Bradley Farm and Gay Dogs Kennels Bradley, Alresford Extended

Transcription

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
BRADLEY FARM AND GAY DOGS KENNELS,
BERRYWOOD LANE, BRADLEY, ALRESFORD,
HAMPSHIRE
PHASE 1 AND 2 BAT ASSESSMENT
FOR: GRAHAM GABIE
Final Document
September 2015
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Preliminary Ecological Appraisals  Phase 1 and 2 Surveys  NVC EcIA Management Plans  Species Licensing
Habitats  Badger  Bats  Dormouse  Birds  Reptiles  Amphibians  Invertebrates  Riparian and Aquatic Species
ECOSA Ltd, Ten Hogs House, Manor Farm Offices, Flexford Road, North Baddesley, Hampshire, SO52 9DF
Tel: 02380 261065
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.ecosa.co.uk
Registered Office: 3-4 Eastwood Court, SO51 8JJ Registered in England No: 6129868
Bradley Farm and Gay Dogs Kennels, Bradley, Hampshire - Phase 1 and 2 Bat Assessment
Final Document
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
ECOSA Quality Assurance Record
This report has been produced in accordance with Chartered Institute of Ecology and
Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing 2015 1. The
assessment was undertaken in accordance with the following guidelines:

Hundt L. (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, (2nd Ed.), Bat Conservation
Trust
Produced For:
Graham Gabie
Description:
Phase 1 and 2 Bat Assessment
Issue:
Final
Date of Issue:
8th September 2015
Author:
Frances King-Smith BSc (Hons) MCIEEM
Principal Ecologist
Reviewed by:
Simon Colenutt BSc (Hons) MCIEEM CEnv
Principal Ecologist
DISCLAIMER
This is a technical report which does not represent legal advice. You may wish to seek legal advice if this is required.
COPYRIGHT
© This report is the copyright of ECOSA Ltd. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person is prohibited.
1
Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2015). Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing.
Technical Guidance Series. http://www.cieem.net/publications/23/ecological-report-writing
© This report is the copyright of ECOSA Ltd.
Final Document
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
BRADLEY FARM AND GAY DOGS KENNELS,
BERRYWOOD LANE, BRADLEY, ALRESFORD,
HAMPSHIRE
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2
Background................................................................................................................... 2
Aims and Scope of Report ............................................................................................ 2
Site Setting and Description ......................................................................................... 2
Site Proposals............................................................................................................... 3
2.0
METHODS .................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Phase 1 Bat Survey Methods ....................................................................................... 4
2.3 Phase 1 Bat Survey Details .......................................................................................... 4
2.4 Phase 1 Bat Survey Limitations.................................................................................... 4
2.5 Initial Protected Species Assessment .......................................................................... 4
2.6 Criteria used to Assess Ecological Value ..................................................................... 5
2.7 Criteria used to Assess Ecological Potential ................................................................ 5
2.8 Phase 2 Bat Surveys .................................................................................................... 6
2.8.1 Survey Methods ..................................................................................................... 6
2.8.2 Phase 2 Survey Personnel .................................................................................... 6
2.8.3 Phase 2 Survey Equipment ................................................................................... 6
2.8.4 Phase 2 Bat Survey Limitations ............................................................................. 7
3.0
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Phase 1 Bat Survey Results ......................................................................................... 8
3.2.1 Bats - Building Assessment ................................................................................... 8
3.2.2 Bats - Foraging and Commuting Habitat ............................................................... 8
3.3 Phase 2 Bat Survey Results ....................................................................................... 20
4.0
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT ................................................................................ 23
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 23
4.2 Planning Policy ........................................................................................................... 23
4.2.1 National Policy ..................................................................................................... 23
4.2.2 Local Policy .......................................................................................................... 24
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
Map 1
EVALUATION, IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 25
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 25
Site Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 25
Potential Key Impacts of Development ...................................................................... 25
Outline of Key Mitigation and Enhancements ............................................................ 25
Bat Licence ................................................................................................................. 26
Updating Survey ......................................................................................................... 28
Assessment of Proposals against Relevant Planning Policy ..................................... 28
Site Location
Appendix 1
Protected Species Legislation
i
Final Document
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Phase 1 bat survey was undertaken on 26th June 2015 at Bradley Farm and Gay
Dogs Kennels, Berrywood Lane, Bradley, Alresford, Hampshire SO24 9RY, with
a suite of Phase 2 bat surveys subsequently carried out in July and August 2015.
The proposals entail demolition of Buildings A to M and O and construction of
seven residential dwellings.

The Phase 1 and 2 bat assessment was undertaken to ascertain the current
potential for roosting bat species to be present within the on-site buildings.

The site is located in the small village of Bradley, Hampshire. The area is
characterised by hilly countryside, mainly comprising agricultural grazing and
arable land intersected by mature hedgerows and pockets of mature broadleaved
woodland.

The site comprises a large assortment of farm outbuildings and kennels set
amongst short-mown grass lawns with scattered immature trees and fenced
concrete exercise yards, in a plot of approximately 2.45 hectares.

The bat assessment confirmed that Building E supports low status non-breeding
day roosts of a single soprano pipistrelle and three common pipistrelle beneath
timber cladding on the southern elevation. No roosting activity was recorded from
any other buildings.

