ribble remembrance · 2017. 3. 22. · bowland ecology ltd 1 control sheet 2 york street,...

Ecological Impact Assessment

Ribble Remembrance Park, Whalley

March 2017

Bowland Ecology Ltd 1

Control sheet

2 York Street, Clitheroe, Lancashire BB7 2DL Tel: 01200 446777 www.bowlandecology.co.uk

Job number: BOW17/583

Title: Ribble Remembrance Park Ecological Impact Assessment

Client: Buildings of Remembrance International Ltd.

Prepared by: Sarah Birtley, Ecologist

Checked by: Claire Wilson, Senior Ecologist Louise Redgrave, Principal Ecologist

Date of Issue: 16th March 2017

Version: 3

Revisions: 2

Status: Final

This report is prepared by Bowland Ecology Ltd. for the sole and exclusive use of Buildings of Remembrance International Ltd. in response to their particular instructions. No liability is accepted for any costs, claims or losses arising from the use of this report or any part thereof for any purpose other than that for which it was specifically prepared or by any party other than Buildings of Remembrance International Ltd. This report has been prepared by an environmental specialist and does not purport to provide legal advice. You may wish to take separate legal advice. The information which we have prepared and provided is true, and has been prepared and provided in accordance with the BS42020 and Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Code of Professional Conduct. We confirm that the opinions expressed are our true and professional bona fide opinions. Signed (Author) Signed (QA)

http://www.bowlandecology.co.uk/


Contents

Control sheet 1

Executive Summary 3

1. Introduction 4

2. Methodology 5

3. Results 10

4. Evaluation and Assessment of Potential Impacts 24

5. Recommendations and Mitigation 27

References 32

Legal Information 33

Appendix A – Extended Phase 1 Target Notes 36

Appendix B – Extended Phase 1 Habitat Plan 40

Appendix C – Bat Emergence/Re-entry Survey Plan 41

Appendix D – Bat Static Detector Results 42

Appendix E – List of Scientific Names 44

Appendix F – Proposed Plans 46

Appendix G – Results from LERN Data Search 47

Appendix H – Bat Information for Contractors 48


Executive Summary Bowland Ecology Ltd was commissioned in 2015 to undertake an extended Phase 1 Habitat survey, amphibian survey and bat survey at the Ribble Remembrance Park, off Mitton Road, Whalley. Proposed development at the site comprises the construction of a crematorium, funeral chapel and associated car parking. The site is subject to an existing planning permission, granted October 2015 (03/2015/0024) subject to conditions, however changes to the site layout (involving the widening and creation of new access roads within the woodland) have resulted in the need for a revised application (3/2017/0095). This report, originally submitted in support of the original planning application, has been revised in support of these changes, following comments by Ribble Valley Borough Council: "The Ecological Impact Assessment and Bat Method Statement should be amended to reflect the proposed new layout – this may include a requirement for the inspection of additional trees that now require removal as a result of the new road layout" This report includes a supplementary survey to assess bat roost potential within additional trees highlighted for removal in the updated arboricultural assessment (Bowland Tree Consultancy, 2017). The site comprises an area of broadleaved woodland leading and an area of rough semi-improved neutral grassland, two buildings are also present on site. Surveys and desk study information relating to the site have identified the following key issues to consider;

• Presence of nesting bird habitat in trees and woodland,

• Potential impacts on deciduous woodland, a Section 41 (NERC Act 2006) habitat,

• Presence of the invasive Schedule 9 plant species, Himalayan balsam;

• Impacts on roosting common pipistrelle and brown long-eared bats in two existing chapel buildings, due for conversion into offices; and,

• Potential for roosting bats within trees along proposed access routes.

Proposals for the site should take account of the key ecological interests listed above, and mitigate accordingly for impacts;

• Construction mitigation techniques to avoid impacts to nesting birds, specifically that any vegetation clearance should occur outside the breeding bird season (March – September),

• Landscaping works within the woodland should involve the translocation of bluebell bulbs and planting to mitigate for the loss of any trees,

• Implementation of control measures to prevent the spread of Himalayan balsam;

• Works to renovate the chapel buildings will require a European Protected Species mitigation licence for bats, obtained from Natural England; and,

• Careful working methods to minimise potential impacts to bats roosting within trees.


1. Introduction

1.1 Bowland Ecology Ltd was commissioned in 2015 by Buildings of Remembrance International Ltd. to undertake an extended Phase 1 habitat survey, amphibian survey, bat surveys and ecological assessment of an area of the Ribble Valley Remembrance Park off Mitton Road, Whalley, Lancashire (NGR: SD 72805 37592). This report is submitted in support of a planning application for the development of a crematorium, funeral chapel and associated car parking (3/2017/0095). Following changes to the site layout, a supplementary survey to assess bat roosting potential of additional trees due to be removed was undertaken in 2017.

