PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF A WAREHOUSE AT STRUMPSHAW BAT SURVEY

PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW

WILDLIFE SURVEY

Prepared by: Prepared for: Philip Parker Associates Mr J. Higgins White Row Cottage Wickerhouse Ltd Leziate Drove 31 Norwich Road Pott Row Strumpshaw KING’S LYNN Norwich Norfolk NR13 4AG PE32 1DB

Report ref: P2013 – 52 R1 FINAL Date : 23rd August 2013

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 1 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Legislation and licensing

3.0 Description of the site

4.0 Existing protected species records

5.0 Survey methodology

6.0 Survey results

7.0 Potential effects from the proposed development on the species present and licensing implications 8.0 Proposed mitigation

9.0 Summary

10.0 References

Appendix A Site location/photographs

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 John Jenkins has prepared development proposals on behalf of John Higgins of Wickerhouse Ltd for the demolition of a warehouse and construction of 2 new properties at 31 Norwich Road, Strumpshaw, Norwich. It is anticipated that the Planning Authority, Broadland District Council, will require a wildlife survey to accompany any planning application.

1.2 Philip Parker Associates has been instructed to undertake this survey and provide an assessment of any wildlife implications in undertaking the development. Where necessary, the need for any relevant licences has been identified and mitigation proposed as appropriate. Given the nature of the development site, bats, owls and other breeding birds are normally the groups most likely to be encountered.

1.3 Although the instruction was only to survey the building, consideration of any other wildlife that could occur within the building plot been made. There are no ponds on the proposed development site (the Ordnance Survey plan does however show 2 ponds in gardens, one 140m to the west of the building/105m from the plot and another to the south, 180m from the building/165m from the plot) The site is surrounded by arable fields and a large factory

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 1 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

building occurs to the west, but more immediately areas of rough ground in close proximity to the barn and therefore the potential for reptiles to occur has been considered.

2.0 LEGISLATION AND LICENSING

2.1 BATS All bats are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) through inclusion on Schedule 5. They are also protected under schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994.

2.2 This makes it an offence amongst others to:  Intentionally or deliberately kill, injure or capture (take) bats;  Deliberately disturb bats (whether in a roost or not);  Damage, destroy or obstruct access to bat roosts;

2.3 A bat roost is regarded as “any structure or place which any wild animal….uses for shelter or protection” As bats tend to re-use the same roosts, legal opinion is that the roost is protected whether or not the bats are present at the time.

2.4 Of the bats that occur in Norfolk, barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus and pipistrelle Pipistrellus spp have the benefit of species action plans within the National Biodiversity action plan. Brown long eared Plecotus auritus, pipistrelle and noctule Nyctalus noctula bats also have the benefit of a grouped species action plan in the Norfolk Biodiversity Action plan.

2.5 BARN OWLS Barn owls Tyto alba receive special protection under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 plus amendments. This makes it an offence (amongst others) to intentionally or recklessly disturb the bird whilst building a nest, or when such a bird is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young, or intentionally or recklessly disturb dependent young.

2.6 OTHER BREEDING BIRDS The majority of breeding birds in Britain are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 plus amendments from disturbance whilst nesting (generally from late April to the end of August).

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 2 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

2.7 REPTILES Legislation The reptiles occurring in Norfolk, (common lizard Zootoca vivipara, slow worm Anguis fragilis, grass snake Natrix natrix and adder Vipera berus) are all given limited legal protection under part of Section 9 (1) and all of Section 9 (5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This means that it is an offence to intentionally kill, injure and offer for sale.

2.8 LICENSING A European Protected Species licence is required from Natural England where the proposed development would result in an otherwise un-lawful activity on the species (in this case bats and great crested newts). This includes: a. The killing or disturbance of a European Protected Species; b. Damage, destruction or obstruction of any place used by a European Protected Species for shelter or protection.

2.9 Any licence application will take a minimum of 30 working days to process and can only be processed once planning permission has been granted. Granting of planning permission is no guarantee that a licence will be granted.

2.10 Following changes to the Habitats Regulations in 2007, the threshold to which a person commits an offence of deliberately disturbing a European Protected species has changed, such that the disturbance is likely to affect;

(i) the ability of any significant group of animals of that species to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young, or (ii) the local distribution or abundance of that species

2.11 With respect to bats, the level of roosting activity would determine whether an EPS licence is required. Discussion with Natural England local team in July 2008 confirmed that where roosting activity is confined to small numbers of common species (of which pipistrelle and brown long eared are considered to be), the work can be scheduled to avoid the main bat period (usually the winter months) and any existing roosting features can be replaced or retained, it is possible that the work could be undertaken without an EPS licence.