The level of foraging and commuting activity recorded as part of the survey is low
given the rural setting of the site and bats are unlikely to rely upon the site as a
foraging or commuting resource given the availability of suitable habitat in the
surrounding area.

Any new landscaping to be undertaken as part of the new development should
incorporate new native species planting wherever possible.

A bat licence should be obtained from Natural England in order to allow the works
to proceed without contravening current legislation. This would entail mitigation
measures including destructive search and provision of new replacement roosting
habitat.

If works have not commenced by June 2017, or the proposals for the site change
significantly, it is recommended that the ecological assessment is updated. This is
because many of the species considered during the current survey are highly
mobile and the ecology of the site is likely to change over this period.
1
Final Document
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Ecological Survey & Assessment Limited (ECOSA) have been contracted by Graham
Gabie to undertake a Phase 1 and 2 bat assessment at Bradley Farm and Gay Dogs
Kennels, Berrywood Lane, Bradley, Alresford, Hampshire SO24 9RY. The assessment
is required in support of a planning application for the demolition of Buildings A to M
and O and construction of seven residential dwellings. The site is centred on National
Grid Reference (NGR) SU 6374 4139 (Map 1).
Phase 1 and 2 bat surveys were carried out at the site by Hampshire Ecological
Services Limited2 during June and August 2010 and July and August 2011. No bats
were recorded as emerging from Buildings A, B, D, E, L, M, O, Q and R, however these
buildings were assessed as having the potential to support roosting bats. The 2010
report makes recommendations relating to breeding birds and reptiles which remain
valid and should be implemented within the proposals. It records limited areas of
suitable reptile habitat which will not be affected by the proposals and, as this is still the
case, reptiles are not considered further as part of this 2015 assessment by ECOSA.
The Phase 1 and 2 bat assessment was therefore undertaken to ascertain the current
potential for roosting bat species to be present within the site and the status of any bat
roosts present.
This report presents the findings of the Phase 1 and 2 bat assessment carried out by
ECOSA between June and August 2015.
1.2
Aims and Scope of Report
This report is based on Phase 1 and 2 bat surveys aimed at assessing the suitability of
the on-site buildings to support roosting bats. This information allows an assessment
of the value of the site to bats to be made, potential constraints to be identified, and
mitigation and compensation measures to be developed.
1.3
Site Setting and Description
The Bradley Farm and Gay Dogs Kennels site is situated in the Hampshire Downs
Natural Area, described by Natural England as follows 3:
"The Hampshire Downs are part of the broad belt of chalk downland which runs through
central southern England. To the east of the Natural Area the chalk forms a dramatic
2
Bradley Farm and Gay Dogs Kennels, Berrywood Lane, Bradley, Alresford, Hampshire, SO24 9RY, Ecological Survey
Report, September 2010, Hampshire Ecological Services Limited and Bradley Farm and Gay Dogs Kennels, Berrywood
Lane, Bradley, Alresford, Hampshire, SO24 9RY, Bat Survey Report Buildigns A, B, D & E, September 2011,
Hampshire Ecological Services Limited.
3
Natural Areas are defined by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office as ‘biogeographic zones which reflect the geological
foundation, the natural systems and processes and the wildlife in different parts of England, and provide a framework
for setting objectives for nature conservation' (Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report, HMSO, 1995).
2
Final Document
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
escarpment at the western edge of the Weald. The character of the Hampshire Downs
has a strong identity, with a great sense of openness and space. It is a large scale
landscape of open rolling country with broad, gently domed undulating plateaux
dissected by both steep and shallow valleys numerous distinct hilltops, ridges and
scarps.
The main habitats found within this natural area include extensive chalk grasslands,
ancient woodlands, the river valleys with chalk streams rich in wildlife, and arable
headlands which support good arable weed communities."
The site is located in the small village of Bradley, Hampshire, situated 3 kilometres (km)
north-west of Bentworth and 5km north of Medstead. The market town of Alton is 8.5km
to the south-east of the site. The area is characterised by hilly countryside, mainly
comprising agricultural grazing and arable land intersected by mature hedgerows and
pockets of mature broadleaved woodland. The landscape is typical of rural Hampshire
and is dissected by a network of country lanes and meandering watercourses.
Rural residential property is scattered at low density through the village of Bradley
north-west of the site. Agricultural fields make up the surrounding landscape.
The site comprises a large assortment of farm outbuildings and kennels set amongst
short-mown grass lawns with scattered immature trees and fenced concrete exercise
yards, in a plot of approximately 2.45 hectares (ha).
1.4
Site Proposals
The proposals entail demolition of Buildings A to M and O and construction of seven
residential dwellings.
3
Final Document
2.0
METHODS
2.1
Introduction
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
This section details the methods used during the Phase 1 and 2 bat assessment
undertaken at Bradley Farm and Gay Dogs Kennels, Berrywood Lane, Bradley,
Alresford, Hampshire from June to August 2015.
2.2
Phase 1 Bat Survey Methods
An assessment was made of the suitability of buildings on the site and immediately on
the site boundary to support roosting bats based on the presence of features such as
loose or missing roof tiles or lifted lead flashing. An assessment was made of the
suitability of the site and the surrounding landscape to support foraging and/or
commuting bat species. The survey conformed to current Bat Conservation Trust
guidelines4.
2.3
Phase 1 Bat Survey Details
The extended Phase 1 ecological assessment was carried out by Brian Hicks of
ECOSA on 26th June 2015. The weather conditions were mild and sunny, with no cloud
cover, an ambient temperature of 18ºC and no wind.
During the Phase 1 survey the surveyor was equipped with a ladder, 10x40 binoculars,
a high powered torch and a digital camera.
2.4
Phase 1 Bat Survey Limitations
Not all potential bat roosting features are accessible to the surveyor, e.g. gaps beneath
roof materials or holes or cracks in trees, and therefore assessments are based upon
the potential for these features to provide suitable roosting opportunities.
It is not always possible to provide definitive assessments of a species' presence/likely
absence at a site and so in the absence of direct evidence, assessments and
recommendations are based on the presence of suitable habitat within/adjacent to a
site and the results of species records within the desk study data.
2.5
Initial Protected Species Assessment
Details of the assessment criteria used to determine the ecological value of on-site
attributes during the Phase 1 survey is outlined below. During a Phase 1 survey the
assessment criteria is based on the potential for the site to support the species
considered, this is usually based on the on-site habitat features and their suitability for
the species considered. However, in many cases Phase 2 surveys will be required to
assess the status of species and hence the importance of a population at the site,
4
Hundt L (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd edition. Bat Conservation Trust (BCT), London
4
Final Document
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
therefore the Phase 1 assessment of value should be considered a provisional
assessment.
2.6
Criteria used to Assess Ecological Value