1.2 The purpose of the surveys was to: 1) identify and map all habitats occurring

within the survey area, 2) identify the presence of (or potential for) wildlife interests and 3) provide an ecological assessment, identify potential impacts and provide recommendations pertaining to the proposed development.

1.3 This report includes a description of survey methods and results and outlines recommendations to provide protection, mitigation and enhancements for biodiversity and protected species. This report should be read in conjunction with target notes (1-13) as listed in Appendix A and shown on the Phase 1 plan (Appendix B). A full list of scientific names is presented in Appendix E.


2. Methodology

2.1 The desk study, extended Phase 1 Habitat survey and ecological appraisal follow the Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (GPEA) (CIEEM, 2013) and are in line with the British Standard ‘Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development’ (BS42020:2313).

Desk Study

2.2 The aim of the desk study was to identify the presence of statutory wildlife sites, non-statutory wildlife sites and any legally protected and notable species records for the area.

2.3 Local records on and within 1.5 km of the site were obtained following a data search with Lancashire Environmental Records Network (LERN).

2.4 The Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) website (http://magic.gov.uk/) was reviewed for information on locally, nationally and internationally designated sites of nature conservation importance (statutory sites only) on or within 1.5 km of the site boundary.

2.5 Ordnance survey (OS) maps and aerial photographs (reviewed online a http://maps.google.co.uk/maps), were used to help identify water bodies or other notable habitats within a 0.25 km buffer of the site which may identify as aquatic or terrestrial habitat for great crested newts. Although the species may use suitable terrestrial habitat up to 0.5 km from a breeding pond, in this instance a 0.25 km search radius was considered appropriate due to the small scale and localised nature of the works.

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

2.6 An extended Phase 1 Habitat survey was undertaken, following the extended phase 1 methodology (JNCC, 2010) and CIEEM, 2012). All features of ecological significance were target noted and the location of target notes are shown in Appendix B. A colour coded map of the habitats on site is produced, with corresponding target notes of ecologically interesting features (Appendix B).

2.7 The survey was carried out by Sarah Birtley MBiolSci (Hons) on the 20th

March 2015. The weather was dry, cold and cloudy.

2.8 This survey method records information on the habitats together with any evidence of and potential for legally protected and notable species, in particular:

• potential roosting sites for bats within buildings and trees (identification of suitable cracks and crevices – survey undertaken externally and from ground only);

• assessing the suitability of habitats for other notable and protected species such as nesting birds (including any active or disused nests), reptiles, water vole, otter, white-clawed crayfish, badger and invertebrates.

• checking for the most common invasive plant species subject to strict legal control (Japanese knotweed, giant knotweed, hybrid knotweed,


giant hogweed, rhododendron and Himalayan balsam) within the survey area.

• assessing the suitability of the habitat for amphibians and for the protected species, great crested newt. Ponds on site and within 0.25 km will be subject to a habitat suitability index (HSI) (Oldham et al 2000) assessment for great crested newt (access dependant).

2.9 The Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) for the great crested newt was developed by Oldham et al. (2000). A HSI is a numerical index, between 0 and 1. Values close to 0 indicate unsuitable habitat, 1 represents optimal habitat. The HSI for the great crested newt incorporates 10 suitability indices, all of which are factors known to affect this species. The HSI for great crested newts is a measure of habitat suitability - it is not a substitute for newt surveys.

Supplementary Bat Roost Assessment of Trees

2.10 A supplementary assessment of bat roosting potential within trees was undertaken by Sarah Birtley MBiolSci (Hons), ACIEEM on the 13th March 2017, focussing on trees highlighted for removal within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment Overview (Bowland Tree Consultancy, 2017). The suitability of trees identified as having potential to support roosting bats was classified in line with Collins (2016).

2.11 Around three quarters of British bat species are known to roost in trees. These may be in nursery roosts during the summer or, particularly in the autumn, solitary males may also use loose bark or smaller crevices as mating roosts. The Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines state that initial tree inspections can be carried out at any time of year, although winter surveys are likely to reveal more potential; summer surveys are more likely to reveal signs of activity. The survey was carried out in March when the trees had no foliage, therefore a full and thorough assessment of the trees and their potential to provide bat roosting habitat was undertaken.

Bat Survey

The building inspection and bat emergence/re-entry surveys follow the guidance set out in the Bat Survey Good Practice Guidelines 2nd Edition (BCT 2012).

Building inspection survey

2.12 Following the extended Phase 1 habitat survey, during which the buildings on site were identified as having potential to support roosting bats, a detailed, daytime external and internal building inspection was completed. The survey was undertaken on April 9th 2015 by Sarah Birtley MBiolSci (Hons) and Mark Breaks BSc (Hons).

