Humbleton Hall Fitling Road Humbleton East HU11 4NS

Mob: - 07728825307 Email: - [email protected]

Skeltons, Burton Fleming Ecological Appraisal, Bat Survey

Prepared by: Mr. Michael Wood Date: 14/04/2021 Report # : 210022

Burton Fleming 1 TA 072 732 Executive Summary

• Building assessment and Activity surveys Undertaken on property located at TA 072 732. • Surveys were undertaken in 2020 • Lead Surveyor- Michael Wood level 2 (CL18) Licensed bat surveyor by Natural . License number 2015-14416-CLS-CLS bat license has been held for the 5 years under the current Class Survey license Scheme. The previous license was held for 3 years. Michael Wood has guided clients in obtaining numerous mitigation licenses for development which impacted EPS. • Bats identified foraging Near the property but at no point during the survey efforts did bats utilize the buildings. • No further surveys are recommended. • The proposed development will cause negligible impacts on the small local bat population. • The Development can proceed without causing offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. • Species Enrichment 2x Schwegler 2FE bat shelters to be installed adjacent to the site.

The Above Bullet points highlight the important information gained through the survey and should be used as a quick reference to the more in-depth information contained throughout the Report.

Burton Fleming 2 TA 072 732

1. Introduction 4 2. Survey Methods, Results, and Assessment. 5 3. Results 8 4. Assessment of Development impact 23 5. Conclusion and mitigation recommendations 24 6. Legislation and Policy Guidance Error! Bookmark not defined. 7. References Error! Bookmark not defined. 8. Appendices Error! Bookmark not defined.

Burton Fleming 3 TA 072 732 1. Introduction

This report presents the information gathered regarding the site located at TA 072 732 Burton Fleming Road, Burton Fleming, . YOP25 3HP

The survey's objective was to identify any habitats and features present that could support the presence of notable protected species. The survey will also note any other species or habitat that are of nature conservation importance or any non-native invasive species which may represent a constraint to the development of the site. This report provides an assessment of ecological constraints concerning the redevelopment of the site in question and identifies findings of the survey work carried out. It also provides recommended ecological enrichment plans and a mitigation strategy where required.

1.2. Survey Information

In the year 2020 Yorkshire Ecology Surveys was commissioned to undertake an ecological survey, of the site located at Grid reference TA 072 732, a property that resides in the District of East Riding of Yorkshire. The survey was undertaken to assess the impact of a proposed building conversion which the survey was based upon. The survey was undertaken by experienced licensed bat ecologist Michael Wood (license number 2015-14416-CLS-CLS) The Survey confirmed the absence of Bats within the confines of the proposed development. The Surveys included in this report include a building assessment. A dusk Survey and 2 Dawn Surveys.

1.3. Site Description

The survey site is a range of brick barns situated within the curtilage of a working farm and neighboring open countryside. The buildings are currently in a state of dis repair and pose no commercial function. The buildings have a pantile roof covering. The site is situated in the locality of the Burton Fleming Village.

Burton Fleming 4 TA 072 732 2. Survey Methods, Results, and Assessment.

2.1 Desktop Study and Record search

The desktop study includes Ecological Data received from the North & East Yorkshire ecological data centre. Data discovered online resources such as MAGIC (http://magic.defra.gov.uk) and East Riding Planning Portal The search aimed to identify all notable European Protected Species (EPS) within a 2km radius of the site. Along with any information which may be relevant to the survey effort.

2.2 Magic Map Search (http://magic.defra.gov.uk\)

The Magic Map internet service was examined for a 2km radius of the site. During the search, we were looking for locations of any notable areas designated for nature conservation these sites are to include the following. Local Nature Reserves National Parks Sites of Special Scientific Interest Special Protection Areas Important Bird Areas National Nature Reserves Ramsar Sites Special Conservation Areas Ancient Woodland

2.3 Flora Survey

Phase 1 habitat survey, A site assessment was undertaken in June 2020 to assess what species surveys would be required following that a specific species survey (bats) was undertaken in the following Months. The survey was carried out by the guidance of the standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology (JNCC, 2003) all dominant plant species were recorded, along with any species which are either uncommon or an indication of particular habitat types. Due to the site consisting of buildings and an amenity courtyard/concrete area, it is not deemed relevant to complete and enclose a habitat map.