2.12 Further changes took place in January 2009 but these generally relate to increased monitoring of licensed mitigation works

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 3 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

2.13 More recent guidance from Natural England in their EPS Mitigation Licensing – Latest Developments July 2011 – clarifies that the destruction of a bat roost is an absolute offence and requires a mitigation licence from Natural England. This relates even to a single roosting bat of a common species.

2.14 Natural England have recently started the trial for a new Class Licence, issued to the ecologist, allowing low level disturbance works on small numbers of common bats. The trial for this started at the end of June 2013 and runs currently to the end of April 2014.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

3.1 The building is located at 31 Norwich Road, Strumpshaw, at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference TG35447 08084 (see below). The layout of the buildings is shown on Drawing D1. See Appendix A for Illustrative photographs.

Figure 1 Location plan Figure 2 Aerial photograph Crown Copyright and database rights 2010 Imagery © 2011 GeoEye, Getmapping plc, Ordnance Survey Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky

3.2 Warehouse The proposed development site comprises a large warehouse constructed of concrete blocks with corrugated sheet walls and a corrugated sheet roof. Some of the sheets are clear plastic allowing natural daylight into the building, over prefabricated timber clad supporting arches. The floor is made from concrete with stored goods covering large areas. There are moulded concrete gutters fixed to wooden fascia boards, which are spaced away from the walls, using

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 4 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

metal gutter brackets on the southern and northern elevations. There is a large metal roll door on the southern elevation leading into the warehouse.

3.3 Setting Externally the warehouse is located close to arable fields, gardens, hedgerows and overgrown bare ground. Immediately around the barn are areas of dense scrub to the east but more open grassy areas to the west, with areas of ruderals and bark chippings.

4.0 EXISTING PROTECTED SITES/SPECIES RECORDS

4.1 The website MAGIC and that of the Norfolk Wildlife Trust has been assessed for the presence of internationally and locally designated wildlife sites within 2km of the site. A search of data acquired from the Norfolk Biological Information Service (NBIS) has been assessed, along with the Norfolk Bat Group (NBG) and Philip Parker Associates own database (10km square reference TG 30).

4.2 PROTECTED SITES A search for Nationally or Internationally designated sites within 2k of the site has been undertaken. The Broads Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) is located 1.48km south west of the site at its closest point. The Mid-Yare National Nature Reserve (NNR), Broadland Ramsar Site, Yare Broads and Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC) are located 1.9km south west of the site at their nearest point.

4.3 4 County Wildlife Sites (CWS) are located within 2km of the site, the closest being CWS 2162, located 890m south west. CWS 2146 is located 975m south east, CWS 2058 1.26km west and CWS 2045 just over 2km south east of the site.

4.3 The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) has been accessed and the following records were noted:  Bat species – 15 records, no site name, latest 2011  Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus – 8 records, no site name, latest 2008  Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus – 7 records, no site name, latest 2008  Brown long eared Plecotus auritus – no records given  Daubentons Myotis daubentonii – 27 records, no site name given, latest 2011  Badger Meles meles – 1 record, Burlingham/Lingwood, between 1736 and 1950

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 5 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

 Otter Lutra lutra – 3 records, 1 Yare, 1977, 1 Buckenham Broad, 1971, 1 no site name, 2012  Natterers Myotis nattereri – no records given  Noctule Nyctalus noctula – 2 records, no site name, 2007  Serotine Eptesicus serotinus – 3 records, no site name, latest 2008

4.4 The Norfolk Bat Group (NBG) has been accessed and the following records were noted:  Pipistrelle  Brown long eared  Daubentons  Natterers  Noctule

4.5 The Philip Parker Associates (PPA) database has been searched and the following records were noted:  Common pipistrelle – 3 records, Braydeston, 2011  Soprano pipistrelle – 3 records, Braydeston, 2011  Pipistrelle species – 1 record, Happisburgh, 2012  Brown long eared – 2 records, Braydeston, 2011  Noctule – 2 records, Braydeston, 2011  Serotine – 2 records, Braydeston, 2011

5.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

5.1 BATS In summer, bats typically roost in trees and buildings. They feed along hedgerows, woodland edge, old pasture and over water. In winter, hibernation sites can include trees and buildings but more usually underground structures such caves and ice houses.

5.2 A bat survey can involve two elements:  Surveying sites for likely roost and hibernation sites;  Surveying likely foraging areas.

