with bats). § Installation of the replacement roosts in the new dwelling.
Post-Development Mitigation
§ Any lighting installed on the new dwelling must be low-pressure or high-pressure sodium with glass glazing, or alternatively LED. This will reduce the UV output, which attracts insects. § Lighting should be directional, installed with baffles if possible and should be directed to avoid light shine around the archway or on roofs of buildings. § Lights with movement sensors should be on a short timer to minimise light-time.
PAGE 26 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
Figure 6: Bat Mitigation Examples
An example of bat access slate for common pipistrelles An example of ridge-tile access for bats or for access into the loft void for whiskered bats
Ibstock Enclosed Bat Box ‘C’ – Can be integrated Ibstock Enclosed Bat Box ‘B’ – Can be integrated into a building into a building
1WQ Schwegler summer and winter bat box for attaching externally onto walls
PAGE 27 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
13 References
§ BCT (2003) BATS AND LIGHTING IN THE UK Bats and the Built Environment Series. Version 3. Bat Conservation Trust.
§ BING maps (2016) http://www.bing.com/mapspreview
§ Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London. ISBN-13 978-1-872745-96-1
§ Google maps (Accessed 2019) https://www.google.co.uk/maps
§ MAGIC Map (Accessed 2019) http://www.magic.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx. DEFRA.
§ Mitchell-Jones (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature
PAGE 28 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
APPENDIX A: Wildlife Legislation and Planning Policy
UK AND EU LEGISLATION UK AND EU LEGISLATION
1.1. KEY LEGISLATION
1.1.1. Key legislation regarding the protection of bats:
o Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) o The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CROW), 2000 o The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC, 2006) o Conservation of Habitats and Species and Planning (Various Amendments (England and Wales) Regulations 2018 (the Habitats Regs).
1.2. WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 (AS AMENDED)
1.2.1. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is UK legislation.
1.2.2. Bats are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981. Under Section 9 of this legislation it is an offence to:
• Kill, injure or take a bat. • Possess, a live or dead bat. • Intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy any structure of place which any bat uses as shelter or protection. • Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat whilst it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection. • Internationally or recklessly obstruct access to any structure or place which a bat uses as shelter or protection. • Sell, offer or expose for sale any live or dead bat.
1.3. COUNTRYSIDE AND RIGHTS OF WAY ACT 2000
1.3.1. Schedule 12 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000, amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 by removing the need to prove intent to damage a roost / harm (etc) a bat or other species listed on Schedule 1 by adding the words ‘or recklessly’ after ‘intentionally’ into the wording in Section 9 of the WCA 1981. The CROW act also strengthened the penalties for offences to bats and other species listed on Schedule 5.
1.4. CONSERVATION OF HABITATS AND SPECIES REGULATIONS 2010
1.4.1. The Conservation of Habitats and Species and Planning (Various Amendments (England and Wales) Regulations 2018 consolidate all the various amendments made to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 in respect of England and Wales.
1.4.2. The 1994 Regulations transposed Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive) into national law. The regulations came into force on 30 October 1994.
1.4.3. The Regulations provide for the designation and protection of European Sites and European Protected Species, including bats.
1.4.4. Under the Regulations, competent authorities (ie any government department or public body) have
PAGE 29 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
a general duty, in the exercise of any of their functions, to have regard to the EC Habitats Directive.
1.4.5. With regard to European Protected Species (including bats), the Regulations make it an office to:
• Deliberately capture; • Kill; • Disturb or; • Trade in animals listed in Schedule 2, which include all UK bat species.
1.5. European Protected Species (EPS) Licenses and the Three Tests
1.5.1. These actions can me made lawful through the granting of licenses by the appropriate authorities. Licenses may be granted for a number of purposes (such as science and education, conservation, preserve public health and safety). For such a licence to be granted the appropriate authority would have to be satisfied that an application has met the three tests, which are:
1) - The licence may be granted ‘’to preserve public health or public safety or for reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences or primary importance for the environment’’
2) - There must be ‘’no satisfactory alternative’’
3) - The proposal ‘’will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the species at a favourable conservation status in its natural range’’
1.6. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL COMMUNITIES (NERC) ACT 2006 (PLANNING SYSTEM)
Planning Authorities: A Duty to Conserve Biodiversity
1.6.1. Under this legislation, planning authorities are obliged to make sure that they have all the information on the presence of protected species on site before they make a decision on the planning permission.
1.6.2. Part 2, Section 40 confers on the planning authorities a duty to conserve biodiversity and states:
‘’Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of biodiversity’’
Species of Principal Importance
1.6.3. Part 3, 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 principle importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity’’.
1.6.4. This requirement lead to production of a list of species and habitats of Principal Importance. This lists includes all UK bats.
PLANNING POLICY
1.7. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
1.7.1. In March 2012 the Government introduced the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This was revised in 2018.
PAGE 30 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
Chapter 15: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment
Chapter 15, Para 170 of NPPF states: ’’The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: b) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils…. e) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures”.
Para 171 states: “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 Framework; 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.’’
Para 174 identifies that plans should do the following to protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity:
c) “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 biodiversity; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation; and
d) Promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and peruse opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.”
Para 175 states that “when determining planning applications, local authorities should apply the following principles: b) if significant harm to biodiversity from a development cannot be avoided…,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 result in the loss of deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland or ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensatory strategy exists; and e) Development whos primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.
PAGE 31 Horrocks Farm, Clitheroe: Bat Survey and Mitigation Report
Para 177 states “the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment because of its potential impact on a habitats site is being planned or determined.”
1.8. ODPM CIRCULAR 06/2005: BIODIVERSITY AND GEOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
1.8.1. This document, to be read in conjunction with NPPF provides administrative guidance on the application of the law relating to planning and nature conservation as it applies in England. It makes it clear that it is the intention of the government that local authorities and developers consider protected species at the earliest possible stage in the planning process. Any planning application that is likely to affect protected species should come with details of the surveys which have been undertaken and should include, if necessary, recommendations for mitigation. Applications which do not include sufficient data should be rejected.