Controlled invasive species where surveyed as part of the Phase 1 Habitat survey there was a great deal of importance placed on noting any invasive non-native species including Japanese knotweed (Fallopian japonica), and giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum).

2.4 Fauna Surveys

Bats An initial survey of the site was carried out to identify the likelihood of bats using any features of the site surveyed. During this process, several factors were taken into consideration, to include potential foraging Habitat, potential flight corridors, and features which may be used as a roost location. The survey was carried out by a level 2 class 18 licensed Bat surveyor (license number 2015- 14416-CLS-CLS)

The main aspects of the inspection covered the following Bat droppings urine and grease stains, food spoils, and any other signs which provided evidence of a potential or actual roost location. The area around windows and doors or sources of heat which are identified as favorable roost opportunities are noted.

Burton Fleming 5 TA 072 732 The Survey uses numerous methods including endoscope searches, Surface inspection, roof searches, and feature identification. Material Suitability and identification of building characterisation which can attract bats.

The assessed structures are placed within one of the following categories and actions s are taken as stipulated in the table.

Roost Description Action Required Probability

Negligible Negligible habitat features on-site and ability No Further surveys required for

Low Some crevices suitable for bats to occupy, A minimum of one activity Survey should be and a site location that suits the preference undertaken. and the survey effort should of bats. continue until the surveyors are happy that bats are not present.

Moderate Numerous crevices, Roof tiles which are At least 2 activity surveys to be undertaken underdrawn (felt or lathe). Rough sawn preferably a dusk and dawn. The survey timber. Previous evidence of habitation. effort shall continue until the surveyors are happy that bats are not present.

High Numerous crevices, Roof tiles which are 3 activity surveys to be undertaken underdrawn (felt or lathe). Rough sawn preferably a dusk and a dawn and either one timber. Previous evidence of habitation. more dawn or dusk survey. The survey effort Timber windows with gaps, surrounded by shall continue until the surveyors are happy woodland. Previously known roosts that bats are not present. Or until the roost usage is confirmed so that a licence can be applied for.

The Above table is the guideline to which Yorkshire Ecology Surveys follow these are expanded slightly from the table below taken from the (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). At all times during the Survey it must be emphasised that should there be any doubt in survey results Yorkshire Ecology Surveys undertake extra survey efforts to satisfy their results.

Following the initial survey of the property to determine if the buildings have the potential of hosting a roost. An action plan is then formed to complete a thorough investigating which provided suitable information to provide an evidence-based decision as too whether the property has a bat roost present or if absence can be confirmed.

At all times during the survey effort, the surveyors work to the guideline laid out in the (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn).

Burton Fleming 6 TA 072 732 Through hundreds of surveys, the team can act proficiently and confidently to determine the results of the survey.

Should any of the surveyors present on a survey have any doubts a discussion is held and where necessary further survey effort is undertaken to confirm the relevant results.

The Surveyors have a range of equipment at their disposal to undertake each stage of the Survey. Yorkshire Ecology Surveys have the following tools Which are distributed between the surveying team. Anabat SD2 - Frequency division detector Anabat SD1 - Frequency division detector Magenta Bat4 Bat Detector Ciel Micro Trio - Frequency Division, Time Expansion and Heterodyne (bat detector) Ciel CDB 301 - Heterodyne and frequency Division Detector Clulite Torch - at least 1 million candle power torch LED head Torches LED Torches High power Endoscope

The Above listed are the devices utilised for activity surveys in addition to the above. The use of Endoscopes, binoculars, or magnification scopes and access equipment are all used during the survey effort to identify features and any potential signs of bat usage.