5.3 The Bat Mitigation Guidelines produced by English Nature (now Natural England) set out the timescales for survey work, as follows:

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 6 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

Table 1 Timescales for bat survey SEASON ROOST TYPE INSPECTION BAT DETECTOR AND EMERGENCE COUNTS Spring (Mar – May) Building Suitable (Signs, Limited, weather dependent perhaps bats) Trees Suitable (Signs only) Static detectors may be useful Underground Suitable (signs only) Static detectors may be useful Summer (June – Building Suitable (signs and Suitable August) bats) Trees Difficult Limited, use sunrise survey Underground Suitable (signs only) Rarely useful Autumn (September – Building Suitable (signs and Limited, weather dependent November) bats) Trees Difficult Rather limited, weather dependent; use sunrise survey Underground Suitable (signs, Static detectors may be useful perhaps bats) Winter (December – Building Suitable (signs, Rarely useful February) perhaps bats) Trees Difficult (best for signs Rarely useful after leaves have gone) Underground Suitable (signs and Static detectors may be useful bats)

5.4 Building survey The buildings were inspected 31st July 2013, by licensed bat worker Stephen Heath (Bat licence CL18 CLS 2264). The survey commenced at 14.30 and was completed by 15.30.

5.5 The survey was conducted using an extending ladder to gain access to the identified wall cavities, a pair of 8 x 42 binoculars and a powerful Clulite lamp (fitted with a red filter where appropriate to avoid disturbing any bats that might be present). An endoscope was used to inspect cavities.

5.6 The survey concentrated on checking horizontal surfaces on which bat droppings and feeding remains could rest (including window sills, beams, gutters, stored goods) as well as vertical surfaces such as walls. Potential access points to cavities and possible roost spaces were checked for urine staining and fur rubbings.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 7 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

5.7 BARN OWLS Barn owls typically utilise barns and sheltered outbuildings as nesting and roost sites. Owl surveys involve searching for evidence of nesting sites, droppings and characteristic regurgitated black owl pellets.

5.8 BREEDING BIRDS The site was assessed for the presence of breeding birds through the presence of nests and birds exhibiting breeding behaviour.

5.9 REPTILES Survey methodology Reptile survey comprises two separate techniques:  Direct observation and  The use of artificial refuges (“tins”).

5.10 These two methods complemented each other and are usually carried out at the same time.

5.11 Direct observation involved searching favoured habitats for reptiles. They can often be found on sunny, open and disturbed areas or underneath refuges such as logs/rocks/sheets of metal etc.

5.12 Artificial refuges are usually a mixture of corrugated tin and roofing felt, approximately 50cm x 50cm in size. They are placed at a minimum density of 10 refuges per hectare (Gent 1998).

5.13 The optimum search period is April - May and September although from experience, survey can be undertaken any time during the summer months as long as weather conditions are appropriate.

5.14 Optimum times for recording reptiles are generally between 8.30am and 11.00am, and between 4.00pm and 6.30pm although this can again vary depending on the weather conditions.

5.15 Air temperature between 90C and 180C is thought to be optimal. On cool days, bright sunshine is preferred, whilst on warmer days, hazy sunshine gives the best results. Rainy or windy situations are regarded as unsuitable

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 8 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

6.0 SURVEY RESULTS

6.1 BATS Physical survey A summary of the bat survey is given in the following table.

Table 2 Location of bat roosting features and evidence Area Description of potential bat roost Description of bat evidence features Warehouse - No obvious cavities in the roof beams. No bat evidence. Internal No cavities noted on the internal walls. No bat evidence.

No bat evidence noted on any of the stored goods Warehouse - Fascia boards were set off a distance No bat evidence. External from the walls therefore no roosting potential.

External walls in good condition with no No bat evidence. cavities noted.

6.2 Limitations of the surveys The following limitations were encountered during the physical survey:  No ladder access was possible to the fascia boards on the southern and northern elevations, therefore these were viewed using 8 x 40 binoculars.  No access was possible to the roof beams in the warehouse, although they did appear to be simply jointed with no or few cavities that bats could use.  Stored goods were present around the outside and down the centre of the warehouse, the upper surfaces were not searched of the taller piles of stored goods due to access difficulties.  It is impossible to disprove the presence of small numbers of roosting bats under the roof ridge (albeit from experience in buildings like this unlikely – the BCT survey Guidelines Table 8.2 identifies such buildings have a lower likelihood of bats being present), but the general lack of evidence in the Warehouse does not suggest any significant roosting activity.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 9 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

6.3 Summary of bat survey results The physical survey did not find any evidence of bats using the building and features that could support roosting bats were extremely limited.