The ecological values provided within this report are based around both professional
judgement and current published relevant guidance, including information sources
such as A Nature Conservation Review5 and Guidelines for Ecological Impact
Assessment in the United Kingdom6. Values provided are within the context of the site
itself.
2.7
Criteria used to Assess Ecological Potential
Table 1 defines the criteria used to assess the potential of the site and its buildings to
support protected bat species, based on the habitat characteristics of the site.
Table 1: Criteria used to assess ecological potential
Bats7
Building Assessment
Species
Present
Evidence of bat presence confirmed during survey, which may include presence of
live or dead bats, droppings, feeding remains or urine stains etc. Where possible, a
provisional assessment of roost status is made.
If species are likely to be affected by the proposals, further Phase 2 surveys will be
required to establish the status of the species present.
High Potential
Buildings with features highly suitable for roosting bats, including gaps, hanging
tiles or large lofts, etc. Often, but not always, buildings of more historic construction.
required to establish the presence/likely absence of the species.
Medium
Potential
Medium potential buildings have a moderate number of features that may be used
by bats for roosting. These may include loose fascia, roof voids, etc.
Low Potential
Buildings that provide limited bat roosting potential although some features that may
be used by roosting bats may be present.
Negligible
Potential
Buildings that are extremely unlikely to support roosting bats due to the absence of
suitable features.
Further Phase 2 surveys are unlikely to be required as species is unlikely to be
present.
5
Ratcliffe, D. (1977) A Nature Conservation Review. Cambridge University Press
IEEM (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK
7
The criteria are an attempt to qualify the potential for a given building or tree to support roosting bats and are to a
degree subjective. Bats may make use of a single feature on an otherwise unsuitable building or tree and therefore an
assessment of bat potential cannot solely be based on the quantity of potential roost features present.
6
5
Final Document
2.8
Phase 2 Bat Surveys
2.8.1
Survey Methods
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
The Phase 2 survey work consisted of two dusk emergence surveys, which
commenced approximately 15 minutes before sunset until up to two hours after sunset
and one dawn re-entry survey, which commenced approximately two hours before
sunrise until sunrise.
The Phase 2 surveys were undertaken by up to eight experienced ECOSA surveyors,
who were positioned within previously identified vantage point areas around the on-site
buildings. These vantage point locations allowed near full survey coverage of all
elevations of buildings which support potential bat roost features. These vantage points
were utilised to observe any bats emerging from / re-entering to roosting locations
within the buildings subject to survey.
During the Phase 2 surveys, each surveyor recorded the time, species, location and
direction of flight for each bat encountered, with particular attention paid to establishing
bat access/egress locations. Table 2 provides details of the Phase 2 survey visits.
Table 2: Phase 2 bat survey details
Survey
Date
Survey
Type
Duration
Weather Conditions
Start/End
Temperature
13th July
2015
Dusk
20:55 22:46
Breezy and overcast with occasional
short spells of very light drizzle and a
force 3 north-westerly breeze.
14.2oC /
12.5oC
21:16
30th July
2015
Dusk
20:40 22:30
Rapidly becoming cool. Still, dry and
clear.
17.1oC /
9.8oC
20:55
11th August
2015
Dawn
03:45 05:45
Mild and overcast with no breeze.
13.2oC /
11.9oC
05:45
2.8.2
Sunset/
Sunrise
Time
Phase 2 Survey Personnel
The Phase 2 surveys were led by Frances King-Smith of ECOSA (Natural England bat
licence registration number CL08 2014-2906-CLS-CLS) assisted by suitably qualified
and experienced ECOSA surveyors.
2.8.3
Phase 2 Survey Equipment
During the Phase 2 survey each surveyor was equipped with a Pettersson 240x time
expansion bat detector. The Pettersson detectors were connected to Edirol R-90
recorders for the full duration of the surveys. Recordings made with the Pettersson
detectors were later analysed using Sonobat® (v2.9.7) to confirm the identity of any
species encountered.
6
Final Document
2.8.4
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Phase 2 Bat Survey Limitations
Some bat species, e.g. long-eared bats8, generally emerge from their roosts in total
darkness and do not produce strong echolocations, and therefore these bats can be
difficult to observe and record during Phase 2 bat surveys, this may lead to underrecording.
8
There are two species of long-eared bat, the brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus and the grey long-eared bat
Plecotus austriacus. These species can only be separated by examination of physical characteristics and Phylogenetic
Analysis Identification of bat droppings. Unless confirmation of identification has been made by visual identification the
two species shall be referred to in this report as long-eared bat. The brown long-eared bat is the commonest of the two
species typically being found roosting within large roof voids although small voids and trees are also utilised. The grey
long-eared bat is rare and confined to southern England and like the brown long-eared typically roosts in roof voids.
7
Final Document
3.0
RESULTS
3.1
Introduction
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
This section details the results of the Phase 1 and 2 bat assessment undertaken at
Bradley Farm and Gay Dogs Kennels, Berrywood Lane, Bradley, Alresford, Hampshire
from June to August 2015.
3.2
Phase 1 Bat Survey Results
3.2.1
Bats - Building Assessment
The site supports an assortment of kennel blocks, outbuildings and farm buildings
associated with the kennels and a former chicken farm. The results of the Phase 1
survey of the Bradley Farm and Gay Dogs Kennels buildings are provided in Table 3.
3.2.2
Bats - Foraging and Commuting Habitat
The site is a short distance from high quality bat foraging and commuting habitat
associated with the surrounding landscape, which includes a network of hedgerows
and pockets of woodlands. While the site itself comprises well-managed grassland
habitats which are less suitable than the site’s margins, a range of bats will nonetheless
forage and commute across the site on a regular basis. The site has medium potential
to support foraging and roosting bats overall, most likely of common species.
8
Bradley Farm and Gay Dogs Kennels, Bradley, Hampshire – Phase 1 and 2 Bat Assessment
Final Document
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Table 3: Building assessment – summary of features with bat roost potential and evidence of bat roost activity
Surveyed
Feature
Figure
Building A
Figure 1: Rear of building
Building Description
Description of Potential Bat
Roost Features
Evidence of Bat Roost
Activity and Location
A long single-storey kennel of
brick construction with a sloped
corrugated iron roof (Figure 1).
The central building has a pitched
roof clad in bitumen felt with
timber clad gable ends (Figure 2
and Figure 3).
Several gaps are present beneath
the timber cladding on the gable
ends and the barge boards of the
central building.
No evidence of bat activity
was recorded during the
survey.
Assessment of
Bat Roost
Potential
Medium
An enclosed concrete exercise
yard surrounds the rear of the
building.
Figure 2: Facing south
Figure 3: Pitched roof section
9
Final Document
Surveyed
Feature
Figure
Building B
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Roost Features
A single-storey wooden clad
building with a pitched corrugated
iron roof (Figure 4). The building
is used as storage and pet
grooming area. A brick built shed
is attached to the western side of
the wooden building. The shed is
single storey with a pitched
bitumen covered roof.
the timber cladding and beneath
the corrugated iron roof, although