At all times, the surveyors must put personal safety as a priority, and care is taken to access all suitable parts of a property where it is safe to do so. This is considered throughout the survey as it is important to take a proportionate approach to all survey efforts. The approach to each survey can differ due to: - The likelihood of bats being present. Type of proposed activity. The scale of proposed activities (Windfarm, Building conversion, minor repairs) Size, complexity, and nature of the site. Species likely to be present (BLE are notoriously harder to identify exact roost locations as opposed to Pipistrelles) Quantity of species (if numbers are not easy to establish it may be relevant to undertake more surveys to identify the numbers present)

Burton Fleming 7 TA 072 732 3. Results

3.1 Desktop Search The desktop search provided a list of useful information regarding the layout of the land surrounding the site, indicating corridors suitable for wildlife. The Desktop search also provided us with information regarding water bodies within the surrounding area of the site. It was evident that there are 0 bodies of water that needed to be noted for further survey effort within a 500m radius of the site. This is due to the fact the Buildings are present on the site and surrounded by a working farm. The aerial images which were consulted did not identified any flowing water or ponds which could be used a breeding habitat for European Protected species. Therefore due to lack of suitable habitat it is deemed that Great Crested Newt surveys are not relevant as there are no plans to affect any habitat which could be suitable for GCN. Therefore, no surveys are proposed for any wildlife other than Bats. The studied aerial images show that the site's wider landscape is intensively farmed arable land. The arable landscape provided evidence of poor floral diversity within the wider landscape.

Desktop Data Study Several data sources were consulted to identify the areas around the site which indicate relevant ecological data concerning the site being reported on. The Sources consulted included the following, North & East Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre (NEYEDC), MAGIC, Natural England.

The desktop study Identified a few areas which have favorable nature conservation value which lie within 1km radius of the Application site, the sites identified are as follows

Statutory sites There were no Internationally or nationally designated sites were identified within the search are. Local Nature Reserves: There were no Local Nature Reserves found within this search area.

Yorkshire Wildlife Trust Reserves There were no YWT reserves within the search area.

Site-based Habitat data: All the Natural England Habitat inventories were searched (including Woodland Inventory & Grassland Inventory. There was 1 type of habitat found within the search area. The noted habitats included 3.07 hectares of young trees

Ancient Woodland Inventory Was searched by NEYEDC and no woodlands sites were found in the search area.

Priority Habitat Inventory

Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) The following site was found to be within or partly within the search area of 2km.

The Site-based Habitat listed above will not be negatively impacted by the development of the application site. This is due to the distance from the application site and the small scale of the development. Including the fact, the buildings are currently present.

Burton Fleming 8 TA 072 732

3.2 Fauna Surveys

The proposed development of the site was considered and identified that the development could impact mobile species that utilise the surrounding habitat or habitat present within the confines of the proposed development. The areas identified from the initial site assessment are the buildings. The buildings have been highlighted in the Below image and colour coordinated to correspond to the roost probability table located in section 2.4.

The fauna species which have been identified as to needing an activity Survey are

Bats

When undertaking the site survey all aspects of the application site which could be associated with bats were identified. There was a small number of buildings within the surveyed area which are potential habitat for bats. The redevelopment of the building development does not create fragmentation associated with notable foraging habitat. Therefore, the survey work required is to assess the building to determine if a roost is present and if so if it will be affected.

Enclosed on the following page is a basic site layout including. A colour coordinated approached to the probability of the building of hosting a bat roost as identified earlier in this document.

Building 1 - Moderate Existing Dwelling - Not surveyed as not affected by the development but activity was noted.

Burton Fleming 9 TA 072 732

Burton Fleming 10 TA 072 732 Building 1 – 2 Storey Brick Barn with Pan tile Roof covering, West side open onto grass paddock and further open countryside.

North West corner of building shadowed with self sown trees ans ivy.

Holes in roof create an environment which is not ideal for some species of bats. Birds have easy access.

Burton Fleming 11 TA 072 732 South wall has little opportunity due to the render, West wall is neighbouring another building.

Pantile roof can be seen along with timber window openings.

Holes in the roof detract from the lathe pantile roof. Numerous holes can be identified.