6.4 The evidence suggests the Warehouse is of little value to roosting or foraging bats

6.5 BARN OWLS No evidence of barn owl was noted

6.6 OTHER BREEDING BIRDS No evidence was found although some droppings inside the buildings suggested the use as a roost although no birds were present. Some of the mature vegetation around the building does however have potential for nesting birds.

6.7 REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS Superficially, the area to the south and the west of the barn has potential for foraging reptiles/amphibians (a mosaic of rough grassland, ruderals and bar open areas). It is understood however that this area is mown on a regular basis (although the evidence suggested if had not been mown for a few weeks) that would make it less suitable for animals and the area is fairly isolated from other habitats. The areas were searched during the course of the survey and no reptiles/amphibians were seen.

7.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE SPECIES PRESENT AND LICENSING IMPLICATIONS

7.1 The development is shown on John Jenkins Drawing 758/04 and comprises the demolition of the existing building and the provision of 2 new houses that sit off the existing footprint to the west and south west. The location of the existing barn will be turned into gardens for the northern property. Access to the properties will be via a link to the existing concrete access road to the factory unit (which itself has planning permission for demolition and the building of houses).

7.2 The proposed development will remove the existing building which is considered to have limited potential for roosting bats

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 10 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

7.3 DESIGNATED SITES The distance and nature of the development means that it is unlikely to have an effect on designated sites (the closest being CWS 2162, 890m south west of the site).

7.4 BATS The latest bat survey guidelines (BCT 2012) states the following: “A single daytime preliminary roost visit to a site, in which no bats were found, is not normally considered sufficient, especially if the daytime visit was conducted outside the optimum time of the year. However, if bats and bat signs were not found to be present and the building or built structure provides no suitable locations for roosting bats, then no further visits are normally required”.

‘’If a building or built structure is considered to have a moderate or high likelihood of use by bats, the preliminary roost assessment, even if negative for bats should be followed by several presence/absence surveys’’.

7.5 From experience, it is considered that the building falls into the first category. Although the presence of individual bats at a particular time can never be completely discounted, (even when a number of activity surveys are undertaken), presence in this situation does seem extremely unlikely.

7.6 Licensing Assuming that the activity surveys do not confirm any roosting behaviour, there would be no requirement for an EPS licence. If any roosting behavior is recorded, an EPS licence or the new Class Licence is likely to be required.

7.8 BREEDING BIRDS Removal of the surrounding scrubby vegetation has the potential to affect breeding birds.

7.7 REPTILES There is some potential for reptiles to occur within the development footprint. Ideally, further survey would be undertaken to prove presence or absence. September is considered one of the key months for undertaking reptile survey. However, in lieu of such confirmation, a number of precautions are proposed in how the site is cleared. These are given in Section 8.15 below.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 11 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

8.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION

8.1 GENERAL The following are recommendations to limit any potential impacts on wildlife present and enhance the biodiversity potential of the proposed development.

8.2 BATS The bat mitigation guidelines identify that the feeding areas of common species such as pipistrelle and brown long eared bats are of the lowest conservation importance and their loss does not require any specific mitigation.

8.3 The roosts of individual bats of common species (pipistrelles and brown long eared) require flexibility over the provision of bat boxes, access to new buildings etc. There are no conditions about timing or monitoring.

8.4 The evidence noted within the warehouse suggests little use by bats.

8.5 Timing of the work The Bat Mitigation Guidelines present the optimum seasons for works involving various types of roosts.

Table 3 Optimum seasons for undertaking work in different types of roost Bat usage of the site Optimum period for carrying out works (some variation between species) Maternity 1st October – 1st May Summer (not a proven maternity site) 1st September – 1st May Hibernation 1st May – 1st October Mating/swarming 1st November – 1st August

8.6 On the basis of the survey evidence, there need be no limitations on the timing of the demolition of the building.

8.7 Removal of the cladding Given the nature of the cladding of the building, it is assumed that this will be removed carefully by a specialist contractor. In the unlikely event that any bats are found during the course of this removal, works should stop immediately and Philip Parker Associates be contacted for further advice as to how to proceed.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 12 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

8.8 New roost facilities Although there is limited potential for bat roosting on the existing building, there is the opportunity to build in roosting provision into one or more of the new houses, either through externally mounted bat boxes or ones that can be built into the wall cavities. This will enhance biodiversity on the site.

