heath house ecology report v2 2012.pdf

7/23/2019 Heath House Ecology Report V2 2012.pdf

1/25

Protected Species Survey Report(Version 2)

ForHeath House,

Congleton Road,Kermincham,

Congleton,CW12 2LL.


2/25

Contents

Executive Summary 1

1. Introduction 2

1.1 Background 2

1.2 Legislation 2

2. Methodology 4

2.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey 4

2.2 Amphibian Survey 4

2.3 Building Inspection 4

3. Results 6

3.1 Description of Habitats 6

3.2 Amphibian Survey 6

3.3 Building Inspection 6

4. Site Status Assessment 9

5. Impact Assessment 9

6. Mitigation and Compensation 10

6.1 Licensing Requirements 10

6.2 Compensation 10

6.3 Timing of Works 11

6.4 Habitat Creation 11

6.5 Conclusion 12

References 12

Appendices 13

Phase 1 Habitat Plan 13

Target Notes 15

Photographs 16

Architects Drawings 19


3/25

Protected Species Survey Report Heath House June 2012

Executive Summary

A protected species survey was commissioned by the owners of Heath House,Kermincham, Cheshire to accompany a planning application for the demolition andredevelopment of the detached house and adjoining buildings. This submission includesthe results of a phase1 habitat survey, amphibian survey, buildings inspection and threebat activity and emergence surveys.

A thorough inspection of the interior and exterior of the buildings was carried out toidentify possible use of the buildings as a bat roost. Large quantities of old and fresh

brown long eared bat droppings were found within the roof void of the swimming pooland adjoining stables during the inspection. Small quantities of brown long eared batand pipistrelle bat droppings were found in the roof void of the house. Subsequentlythree bat activity surveys were undertaken in accordance with the Bat ConservationTrust best practice guidelines. Bats receive full protection under the Wildlife andCountryside Act 1981. They are also protected under the Conservation of Habitats andSpecies Regulations 2010.

The bat activity surveys identified a brown long eared bat maternity roost within the loftvoid of the swimming pool and stables; with the roost access point being from thestables with bats roosting in the stables roof void and flying internally via a corridor andopen loft hatch to roost in the swimming pool roof void. A maximum count of 17 brownlong eared bats emerged from the stables. Occasional common pipistrelle bat andbrown long eared bat roost sites are also present in the roof of the house with lone batssighted emerging. From the surveys carried out the stables and swimming pool areconsidered to be of high conservation significance for brown long eared bats beingutilised as a maternity roost site by a medium sized colony of bats.

The proposed works will result in a high adverse impact on the favourable conservationstatus of brown long eared bats and a low impact on common pipistrelle bats. A NaturalEngland licence will be required for the development to proceed lawfully and the threetests need to be passed by the planning proposals. It needs to be established that:

i. The development is of overriding public interest.ii. There is no satisfactory alternative.iii. That the soprano pipistrelle, common pipistrelle and brown long eared bats

'favourable conservation status is not compromised.

Mitigation and compensation will be required to maintain and enhance the favourableconservation status of the species. All mitigation proposals must be agreed withCheshire East Council and Natural England prior to the commencement of works. Theaim is to avoid the disturbance, killing and injury to any bats using the building and to


4/25


1. Introduction

1.1 BackgroundThis survey and report was commissioned by The Hill Family Settlement to accompanya planning application for the demolition and redevelopment of Heath House, CongletonRd, Kermincham, Cheshire, CW12 2LL. The detached house has not been lived in forseveral years and is over two floors with a large roof void, the existing building is ofbrick construction with a ridged tile roof. This submission includes the results of aphase 1 habitat survey, amphibian survey, an internal and external inspection of thewhole of the house and adjoining outbuildings, along with three bat activity and

emergence surveys to look for evidence of use of the buildings and there potential asroost sites by bats and nesting birds.