Burton Fleming 12 TA 072 732 Imaging showing the upper floor and timber roof structure.

Historic Bird Nest identified. It was not occupied however nest should be confirmed of absence before building clearance commences

Single Storey Section with fibre cement roof covering.

Burton Fleming 13 TA 072 732 Underside of above image section located on the North East end of the Building.

The scope of the survey was adequate to make the professional opinion that the site provides Moderate roosting opportunities in Building 1.

Building 1 has numerous opportunities for bats however the building is open with easy airflow, Some side of the building are in shadow. Which would indicate that the temperature will not increase to preferred levels.

From experience, this indicates a moderate potential of bats. There were no signs indicating that a bat roost is present. At all times, the survey will be addressed to cover any queries the experienced licensed team may have. There is evidence of nesting birds which will be assessed in the activity survey.

All other aspects of the application site were surveyed so an idea of possible commuting corridors and foraging areas could be identified. The location of the application site has good value for foraging bats in the wider area and the area immediately around the site mainly shelter belt of trees to the North of the Site. The development does not affect the flora around the site. We can therefore state that the favourable Foraging habitat around the entire area will not be negatively affected. This is due to the site and buildings being existing and the notable features such as the tree will not be affected by the development.

3.3.1 Bat Activity Survey

Dusk Survey The evening emergence survey is used as a general indicator of the local bat population and species presence in the surrounding area. It is also used to identify the location of roosts and a population count for bats exiting roosts that are present and identifiable. Most notable species which emerge early in the survey. As the survey progresses and the light levels diminish it can be hard to identify roost locations which is why it is favorable to follow up a Dusk survey with a dawn survey.

Burton Fleming 14 TA 072 732 The emergence of bats can start approximately 30 minutes before sunset and last approximately 1hour 30minutes after sunset. The timing of surveys gives the possibility for bats to be active and foraging.

Climate 25/06/20

Sunrise/sunset 04:34 21:36

Start Finish

Time 20.45 2310

Beaufort Wind Scale 2 2

Temperature 18 15

Precipitation none none

Sunset 2136 The Survey was completed with 2 experienced surveyors. Michael Wood - Bats – WML-CL18 class license registration no 14416 David Garvey Multiple years of survey experience working toward CL18 license

The Dusk Survey identified a common pipistrelle Bat and a Brown Long Eared within the vicinity of the site. Bat population numbers are low, and it was apparent that bats did not emerge from the Buildings. The surveyors had good views of the buildings and the direction of the bats entering the survey area where identifiable.

Burton Fleming 15 TA 072 732

Burton Fleming 16 TA 072 732

Dawn Survey Two dawn Surveys were undertaken as there was some activity detected on the Dusk Survey. This activity was to be expected was expected due to the Rural Location of the site. The Dawn survey was beneficial as a more accurate usage database of the site can be established. The original Dawn Survey was undertaken on 03/07/2020 The weather conditions were good with no rain throughout the entire period from Dusk until Dawn. The surveyors who undertook the dusk survey completed the dawn survey for better continuity with one added Surveyor due to the vicinity of the neighboring buildings. The survey was completely set up and surveyors in location 1hour 40 minutes before sunrise and where present onsite for a minimum of 30 minutes after sunrise.

Climate 03/07/20

Sunrise/sunset 0439 2134

Start Finish

Time 0245 0515

Beaufort Wind Scale 2 2

conditions No Cloud No Cloud Temperature 12°C 13°C

Precipitation none none

The Survey was completed with 2 experienced surveyors. Michael Wood - Bats - WML-CL18 class license registration no 14416 David Garvey - Multiple years of survey experience working toward CL18 license Charlotte Wood - Multiple years of survey experience, Regularly assists MjW

The Dawn survey backed up the data from the dusk survey. When bats enter a roost, they generally become active in the area and show specific signs that the roost is close. The identified bats did not show any indication of using the building and it was easy to identify the bats leaving the survey area. It was deemed that all buildings did not contain a roost.