the area beneath the roof will be
subject to wide temperature
variation and so suboptimal for
roosting bats.
survey.
Building C is a single storey
kennel with a sloping metal sheet
roof (Figure 6). The exterior is
clad with wood.
No suitable bat roosting features
are visible.
Figure 4: Western elevation
Assessment of
Bat Roost
Potential
Medium
The brick shed has wooden soffits
with some gaps present, and a
hole in the roof apex on the
southern side (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Hole at apex of brick shed
Building C
survey.
Negligible
Figure 6: Southern elevation
10
Final Document
Surveyed
Feature
Figure
Building D
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Roost Features
Assessment of
Bat Roost
Potential
Low
A concrete block constructed
single storey garage with a
corrugated iron pitched roof
(Figure 7). The roof interior is
clad with wooden panelling and
there is a small amount of wooden
cladding on the gable ends.
There is some potential for bat
roosting features beneath the
wooden cladding on the gable
ends and as the garage door
appears to be left open, within the
wooden panelling inside the
building.
survey.
A kennel with a sloping metal
sheet roof. It is constructed of
uPVC (Figure 8).
The building is well sealed with no
visible potential bat access points.
survey.
Negligible
The central section of Building E
is
single
storey,
UPVC
constructed with a pitched
features suitable for roosting bats
visible.
survey.
Negligible
Building E
(eastern
end)
Building E
(central)
Figure 9: Central section
11
Final Document
Surveyed
Feature
Figure
Building E
(western
end)
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Roost Features
A single storey wooden kennel
with a sloping corrugated iron roof
(Figure 10 and Figure 11). The
building is in a poor state of repair.
the wooden cladding.
survey.
A single-storey brick shed with a
pitched corrugated iron roof
(Figure 12). The building is
flanked on two side by wooden
dog kennels, now disused. The
interior of the building is lined with
timber boards (Figure 13).
There are gaps present beneath
the iron ridge, and between the
roofing material and interior
boarding. Due to the metal roof
covering these areas would be
subject to wide temperature
variations which would cause the
area to be unsuitable for bats.
survey.
Assessment of
Bat Roost
Potential
High
Figure 10: Backing onto Building D
Building F
Negligible
Figure 12: Northern elevation
12
Final Document
Surveyed
Feature
Figure
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Roost Features
Assessment of
Bat Roost
Potential
A small wooden shed with
breezeblock base and with a
sloping corrugated asbestos roof
(Figure 14). There are numerous
gaps in the exterior wooden
boarding which reveal that the
gap between interior and exterior
walls is filled with fibreglass
insulation. The southern entrance
is open.
No features suitable for bats were
recorded within this building.
survey.
Negligible
A small brick shed with pitched
No features suitable for bats were
recorded within this building.
survey.
Negligible
Figure 13: Internal view of Building F
Building Ga
Building Gb
13
Final Document
Surveyed
Feature
Figure
Building H
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Roost Features
A single-storey building of UPVC
with a pitched roof clad with
corrugated iron. The building is
flanked by metal kennels which
are now disused (Figure 16 and
Figure 17).
No gaps allowing access for bats
are visible within this building.
survey.
A wooden shed with pitched
corrugated iron roof and wooden
cladding (Figure 18). A number of
the windows are missing.
There are numerous gaps
beneath the wooden cladding,
and the shed is open, providing
access to bats.
survey.
Assessment of
Bat Roost
Potential
Negligible
Figure 16: Showing rear kennels
Figure 17: Northern end
Building I
Medium
14
Final Document
Surveyed
Feature
Figure
Building J
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Roost Features
A kennel with a wooden frame
and an Onduline sloping roof
(Figure 19). The exterior walls
are clad in plastic sheeting.
visible potential bat access points.
survey.
A timber barn with wooden
cladded gable end walls (Figure
20). The roof has fallen down and
is partially covered with tarpaulin.
The barn is used for storage
(Figure 21).
The building is dilapidated with no
suitable bat roosting areas visible.
survey.
Assessment of
Bat Roost
Potential
Negligible
Building L
Negligible
Figure 20: Gable end of building
Figure 21: Internal view
15
Final Document
Surveyed
Feature
Figure
Building M
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Roost Features
A large, single-storey barn with a
pitched corrugated asbestos roof
and timber clad walls (Figure 22).
The building is currently in use as
storage (Figure 23).
The building has numerous gaps
allowing access for bats into the
main building; however it is
lacking in crevices suitable for
roosting bats.
survey.
A very large chicken shed with a
single storey metal covered roof
and timber covered gable ends
(Figure 24). The building was
empty at time of survey.
This building is relatively modern
and is well-sealed.
survey.
Assessment of
Bat Roost
Potential
Low
Figure 23: Building M internal view
Building N
Negligible
16
Final Document
Surveyed
Feature
Figure
Building O
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Roost Features
A timber barn with wooden
cladded gable end walls (Figure
25). The roof has fallen down and
is partially covered with tarpaulin
(Figure 26). The barn is used for
storage.
The walls are single skinned
meaning that the interior wall is
exposed to the elements due to
the lack of a roof.
survey.
A large agricultural building of
timber construction (Figure 27).
The roof is covered with plastic
tarpaulin.
The building has no visible bat
access points.
survey.
Assessment of
Bat Roost
Potential
Negligible
Figure 25: Remains of building
Figure 26: Internal view of Building O
Building P
Negligible
17
Final Document
Surveyed
Feature
Figure
Building Q
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Roost Features
A brick and concrete single-storey
storage building with a pitched
corrugated iron roof (Figure 28
and Figure 29). The western
gable end is clad with timber.
the timber cladding on the
western gable end.
survey.
A single storey wooden shed, with
wooden interior lining and a
pitched corrugated iron covered
roof (Figure 30 and Figure 31).
The building has numerous gaps
between the timber cladding
boards allowing access between
the interior and exterior walls.
There are also gaps behind the
barge boards on the gable ends.
survey.
Assessment of
Bat Roost
Potential
Low
Figure 29: Rear of building
Building R
High
Figure 30: Western elevation along
Berrywood Lane
18
Final Document
Surveyed
Feature
Figure
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Roost Features
Assessment of
Bat Roost
Potential
Figure 31: Northern elevation
19
Final Document
3.3
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Phase 2 Bat Survey Results
Table 4 summarises the level of potential of each of the buildings surveyed, along with
the number of surveyors and the number of Phase 2 bat surveys undertaken at each
building. Negligible potential buildings, which were not subjected to Phase 2 survey,
are shown in grey.
Table 4: Phase 2 bat survey results
Number of Surveyors
Level of
Bat Potential
Survey 1
13th July 2015
Survey 2
30th July 2015
Survey 3
11th August 2015
Medium
N/A
1 surveyor
1 surveyor
B
Medium
2 surveyors
N/A
2 surveyors
C
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
D
Low
1 surveyor
N/A
1 surveyor
E
1 surveyor
1 surveyor
1 surveyor
F
High
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ga
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
Gb
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
H
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
2 surveyors
2 surveyors
N/A
J
Medium
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
L
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
M
N/A
1 surveyor
1 surveyor
N
Low
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
O
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