1.2 LegislationProtected species are those with statutory protection according to the following legalActs and Regulations:

The European Communities Council Directive on the Conservation of NaturalHabitats and Wild Fauna and Flora (implemented in the UK by the Conservation

(Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2010). The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which gives general

protection measures for wildlife and special measures for species included onSchedules of the Act.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CROW Act) 2000 amended the Wildlifeand Countryside Act 1981 to also make it an offence to intentionally orrecklessly damage, destroy or obstruct a place that a species, listed onSchedules of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, uses for shelter or protection.

The repealed Section 74 of the CROW Act listed habitats and species importantto biological diversity in England, in accordance with the 1992 UN Conventionon Biodiversity (Habitats and Species Action Plans under The UK BiodiversityAction Plan is the means by which the government complied with its duty underSection 74).

Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006)replaces Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000 and refersto the list of organisms and habitats of principal importance published under therepealed Section 74 of the CROW Act 2000. The Secretary of State must takesuch steps to further the conservation of the living organisms and types ofhabitat included in the list and promote the taking by others of such steps.

The Protection of Badgers Act (1992) which principally relates to animal welfarerather than species rarity.

Of particular relevance to Heath House is the legal protection afforded to bats which


5/25


In this sense a bat roost has been interpreted to mean any structure or place which isused for shelter or protection whether or not bats are present at the time. A bat roost

may be defined (AM Hutson 1993) as either:(i) Spring gathering roosts(ii) Maternity roosts(iii) Mating roosts(iv) Night roost and feeding roosts(v) Prehibernal roosts(vi) Hibernation roosts

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 amends the Wildlife and Countryside Actto also make it an offence to intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct aplace that bats use for shelter or protection. The term reckless is defined by the caseof Regina v Caldwell 1982. The prosecution has to show that a person eitherdeliberately took an unacceptable risk, or failed to notice or consider an obvious risk.

Licences to disturb or take bats can be issued for certain purposes under Section 16 ofthe Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and under Regulation 44 of the Conservation of

Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, permitting activities that would otherwise beillegal under the legislation. Licences can take upto thirty working days to be issued byNatural England. If a Natural England licence is required for the development toproceed lawfully then three tests need to be passed by the proposals. It needs to beestablished that:

1. The development is of overriding public interest.2. There is no satisfactory alternative.3. That brown long eared and common pipistrelle bats 'favourable

conservation status is not compromised.

Where impacts on bats are unavoidable mitigation will be required to maintain andenhance the favourable conservation status of bats. Losses of bat roosts must becompensated for by the provision of new roosting sites and planting of new foraginghabitat. Mitigation measures will need to be designed on a site specific basis and onlyin consultation with an expert. All mitigation proposals must be agreed with CheshireEast Council and Natural England and put in place prior to the commencement of

works.


6/25


2. Methodology

2.1 Phase 1 Habitat SurveyPhase 1 survey is a description of habitats based upon the plant species present andalso includes records of evidence or potential for the presence of legally protected ornotable faunal species / groups. The survey followed Phase 1 habitat surveymethodology (JNCC, 1993) and was extended to assess faunal potential. This involveswalking the whole site, mapping and describing different habitats (for example:woodland, grassland, scrub); evidence of fauna and faunal habitat is also recorded (for

example: droppings, tracks, or specialist habitat such as ponds for breedingamphibians).

This modified approach to the Phase 1 survey is in accordance with the approachrecommended by the Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (IEA, 1995).

The initial survey was undertaken on the 16 th May 2011 by Neil Lee-Gallon, CEnv,MIEEM. This is within the optimum period for Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

A walkover survey was also undertaken by Neil Lee-Gallon on 28thMay 2012 to checkfor any changes on site.

2.2 Amphib ian SurveyThe methodology for the amphibian survey followed Natural Englands Great CrestedNewt Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature, 2001) as an assessment of the presence /absence of the species.

Four survey visits were made to the pond within the grounds of Heath House,employing all three of the following survey methods:

Direct daylight observation was used to search for frog spawn and tadpoles,toad strings and tadpoles, and newt eggs.

Night searching used a high powered torch (1,000,000 candlepower). Theedge of each pond was searched for amphibians at a rate of approximately 20minutes per 50 linear metres.