Burton Fleming 17 TA 072 732

Burton Fleming 18 TA 072 732

Climate 17/07/20

Sunrise/sunset 0455 2122

Start Finish

Time 0300 500

Beaufort Wind Scale 1 1

conditions No Cloud No Cloud

Temperature 11°C 12°C

Precipitation none none

The Survey was completed with 3 experienced surveyors. Michael Wood - Bats – WML-CL18 class license registration no 14416 David Garvey - Undertaken Survey for around 7 years Charlotte Wood - has been assisting MjW for 5 Years

The Below survey data shows the final survey effort for 2020 which utilised 3 surveyors this was to establish that there were no gaps in the survey area and all aspects of the building were covered. Throughout the survey, it was apparent that the site is not utilised by bats and that the building does not contain a roost.

Burton Fleming 19 TA 072 732

Burton Fleming 20 TA 072 732

The activity was consistent with all survey visits, a small number of bats were identified in thew area of the site. All bats identified commuted towards from the Buildings.

It is correct to state that the buildings the proposed development are based upon do not contain a bat roost.

The surveys have been completed and utilised 3 surveyors to cover all aspects of the building the survey effort is robust.

During the Activity surveys, a few bats have been identified both foraging and commuting no roosting bats were identified. A maximum of 1 common pipistrelles were identified. The maps enclosed show the flight paths and the location of the bats. It is possible to say that the development will have a negligible impact on the local bat population. All surveys have been undertaken to comply with the guidelines laid out in the Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologist Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edition)

It is therefore deemed that a negligible impact of foraging bats will occur through the development of the site.

It is concluded that no further Survey activity regarding Bats is required. It is correct to state that a EPSL is not needed in relation to this development.

There are no constraints on the survey effort all buildings have been assessed and thorough activity surveys have been completed. The Surveyors used equipment designed specifically for bat surveys. The buildings are a simple layout and all aspects of the site have been confirmed to be absent of a bat roost on each of the survey visits.

Burton Fleming 21 TA 072 732

Nesting birds All areas of the site were surveyed for evidence of nesting birds, as it is illegal to deliberately, harm, kill or disturb a nesting bird.

There are several sightings for birds within a 2km radius of the site this can be seen in the data request obtained from the NEYEDC which is featured in the report. It was not deemed necessary to carry out further surveys concerning nesting birds as their presence was apparent in the area on the days of the surveys and the implication was justifiable.

It must be noted that nesting birds can occupy a site at any time during the year and their nests between February until August (Natural England) are protected by law.

With certain exceptions, all wild birds, their nests, and eggs are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). If any proposed works are scheduled to take place in the main bird breeding season (early March to late August) the potential impact on nesting birds and the risk of committing an offence is increased. It would then be a necessity to have an active bird survey carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced person. This can be done prior to any demolition to confirm an offence will not be committed.

It is concluded that nesting birds create a minor constraint on the development. No further surveys are suggested however any demolishing or site clearance works should not occur within the bird nesting season the ‘Bird Nesting Season ’is officially from February until August (Natural England). Unless absence is confirmed by a Suitably qualified person. Yorkshire Ecology Surveys can provide such a person upon request.

Burton Fleming 22 TA 072 732 4. Assessment of Development impact

Flora The survey identified a minimal flora habitat within the application site boundary, each of the habitat sites are known to be commonly found and contain little floral diversification. The types of flora surveyed on the site are common across the area and are known to hold little ecological value. For this reason, it not necessary to complete any more botanical surveys. The development of the application site is based on a range of existing brick built farm buildings that hold little ecological value. The development would cause a negligible loss of habitat if it is to be redeveloped.

Fauna Bats The survey indicated that there are no roosting bats within the confines of the development. All aspects relating to bats can be mitigated against with ease and the overall impact of the proposed development is negligible. It is therefore a conclusion of the findings as laid out in this report that the proposed development holds a negligible impact of the EPS bats. There will be no loss of roost or disturbance of a roost and therefor a mitigation license is not required. This statement has been possible to state due to the robust survey effort of the site in question all areas of the site have been considered and a roost has not been identified in any part of the buildings.