8.9 A number of box types are available, the choice really depends on the architect. Suitable box types are listed in the table below. These are all available from Envisage Wildcare on http://www.wildcareshop.com.

Table 4 Bat Box Types Box Ref Design Box type

1FR Summer (bat tube fits into the wall cavity)

1FF Summer (fits on the wall)

8.10 Lighting In order to limit any effects on foraging bats that might be using the area, external lighting should be limited to only that absolutely necessary for safety purposes. The brightness of the lighting should be as low as possible and kept at a low level and directed away from the new roosting areas, walls or roof structures. Lighting on sensors should not be so sensitive that foraging bats set them off.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 13 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

8.11 OTHER BREEDING BIRDS Although no evidence of breeding birds was noted, potential occurs in some of the scrub around the building. To avoid any disturbance, clearance of any vegetation or structures which could support breeding birds should NOT be commenced during the bird breeding season (this is taken to be March to August inclusive).

8.12 REPTILES The following precautions given the potential for reptiles to occur on the site.  Any clearance of any remaining vegetation necessary for the development should be undertaken carefully working towards the edge of the site, searching by hand any vegetation at ground level, before this is carefully strimmed to remove any cover;  All demolition waste shall be placed directly into a skip so that further rubble piles and therefore potential hibernation areas are not created;  No piles of loose sand or other granular materials into which amphibians could bury themselves should be left around the site. All such materials should be delivered in bags and kept in such bags until required for use. Bags should be stored on pallets. If it is essential to have loose tipped materials, these should only be dug into by hand;  Ideally, no bonfires should be made or lit on site. Amphibians and reptiles often use piles of timber as a place of refuge. If it is essential to have a bonfire, it must be lit the same day it is made;  All trenches should be left covered at night. They must be checked in the morning before they are filled in.

8.13 ADVISORY NOTE The report presents a true reflection of wildlife usage at the site at the time of survey. Even given the precautions set out above, it is always possible that bats could be encountered at any time. In such a case, work should cease immediately and either Natural England – Norwich Local Team (0300 060 3789) or Philip Parker Associates (01553 630842) be contacted for further advice. If more than 12 months pass between the dates of the original survey and commencement of the works, it is recommended that a further site survey is undertaken to check whether there have been any significant changes to bat usage at the site.

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 14 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

9.0 SUMMARY

9.1 A wildlife survey has been carried out at 31 Norwich Road, Strumpshaw, Norwich, as part of a proposed planning application for development. The physical survey indicated no evidence of use of the building by bats and given the nature of the building, roosting potential was considered extremely limited. No further survey work or EPS licencing is considered necessary for the demolition of the building.

9.2 It is understood that the sheeting will be removed from the barn carefully by a specialist contractor. In the unlikely event that any bats are found, works must stop and Philip Parker Associates be contacted for further advice. Enhancement works for suggested for bats through the incorporation of bat box(s) on at least one of the proposed properties and limitation of any external lighting that could affect bats flight paths.

9.3 Several designated sites are located within 2km of the site. However, given the nature of the development and assuming all normal pollution precautions, it is not considered the proposed developments will have any significant negative impacts on these sites.

9.4 There is some potential reptile/amphibian terrestrial habitat in close proximity to the barn and on the footprint of the development (albeit this is supposed to be regularly mown and its isolation would limit potential). No reptiles or amphibians were noted at the time of the survey but in lieu of more formal surveys, a number of precautions are suggested on how the site is developed.

10.0 REFERENCES

 Altringham J D, 2003, British Bats, Collins New Naturalist  Anon, 2001, Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, English Nature, Peterborough.  Bat Conservation Trust, 2012, BCT Bat Survey Guidelines Second edition  Briggs P, 2002, A study of bats in barn conversions in Hertfordshire in 2002, Hertfordshire Biological Records Office and Hertfordshire County Council.  Gent T and Gibson S 1998 Herpetofauna Workers Manual JNCC  Mitchell Jones AJ, 2004, Bat Mitigation guidelines, English Nature  Mitchell Jones AJ and McLeish A P, The Bat Workers Manual, JNCC  English Nature, 2002, Barn owls on site – A guide for developers and planners

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 15 - PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE, 31 NORWICH ROAD, STRUMPSHAW WILDLIFE SURVEY

Philip Parker Associates White Row Cottage Leziate Drove Pott Row King’s Lynn PE32 1DB

Tel : 01553 630842 Fax : 01553 630843 Email : [email protected]

PHILIP PARKER ASSOCIATES : ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS : REPORT REF P2013 - 52 R1 FINAL 23.08.13 -PAGE 16 -