Bottle traps were set at approximately 2m intervals around the accessibleshoreline of those ponds which held water deep enough to set traps in. Thetraps were checked the following morning and removed. The traps used were 2litre bottle-traps supported by green canes tipped with high visibility markertape to aid relocation.


7/25


doorways and windowsills of the building were also inspected for the presence of batdroppings and feeding remains.

Internally all of the rooms and roof void were inspected for the presence of batdroppings, dead bats and feeding remains with the aid of ladders and torch.

Any evidence of nesting birds on the exterior or interior of the buildings was also notedduring the building inspection.

2.4 Bat Activ ity and Emergence Surveys

The bat emergence and activity surveys concentrated on the front, side and rearelevations of the house and adjoining buildings. Five surveyors (Neil Lee-Gallon, LauraBowden, Steve Ward, Andy Leese and Laura Belfield) were in position, fifteen minutesbefore sunset on the evenings of the 13thJune, 17th July and 22ndAugust 2011. Thetable below gives the weather conditions during the surveys.

Date Temperature Sunset Cloud Wind Weather

13thJune 14c 21.42 1/8 2/10 Dry

17thJuly 18c 21.31 0/8 No wind Dry

22nd

August 16c 20.21 8/8 2/10 Dry

Species identification was aided by using Pettersson D230 and Batbox DuetHeterodyne and Frequency Division Bat Detectors. The frequency division wasrecorded onto a mini disc and the results analysed using the Batsound and Batscancomputer programs, aiding species identification through the analysis of sonograms.


8/25


3. Results

3.1 Descrip tion of HabitatsThe grounds of Heath House are predominantly amenity grassland maintained to ashort sward as lawn with extensive conifer plantations planted around the boundary ofthe garden to screen the house and grounds. Shrub and conifer planting is also presentwithin the grounds along with several mature broadleaved trees. A band of maturebroad leaved English oak (Quercus robur) woodland is located at the southern end ofthe garden (target note 1, Appendices). All of the mature broadleaved trees are to be

retained and full details are provided within the independent tree survey report. Aphase 1 habitat plan is also included within the appendices.

A garden pond is present within the grounds having steep banks and a relativelydiverse aquatic flora (target note 2). The pond is surrounded by rank semi improvedneutral grassland dominated by Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) and meadow grassspecies (Poa spp). A mature defunct species rich hedgerow (target note 3) bounds thenorthern edge of the access track.

The mature trees were assessed for their potential to provide roost opportunities for treedwelling bat species. All the conifers and majority of broad leaved trees on site areearly mature to mature and considered to be of negligible to low value to roosting bats.Only the mature oak (target note 4) was assessed as being of moderate value toroosting bats having some old cracks and crevices from limb loss, this tree was subjectto two bat emergence surveys.

The land surrounding Heath House is managed intensively as arable farmland andpasture with mature hedgerows bounding the fields. No evidence was found of otherprotected species such as badger (Meles meles) within the grounds of Heath House,several rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) burrows and scrapes are present around thegrounds and this had not changed in May 2012.

3.2 Amphib ian SurveyThe garden pond at Heath House was the only pond identified within 250m of theproperty and proposed development site. The table below includes the results for the

amphibian survey.

ResultsPond HSI Dates ofSurveys

MinTempc

Trap Torch Eggs SpeciesPresent

P1 0.65 15/04/1119/04/11

78

00

Toad0

Toad Strings0

Common Toad


9/25


The HouseHeath House (target note 5) is of brick build with a ridged gable end tile roof. The brick

work is in good condition with mortar intact and no cracks or crevices of value as roostsites to bats. The roof is in generally good condition with only occasional raised roofand ridge tiles, the eaves appear sealed at the side elevations and gable ends, withonly a minor gap identified on the lead flashing at the base of the chimney stack. Thereare no barge boards, soffits or fascia boards to the exterior of the property. The groundfloor windows are boarded up following numerous break-ins at the empty property. Allthe windows and doors are uPVC with no gaps around their edges. The externalinspection of the house revealed no evidence of roosting bats or nesting birds.