Nesting Birds If a nest is destroyed in the nesting period, an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 would be committed. It is therefore recommended that site clearance and demolition only occur outside the nesting bird season.

Burton Fleming 23 TA 072 732 5. Conclusion and mitigation recommendations

Flora As the development is based on the development of existing buildings. There is minimal floral diversification. Therefore, there is no recommendation to protect or mitigate the loss of flora as any work will not be detrimental.

Fauna Bats Due to the activity surveys been undertaken and the activity from the dusk and dawn surveys matching no further surveys are required. The site has been confirmed to be absent of bat roosts within the boundaries of the development. It is there correct to state that a EPSL is not needed in relation to this site.

For species mitigation, the developer should install 2 Schwegler 2FE wall mounted bat shelters adjacent to the site

Birds As a species enrichment strategy Yorkshire Ecology Surveys suggestion is that 2 bird Nest boxes are placed around the site a suitable nest box can be obtained from www.nhbs.com (Traditional Wooden Bird Nest Box) If further information is required. The developer should contact Yorkshire Ecology Surveys.

After completing the surveys listed it is in the opinion of Yorkshire Ecology Surveys that the mitigation measures are beneficial to all EPS and fall in line with the National Planning Policy Framework and that a EPS license is NOT required as. No roosts will be destroyed and the disturbance to any bats will Be minimal and in line with regular activities that would need to be held on a property of this nature. Please be aware that these are the results observed on the day of each survey and that care should be taken when working within the application site. If any protected species are to be found, work should stop immediately. Yorkshire Ecology Surveys and all other relevant associations should be notified immediately.

Burton Fleming 24 TA 072 732 The above recommendations and report are in the result of consultation with one of the previously listed parties and that the reason for the report is to fulfill obligations to national planning policy guidelines. Copyright within the report remains the property of the author. The survey results are correct on the day the surveys took place and results can be quantified for 24 months if this time scale is to pass before development commences, the property should be resurveyed.

Signed: Michael Wood Date: 14/04/20 Class survey license WML CL18 Contact information, Michael Wood Humbleton Hall Fitling Road Humbleton HU11 4NS E-Mail- [email protected] Telephone-07728825307

Burton Fleming 25 TA 072 732 6 .Legislation and Policy Guidance. Relevant legislation.

All bat species are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 (as amended), the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Habitat and Species Regulations 2017. Under the WCA it is an offence for any person to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bat; to intentionally disturb any wild bat while it is occupying a structure or place that it uses for shelter or protection; to intentionally damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place that a wild bat uses for shelter or protection; to be in possession or control of any live or dead wild bat, or any part of, or anything derived from a wild bat; or to sell, offer or expose for sale, or possess or transport for the purpose of sale, any live or dead wild bat, or any part of, or anything derived from a wild bat.

Under the Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 a European Protected species of animals are classified as 42.—(1) Schedule 2 lists those species of animals listed in Annex IV(a) to the Habitats Directive which have a natural range which includes any area in Great Britain. (2) References in this Part to a “European protected species” of animal are to any of those species.

Under the Habitat and Species Regulations 2017, it is an offence to Protection of certain wild animals: offences 43.—(1) A person who— (a) deliberately captures, injures or kills any wild animal of a European protected species, (b) deliberately disturbs wild animals of any such species, © deliberately takes or destroys the eggs of such an animal, or (d) damages or destroys a breeding site or resting place of such an animal, is guilty of an offence. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely— (a) to impair their ability— (i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or (ii) in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or (b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.

Deliberate disturbance of animals of a European protected species (EPS) includes in particular any disturbance which is likely to impair their ability (i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or (ii) in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong. (6) A person guilty of an offence under this regulation is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine, or to both. In order to minimise the risk of breaking the law it is essential to work with care to avoid harming bats or any other species listed un Schedule 2.