P
Negligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
Q
Low
N/A
1 surveyor
R
High
2 surveyors
2 surveyors
1 surveyor
N/A (building no
longer included in
proposals)
Building
A
Table 5 provides details of the species, numbers and locations of bats recorded during
the Phase 2 bat survey.
Overall, five bat species were recorded during the survey: common pipistrelle
Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, long-eared bat
Plecotus species, Myotis species bat9 and serotine Eptesicus serotinus. One soprano
pipistrelle and three common pipistrelle were recorded roosting within the southern
elevation of Building E during all three surveys.
9
There are seven species of Myotis bats in Britain. Myotis bats are very difficult to identify specifically, this can generally
only be done by examination of physical features and Phylogenetic Analysis Identification of bat droppings. Many of
these bats are common and will utilise buildings for roosting often occupying small and inaccessible voids. For the
purpose of this report all species shall be referred to as Myotis bats unless a specific identification has been possible.
20
Final Document
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Table 5: Phase 2 bat survey results
Survey
Date
13th July
2015
Dusk
Recorded Bat Roosts
Species
Common
pipistrelle
Soprano
pipistrelle
General Bat Activity at the Site
No.
Emerged
First
Out
Last
Out
3
21:23
21:41
1
21:20
-
Summary:
A single soprano pipistrelle and three
common pipistrelle emerged from various
locations beneath the timber cladding on
the southern elevation of building E.
No roosting activity was recorded from
Species
First
Pass
Last
Pass
Common pipistrelle
21:22
22:36
Soprano pipistrelle
21:20
-
Myotis bat species
22:47
-
Summary:
Activity levels were low to moderate and bat
registrations were heavily dominated by
common pipistrelle, which was recorded from
all eight surveyor locations. Bats were recorded
foraging and commuting through the site,
particularly at its tree-lined margins. A single
Myotis bat species was recorded in the southwestern corner of the site and a single soprano
pipistrelle was recorded in the northern area,
which had emerged from Building E.
Three bat species were recorded, representing
a low species diversity on this survey occasion.
30th July
2015
Dusk
Species
Common
pipistrelle
Soprano
pipistrelle
No.
Emerged
First
Out
Last
Out
3
21:05
21:11
1
21:08
-
Summary:
common pipistrelle emerged from various
locations beneath the timber cladding on
the southern elevation of building E.
Species
First
Pass
Last
Pass
Common pipistrelle
21:04
22:25
Soprano pipistrelle
21:08
-
Myotis bat species
Serotine
Long-eared bat
species
21:49
21:53
22:27
-
22:07
22:19
Summary:
Activity levels were moderate with bat
common pipistrelle, recorded from all eight
surveyor locations. A low number of Myotis bat
species registrations were recorded in the
northern area of the site. Four passes of longeared bat were recorded in the central and
southern parts of the site. Single registrations of
soprano pipistrelle and serotine were recorded
from the northern area near Building I.
Five bat species were recorded, representing a
moderate species diversity on this survey
occasion.
21
Final Document
Survey
Date
11th
August
2015
Dawn
Recorded Bat Roosts
Species
Common
pipistrelle
Soprano
pipistrelle
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
General Bat Activity at the Site
No. Reentered
First
In
Last
In
3
04:08
05:21
1
05:15
-
Summary:
common pipistrelle returned to roost
beneath various locations under the
timber cladding on the southern elevation
of building E.
Species
First
Pass
Last
Pass
Common pipistrelle
03:56
05:21
Soprano pipistrelle
03:47
05:15
Myotis bat species
Long-eared bat
species
04:10
04:50
05:07
05:08
Summary:
Activity levels were low to moderate and bat
common pipistrelle recorded from all six
surveyor locations. Bats were recorded foraging
and commuting through the site, particularly
towards the edges along treelines.
Four bat species were recorded, representing a
low to moderate species diversity on this survey
occasion.
Summary Assessment
Results of the Phase 2 bat survey confirm that Building E supports low status nonbreeding day roosts of a single soprano pipistrelle and three common pipistrelle
roosting beneath timber cladding on the southern elevation of the building. No bat
activity was recorded that would be associated with a maternity roost and the bats
present are likely to be males or non-breeding females. No roosting activity was
recorded from any other buildings.
The level of foraging and commuting activity recorded as part of the survey is lower
than would be typical given the rural setting of the site, and the diversity of bat species
recorded was also lower than expected. Bats in the local area may prefer nearby
parcels of woodland, such as Bradley Wood 320m east of the site or Park Copse 740m
to the west.
It is unlikely that bats would be reliant upon the site as a foraging or commuting resource
given the availability of suitable habitat in the surrounding area.
22
Final Document
4.0
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
4.1
Introduction
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
This section summarises the planning policy in relation to ecology and biodiversity
within the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council administrative area.
4.2
Planning Policy
4.2.1
National Policy
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government’s
requirements for the planning system in England. A number of sections of the NPPF
are relevant when taking into account development proposals and the environment. As
set out within Paragraph 14 of the NPPF “At heart of the National Planning Policy
Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be
seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking”
however at paragraph 119 it goes on to state that “The presumption on favour of
sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate
assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or
determined”.
The general impetuous of the NPPF in relation to ecology and biodiversity is for
development proposals to not only minimise the impacts on biodiversity but also to
provide enhancement. Paragraph 109 states that the planning system should
contribute to and enhance the natural environment by “…minimising impacts on
biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible...”
Paragraph 118 states that “when determining planning applications, local planning
authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity”. A number of principles
are set out in Paragraph 118 including the principle that where harm cannot be
adequately avoided then it should be mitigated for or as a last resort compensated for;
where impacts occur on nationally designated sites the benefits must clearly outweigh
any adverse impact; incorporating biodiversity in and around developments should be
encouraged; protection of irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodlands and that
those sites proposed as potential SPAs, SACs and Ramsars or acting as compensation
for SPAs, SACs and Ramsar should receive the same protection as European sites.
In addition to the NPPF Circular 06/05 provides guidance on the application of the law
relating to planning and nature conservation as it applies in England. Paragraph 98
states “the presence of a protected species is a material considered when a planning
authority is considered a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to
result in harm to the species or its habitat” whilst paragraph 99 states “it is essential
23
Final Document
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
that the presence or otherwise of a protected species, and the extent that they may be
affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is
granted”.
4.2.2
Local Policy
Local planning policy within Basingstoke and Dean Borough is provided by saved
polices within the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2011 with
a single policy referring specifically to ecology and biodiversity:

Policy E7: Nature/Biodiversity Conservation. This policy refers for the
need for development to conserve and enhance biodiversity taking into
account the aims and objectives of Biodiversity Action Plans. The policy
also refers to the protection of legally protected and priority species and
designated wildlife sites. The policy also refers to the need for planning
applications to be supported by adequate information to allow a proper
assessment of the implications of the proposals on biodiversity.
The forthcoming Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 has two policies
specifically in relation to biodiversity and ecology. Policy EM3 refers to the protection
measures afforded to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area whilst Policy
EM4 in part refers to the protection of biodiversity and nature conservation largely
reflecting the existing policy within the adopted local plan.
24
Final Document
5.0
EVALUATION, IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
Introduction
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
This section presents the conclusions of the updating ecological assessment. It
provides an initial assessment of the likely ecological constraints to the proposed
development and detailed recommendations for any further survey work or mitigation
measures considered necessary. An outline of protected species legislation relevant to
the findings of this report is provided in Appendix 1.
5.2
Site Evaluation
The results of the Phase 1 and 2 bat assessment undertaken at Bradley Farm and Gay
Dogs Kennels show that Building E supports low status non-breeding day roosts of a
single soprano pipistrelle and three common pipistrelle beneath timber cladding on the
southern elevation. No roosting activity was recorded from any other buildings.
The level of foraging and commuting activity recorded as part of the survey is low given
the rural setting of the site and bats are unlikely to rely upon the site as a foraging or
commuting resource given the availability of suitable habitat in the surrounding area.
5.3
Potential Key Impacts of Development
The proposals entail the demolition of Building E, which supports roosting bats, to make
way for new dwellings. In the absence of mitigation, the potential ecological impacts of
these works are:

Direct impacts on four roosting bats during the demolition works;

Loss of four non-breeding day roosts supported by Building E; and

Increased lighting at the site, potentially impacting commuting and foraging
bats and their prey.
In England, bats and their habitat are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981 through inclusion in Schedule 5. In addition, all bat species are protected
under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Refer to Appendix
1 for details.
5.4
Outline of Key Mitigation and Enhancements
The following main mitigation and enhancement strategies have been designed to
minimise the potential impacts and enhance the site for wildlife:
25
Final Document

ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Any new landscaping to be undertaken as part of the new development
should incorporate new native species planting wherever possible, in order to
boost the invertebrate foraging resource for bats; and

A bat licence should be obtained from Natural England in order to allow the
Building E demolition works to proceed without contravening current
legislation. This would entail mitigation measures including destructive search
and provision of new replacement roosting habitat. See Paragraph 5.5 for
further details.
5.5
Bat Licence
As a result of the potential impacts and loss of the low status bat roosts supported by
Building E, a bat licence from Natural England will be required prior to the works taking
place. The data gathered during the Phase 2 surveys will be incorporated into the
licence application and will be used to devise an appropriate mitigation strategy.
The species protection provision of the Habitats Directive, as implemented by the
Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 2010, contains three ‘derogation
tests’ which must be applied by the Local Planning Authority at the Planning Application
stage and by Natural England when deciding whether to grant a licence to a person
carrying out an activity which would harm a European Protected Species. The three
tests that must be met in order to successfully obtain a Natural England licence are as
follows:

The consented operation must be for ‘preserving public health or public safety
or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a
social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance
for the environment’;

There must be ‘no satisfactory alternative’; and

The action authorised ‘will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the
population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their
natural range’.
In relation to the three derogation tests, the following statements relate to the site:
Preserving Public Health and Safety or other Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public
Interest
The proposals will fully maximise the potential of the partially derelict site via creation
of live/work dwellings.
26
Final Document
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
No Satisfactory Alternative
A “do nothing” approach is not a viable proposition due to the factors outlined above.
Many of the buildings are in a poor state of repair and the site will continue to fall into
an unusable state if not redeveloped.
Maintaining the Favourable Conservation Status of the Species at the Site
Due to the presence of roosting bats within Building E, the proposed demolition works
would result in the disturbance and loss of non-breeding roosts of four individual bats.
As a result of the disturbance and loss of bat roosts at the site, a bat licence from
Natural England will be required prior to the proposed demolition works commencing.
The licence application will require the preparation of a clear and reasoned Method
Statement which details the methods for maintaining the conservation status of the
species at the site. The Bat Mitigation Guidelines10 state that where a roost falls into
the “Small numbers of common species. Not a maternity site” mitigation requirements
fall between “Provision of new roost facilities where possible. Need not be exactly likefor-like, but should be suitable, based on species’ requirements. Minimal timing
constraints or monitoring requirements” and “Flexibility over provision of bat-boxes,
access to new buildings etc. No conditions about timing or monitoring.” This can be
achieved by the following measures:

All demolition works affecting the roosting areas on Building E will be carried out
during either mid-March to May or September/October, to minimise the impact on
bat roosting locations. These two periods are a time when bats are neither
hibernating nor breeding and are less vulnerable to disturbance;

Two Schwegler 1FF and two Schwegler 2F bat boxes will be installed by an
ecologist on mature trees within the landowner’s control in the vicinity of the
existing buildings in order to provide replacement roosting opportunities;

To ensure that no bats are injured or maimed during the demolition works, the
careful removal of all identified bat roost areas and suitable bat roosting features
will be carried out by/under the supervision of a licensed bat worker using hand
tools during a destructive search. The ecologist will work on-site with the
demolition team from the start of the works until all suitable roosting areas have
been carefully removed;

A toolbox talk will be given by the licensed ecologist to contractors on site who will
be involved in the demolition works;
10
Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines, English Nature
27
Final Document

ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Prior to any works commencing at the site, the buildings will be inspected
externally by a licensed bat worker to locate any roosting bats. Where considered
appropriate, any bats found will be placed within bat boxes previously erected on
trees located within the site;

Any new external lighting should comprise hooded, downward pointing fittings
directed away from vegetation. Ideally the bulbs will be LED and at the warmer
end of the spectrum (e.g. avoiding blue or white light). LED lights emit much lower
levels of UV and therefore have a lower impact on wildlife 11. The new lighting
should be motion-activated and task related, associated with specific entrance/exit
points of the properties. The lux level should be as low as possible to allow the
task to be carried out safely and effectively. Guidance on task related lighting
levels published by the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers
(CIBSE)12 should be followed. None of the areas in the vicinity of bat mitigation
infrastructure should be directly illuminated. As a result light levels at the site are
unlikely to be significantly higher than previous levels; and

In line with current Natural England guidelines for a roost supporting small
numbers of common species, no monitoring is considered necessary postdevelopment.
5.6
Updating Survey
If works have not commenced by June 2017, or the proposals for the site change
significantly, it is recommended that the Phase 1 and 2 bat assessment is updated.
This is because bat species are highly mobile and the ecology of the site is likely to
change over this period.
5.7
Assessment of Proposals against Relevant Planning Policy
As protected species have been identified on the site as part of this planning
application, and appropriate mitigation has been recommended, it is considered that
the scheme is compliant with the policy outlined in Section 4.0.
Wildlife and Artificial Lighting Seminar, 21st – 22nd March 2014, Arup London, Bat Conservation Trust.
CIBSE (1992) Lighting Guide 6: The Outdoor Environment; CIBSE (2002) Code for Lighting, Butterworth-Heinemann,
UK.
11
12
28
Final Document
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Map 1 Site Location
BRADLEY FARM AND GAY DOGS
KENNELS, BERRYWOOD LANE,
BRADLEY, HAMPSHIRE
Map 1 - Site Location
Client:
Mr Graham Gabie
Date:
September 2015
Status:
Final
KEY
Site Boundary
Scale at A4:
0
Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014
62.5 125
250
1:15,000
375
500
Metres
±
© This map is the copyright of Ecological Survey & Assessment (ECOSA) Ltd.
Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person is prohibited.
Final Document
Appendix 1
ECOSA Ltd
8th September 2015
Protected Species Legislation
Bats
All UK bat species are listed in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended) and Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. They
are afforded full protection under Section 9(4) of the Act and Regulation 41 of the Regulations.
These make it an offence to:

Deliberately capture, injure or kill any such animal;

Deliberately disturb any such animal, including in particular any disturbance which is
likely:

To impair its ability to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young;

To impair its ability to hibernate or migrate;

To affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of that species;

Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of any such animal;

Intentionally or recklessly disturb any of these animals while it is occupying a structure
or place that it uses for shelter or protection; or

Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any place that any of these animals uses
for shelter or protection.
In addition, five British bat species are listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive. These are:

Greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum;

Lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros;

Bechstein’s bat Myotis bechsteinii;

Barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus; and

Greater mouse-eared bat Myotis myotis.
In certain circumstances where these species are found the Directive requires the designation
of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) by EC member states to ensure that their populations
are maintained at a favourable conservation status. Outside SACs, the level of legal protection
that these species receive is the same as for other bat species.

Bradley Farm and Gay Dogs Kennels Bradley, Alresford Extended

Transcription

Similar documents

Species of the Day: Kitti`s Hog

Bat Face Cuphea

WRJ Centennial Shabbat Celebration

summer reading list 2015 - Rainbow Park Elementary School

Capture and Preparation of Chiropterans in the Caatinga

HOW DID THEY DO THAT?

Spotlight - DeMarini

in the National - Tapada Nacional de Mafra

Financial Analyst Presentation - British American Tobacco Malaysia

Halloween party pack - Bat Conservation Trust