Internally no evidence was found of roosting bats within the ground or first floor rooms.The loft void is in two halves all accessible for detailed inspection. Internally the roof islined with a hessian bitumen liner with exposed timber ridge beam. The internalinspection revealed a small cluster (c5) of old pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus spp) droppingsat the western gable end. In addition a small cluster (c10) brown long eared bat(Plecotus auritus) droppings were identified midway within the roof void beneath a smallgap in the roof liner.

The Swimming PoolThe swimming pool building (target note 6) adjoins the house by an internal corridor.The building is single storey of brick construction with a hipped slate roof overhangingat the eaves. Externally the brick work is in good condition with the mortar intact. Allwindows and doors are boarded up on the exterior. The overhanging eaves are sealedwith no potential access points for bats or nesting birds to the interior. The slate roofand ridge tiles are in good condition with only occasional slightly raised roof slates; theridge tiles are mortared on with no gaps identified for roosting bats. No evidence was

found of bats on the exterior of the swimming pool building.

Internally the pool contains no water and is in a state of disrepair, numerous (>100)fresh and old brown long eared bat droppings were identified on the ground floor of thepool building. The subsequent inspection on 14thJuly, under licence, inspected the loftvoid which is open with no loft hatch cover present revealing large accumulations of oldand fresh brown long eared bat droppings directly beneath and along the length of theridge beam. In addition at least six brown long eared bats were present roosting at the

meeting point of the ridge beam and hip roof trusses.

Internally on the ground floor the swimming pool building is connected by an opendoorway to the adjoining stables, the roof void of the swimming pool is not adjoined witheither the house or stables.

Th S bl


10/25


The remainder of the loft void has three sets of small roof windows and has brown longeared droppings scattered throughout these are of mixed age and appear to be voided

during internal flights by bats. Four brown long eared bats were present roosting onthe ridge beam and two brown long eared bats were flying internally.

A single storey, flat roofed brick garage has been adjoined to the stables and noevidence was found of bats using the garage as a roost site internally or externally.

No active or disused birds nests were found within the old stables, old bird nests arepresent within ventilation holes within the brick work.

3.3 Bat Activ ity and Emergence Surveys13thJune 2011At 21.59hrs a brown long eared bat was sighted flying from the direction of the westernside elevation of the stables.

At 22.03 hrs a brown long eared bat emerged from behind the climbing plant on thewestern elevation of the stables. A further 15 brown long eared bats emerged from thesame location between 22.07hrs and 22.28 hrs. Making a total of 17 brown log earedbats emerging from the stables. All of the brown long eared bats flew eastward alongthe line of trees bounding the gardens.

A lone brown long eared bat emerged from the roof of the main house at its slightlyraised hip midway along to the southern elevation (exact point of emergence notidentified) at 22.05hrs.

Between 21.51 hrs and 22.07 hrs a lone common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus)

foraged continuously to the north of the house, the bat appeared suddenly from thedirection of the roof of the house but was not observed emerging.

No bats were observed emerging from the mature oak tree.

14thJuly 2011Between 21.59 hrs and 22.44 hrs a total of 13 brown long eared bats emerged from thestables, 11 from behind the climbing plant to the western elevation of the stables, with

two emerging from the top of the split stable door. A surveyor was located on theinterior of the swimming pool building and a total of 9 brown long eared bats wereobserved flying from the loft hatch and around the pool before flying out of the corridorand into the stables.

A surveyor was also located in an up stairs window looking down onto the roof of thei i l b ildi d b d f h f f h b ildi N b


11/25


4. Site Status Assessment

From the survey results it has been concluded that the swimming pool and stables areused as a maternity roost site by a colony of brown long eared bats.

In addition the roof of the house provides an occasional roost site for lone commonpipistrelle and brown long eared bats. Common pipistrelle and brown long eared batsare the most common species of bat occurring throughout Cheshire and the UnitedKingdom.

The garden and particularly the woodland habitat provide valuable invertebrate richforaging habitat for the brown long eared maternity colony and individual bat species.No evidence was found of the mature oak being used as a roost site by tree dwellingbat species.

From the amphibian survey results it can be stated that great crested newts do not posea constraint to the proposed redevelopment.