Licences. Where it is proposed to carry out works which will damage / destroy a bat roost or disturb bats to a significant degree, an EPS license must first be obtained from the Natural England (even if no bats are expected to be present when the work is carried out). The application for a licence normally requires a full knowledge of the use of a site by bats, including species, numbers, and timings. Gathering this information usually involves surveying throughout the bat active season. The license may require ongoing monitoring of the site following completion of the works. Licences can only be issued if Natural England are satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative to the development and that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Burton Fleming 26 TA 072 732 Planning and Wildlife. The February 2019 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has replaced July 2018 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as the relevant national planning guidance in relation to ecological issues. Para 109 of NPPF states that the planning system should “contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures”. Para 117 of NPPF states that the planning system should “promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species, populations, linked to national and local targets”. Para 118 of NPPF states that “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have 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; development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted; opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged; planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. Para 119 of the NPPF makes it clear that “The presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined”. Therefore EPS will still be a material consideration when considering sustainable developments. The accompanying ODPM Circular 06/2005 remains pertinent; circular 06/2005 is prescriptive in how planning officers should deal with protected species, see paragraphs 98 and 99: • The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when considering a proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat (see ODPM/Defra Circular, para 98) • LPAs should consider attaching planning conditions/entering into planning obligations to enable protection of species. They should also advise developers that they must comply with any statutory species protection issues affecting the site (ODPM/Defra Circular, para 98) • The presence and extent to which protected species will be affected must be established before planning permission is granted. If not, a decision will have been made without all the facts (ODPM/Defra Circular, para 99) • Any measures necessary to protect the species should be conditioned/planning obligations used, before the permission is granted. Conditions can also be placed on a permission in order to prevent development proceeding without a Habitats Regulations Licence (ODPM/Defra Circular, para 99). • “It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances, with the result that the surveys are carried out after planning permission has been granted. However, bearing in mind the delay and cost that may be involved, developers should not be required to undertake surveys for

Burton Fleming 27 TA 072 732 protected species unless there is a reasonable likelihood of the species being present and affected by the development. Where this is the case, the survey should be completed and any necessary measures to protect the species should be in place, through conditions and/or planning obligations, before the permission is granted. In appropriate circumstances the permission may also impose a condition preventing the development from proceeding without the prior acquisition of a licence under the procedure set out in section C below”. Further to NPPF and OPDM Circular 06/2005, Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) states that ‘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 conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.

7. References,

Anon (1995) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. Institute of Environmental Assessment. Chapman & Hall.

Anon (1995) The UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Anon (1999) Advice Sheet 10: Reptile Survey. Froglife, Peterborough. Anon (2009) Bat Survey. 1 Sude Hill, New Mill. Holmfirth. BE Brooks Ecological, Leeds

Anon (2003) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A Technique for Environmental Audit (Revised reprint). Joint Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.

Eaton MA, Brown AF, Noble DG, Musgrove AJ, Hearn R, Aebischer NJ, Gibbons DW, Evans A and Gregory RD (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the , Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102, pp 296 -341.

Foster, J. (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough.

Gent, T. & Gibson, S. (1998) Herpetofauna Workers Manual. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Hill, D., Fasham, M., Tucker, G., Shewry, M. & Shaw, P., (2005) Handbook of Biodiversity Methods, Survey, Evaluation and Monitoring, Cambridge: UK

Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, . ISBN-13 978-1-872745-96-1

0444/01/JM/PEA 33 September 2013 Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. rd Mitchell-Jones, A.J. & McLeish, A.P. [Eds.] (2004) The Bat Workers Manual (3 edition). Joint Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.

Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S., and Jeffcote, M. (2000) Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10: 143-155.

Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“the Habitats Regulations 2017”)

UK legislation and policy web address:

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010:

Burton Fleming 28 TA 072 732 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/uksi_20100490_en_1

Habitats Directive: www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1992/en_392L0043

The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/contents/made

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1981/cukpga_19810069_en_1

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1949/cukpga_19490097_en_1

National Planning Policy Framework: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf

Burton Fleming 29 TA 072 732 8. Appendices

Burton Fleming 30 TA 072 732