5. Impact AssessmentThe proposed demolition and redevelopment of Heath House Hall will lead to thedisturbance and loss of a brown long eared bat maternity roost site and individualcommon pipistrelle and brown long eared bat occasional roost sites.

The impacts upon bats resulting from the proposed demolition and redevelopment ofthe buildings are summarised below. These adverse impacts are considered toconstitute a significant impact on the favourable conservation status of the localpopulation of brown long eared bats and common pipistrelle bats.

Impacts will result from the loss and disturbance of

High Impact from the loss of a brown long eared bat maternity roost sitewithin the swimming pool building.

High Impact from the disturbance of a brown long eared bat maternityroost site within the stables building.

Low Impact from the loss of an occasional common pipistrelle summerroost sites within the roof of the house.

Low Impact from the loss of an occasional brown long eared bat summerroost site within the roof void of the house.

Potential for killing and injury of individual bats during demolition.

The brown long eared bat maternity roost is considered to be of high conservation


12/25


6. Mitigation and Compensation

6.1 Licensing RequirementsAs the proposed redevelopment will compromise the legal protection that is given tobats a Natural England licence will be required to carry out the works lawfully. As partof the licensing process the local planning authority will have to provide Natural Englandwith details of how protected species issues were dealt with through the planningprocess. In particular Natural England may not issue a license if the following threetests cannot be passed by the proposals. It needs to be established by Cheshire EastCouncil that:

i. The development is of overriding public interest.ii. There is no satisfactory alternative.iii. The bats 'favourable conservation status is not compromised.

The first two tests are decided upon by the planners whilst the third test will requireappropriate mitigation and compensation.

In order for a licence to be granted mitigation and compensation will be required. Thiswill offset the adverse impact from the proposed demolition and ensure that thepopulations of brown long eared bats and common pipistrelle bats are maintained at afavourable conservation status at Hornpipe Hall. The aim of mitigation is to avoid thedisturbance, killing and injury to bats using the house and to provide an alternative roostspace for brown long eared and common pipistrelle bats.

6.2 CompensationBrown long eared bats favour roosts within buildings that have a large roof void toenable free flight within the roof space. This is currently available and utilised on within

the roof void of the stables and adjoining swimming pool buildings at Heath House.Pipistrelle bats typically roost within crevices in buildings and the exact roost site withinthe roof of the house was not identified.

To compensate for the loss of the brown long eared maternity roost within the roof voidof the swimming pool building it is proposed to retain and enhance the existing stableswith the construction of an additional storey and roof void to create an L shapedbuilding as indicated on the appended Architectural Drawings. The existing access

points used by the bats will remain unaltered during the works enabling the continueduse of the stables as a permanent brown long eared maternity roost integral to theproposed redevelopment.

The additional roost space will be of equal volume to that lost above the swimming pool,of the same east / west orientation, with features included internally to enhance


13/25


As interim compensation and to provide alternative roost sites during the constructionphase of the redevelopment four Schwegler 2F bat boxes will be erected on mature

trees at heights from 4m to 8m at various locations outside the construction site.

6.3 Timing of WorksThe redevelopment will be in phases, Phase 1 incorporating the construction of theadditional roost space, sealing of the corridor with blocks or brick between theswimming pool and house and the demolition of the house. The demolition of theswimming pool will only commence on completion of the additional roost space and atthe appropriate time of year to avoid the periods when bats are most vulnerable. The

additional roost will be constructed during the autumn to early spring months during theinitial phase of the redevelopment and only broken through into the existing roof void ofthe stables on its completion.

Prior to any breakthrough into the existing stables roof void during early spring(March/April) internal inspections will be made to ensure no bats are present at thepoint of entry. Provided no bats are present roof tiles and timbers will be removed byhand under the supervision of the licensed ecologist. On completion of thebreakthrough and sealing of the existing and additional roost spaces thorough internalchecks will be made within the swimming pool roof void during early spring or autumnonly to avoid the periods when bats are most vulnerable. If no bats are present then thecorridor access between the stables and pool building will be sealed and demolition ofthe swimming pool building will commence either during early spring or autumn.

The house will be demolished during the initial phase of the development; this will resultin the loss of occasional brown long eared bat and common pipistrelle bat roost sites.To minimise the potential for the killing or injury of individual bats using the roof of the

house as a roost the demolition and removal of the roof will be carried out slowly usinghand tools under the supervision of the licensed ecologist between October and May.Scaffold will be erected to the eaves of the building and the ridge tiles will be removedby hand under the supervision of the licensed ecologist. Checks for roosting bats willbe made and the first course of tiles removed slowly and steadily with checks made ona regular basis. This process will continue to the eaves when the liner and timbers willbe removed by hand under supervision.

The swimming pool will be demolished in the same manner at the appropriate time ofyear, this may occur later on in Phase 2 of the development. A detailed methodstatement of all working methods will be required to accompany the Natural EnglandLicence application.

6.4 Habitat CreationT h h il bl f i h bi f b d h d f H h H


14/25


A pond is also proposed under the new house location and details are included withinthe landscape proposals.

6.5 ConclusionThe retention and enhancement of the stables as a roost site along with the provisionof potential roost opportunities on the new build and the timing of the proposeddemolition works aims to maintain the maternity colony of brown long eared bats andcommon pipistrelle bats at a favourable conservation status at Heath House. Whilst theproposed habitat creation as it matures will enhance the available foraging habitat forbats and improve site biodiversity as a whole.

References

Bat Conservation Trust (2000); Bats and Trees, a guide to the management of trees.The Bat Conservation Trust.

Bat Conservation Trust (2007); Bat Surveys Best Practice Guidelines

English Nature (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines.

Hutson, A. M. (1993). Action plan for conservation of bats in the United Kingdom. TheBat Conservation Trust, London.

JNCC (1999). Bat workers manual. Eds Mitchell-Jones, A.J. & McLeish, A.P. JointNature Conservation Committee.

Russ, Jon (1999) The Bats of Britain and Europe. Alana Books


15/25


Appendices

Phase 1 Habitat Plan


16/25

77.1m

77.7m

380600

380700

Heath House

Til

QrQr

Til

SI

A

A

SI Fs

Fs

Qr

SI

Ia Qr Bet

Leyl

A

SCALE REVISION

DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE

Heath House

Phase 1 Habitat Plan


17/25


Target Notes

Target Note Descripti on Comments on PotentialBiodiversity Value

1 Band of mature oak woodland dominated by Englishoak (Quercus robur), with occasional common lime(Tilia europaeus), with understorey of rhododendron(Rhododendron ponticum) and bramble (Rubusfruticosus agg). Bounded to road by Lleylandii,Laurel

(Prunus lusitanica) and holly (Ilex aquifolium)hedgerow.

Mature oak woodland of highbiodiversity value.

2 Pond with steep banks possibly stocked with coarsefish in the past. No great crested newts found to bepresent in spring 2011. Vegetation includes branchedbur reed (Sparganium erectum), rigid hornwort(Ceratophyllum demersum), yellow flag iris (Irispseudacorus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), greater pondsedge (Carex riparia) and reed canary grass (Phalaris

arundinacea).

Pond used as breeding habitat bysmall population of common toad(Bufo bufo) a UK BiodiversityAction Plan (BAP) PrioritySpecies.

3 Defunct and leggy species rich hedgerow withhawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), oak (Quercus robur),holly (Ilex aquifolium), birch (Betula spp), horsechestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), rose species(Rosa spp), beech (Fagus sylvatica) and elder(Sambucus nigra).

UK BAP Priority Habitat

4 Mature English oak (Quercus robur). Features of moderate value toroosting bats, no bats recordedemerging from tree during batactivity surveys.

5 Heath House Bat Roost

6 Swimming Pool Bat Roost

7 The Stables Bat Roost


18/25


Photographs

Northern elevation of Heath House


19/25


Western elevation of stables, with emergence points used by brown long eared bats circled.


20/25


Southern elevation of Heath House


21/25


Architects Drawings


22/25


23/25


24/25


25/25

heath house ecology report v2 2012.pdf

Documents