2.13 Building inspection surveys comprise an internal and external inspection of all accessible buildings and suitable structures on site for evidence of use by bats. A search was undertaken to check for bats and field signs of bats such as; bat droppings, urine stains, bat feeding remains (moth wings, insect cases), bat staining, a distinctive smell of bats, scratch marks and smoothing of surfaces which would indicate a roost site. An assessment of the potential of each building to support roosting bats was also made during the survey. High power torches (Cluson Clu-lite 500,000 candlepower) and close focus binoculars were used to aid the survey.


2.14 Natural England’s Bat Mitigation Guidelines (2004) state that a significant bat roost can normally be determined on a single visit at any time of the year, provided that the entire structure is accessible and that signs of bats have not been removed by others.

2.15 The potential for a building to support bats was assessed according to the categories given in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Bat potential category descriptions for buildings (Hundt. L 2012)

Emergence/re-entry surveys and static detector deployment

2.16 A total of three bat emergence/re-entry (two dusk, one dawn) surveys were undertaken on the buildings on site, between May and August 2015. The surveys were undertaken by Sarah Birtley MBiolSci (Hons) (SB), Claire Wilson MSc, BSc (Hons), ACIEEM (CW), Mark Breaks BSc (Hons) (MB), Louise Redgrave MA (Oxon), MSc, MCIEEM, CEnv, CEcol (LR), Jeremy James MSc, BSc (Hons), MCIEEM, CEcol, CEnv, (JJ) and David Fisher BEd (DF), with the aid of the following bat detectors; Batbox Duet, Batbox XD, Petterssen D230, EM3, EM Touch and Anabat Express.

2.17 The surveyors positioned themselves to get the best coverage of the site at locations A, B and C (Appendix C), and used the results of the daytime

Category

(Potential to support roosting bats)

Description (Categories for Buildings)

Negligible potential Buildings with no features capable of supporting roosting bats. Often these buildings are of a ‘sound’ well-sealed nature, or have a single skin and no roof void. They tend to have high interior light-levels, and little or no insulation. Buildings without any roofs may also fall into this category.

Low potential Buildings with limited features for roosting bats (e.g. shallow crevices where mortar is missing between building blocks/bricks). They may have open locations which may be subject to large temperature fluctuations and bat-access points may be constrained. No evidence of bats found (e.g. droppings / staining). Buildings may be surrounded by poor or sub-optimal bat foraging habitat. No evidence of bats found.

Moderate potential Buildings with some features suitable for roosting bats. Usually of brick or stone construction with a small number of features of potential value to roosting bats e.g. loose roof / ridge tiles, gaps in brickwork, gaps under fascia boards, and/or warm sealed roof-spaces with under-felt. Buildings may be used as occasional or transient roosts in the summer, but are unsuitable for large colonies. No evidence of bats found.

High potential Buildings with a large number of features or extensive areas of obvious potential for roosting bats. Generally they have sheltered locations, with a stable temperature regime and suitable bat-access points. Could be suitable for a maternity roost. No evidence of bats found.

Confirmed roost Bats discovered roosting within the building, or recorded emerging / entering the building at dusk / dawn. Building found to contain conclusive evidence of occupation by bats, such as bat droppings. A confirmed record (as supplied by an established source such as the local bat group) would also apply to this category.


building inspection to focus in on the areas of the site with potential bat roosting habitat. During the dawn survey undertaken on the 17th July, one surveyor was positioned at location D to observe the large oak tree. At the time of survey it was considered that the tree may be impacted during construction works due to the proximity of the proposed new building, however, the building has since been relocated away from the aforementioned tree.

2.18 Table 2 below detailed the dates, times, surveyors and weather conditions of each emergence/re-entry survey;

Table 2. Weather conditions during emergence/re-entry bat surveys

Date Surveyors Weather conditions Dusk/Dawn Start time End time

9th June SB, CW, JJ Overcast, humid with frequent light showers.

Dusk 21.20 23.20

17th July SB, JJ, MB 15°C, fine and mild, light drizzle at start.

Dawn 03.40 05.00

12th August SB, LR, DF 18°C, fine and calm, no cloud

Dusk 20.25 22.20

2.19 In addition to emergence and re-entry surveys, a static recording detector

was deployed in the rear entrance to building 1 (Appendix C) in order to gather additional information regarding the use of the building by bats. The Anabat Express static detector was deployed between the 9th and 17th June, recording bat echolocations between sunset and sunrise.

2.20 Bat calls recorded by the Anabat express were analysed using Analook software to identify the species present, calculate the number of passes by each species per dusk/dawn period and determine the time of the recordings in relation to sunset/sunrise.

Amphibian Survey

2.21 Two torchlight surveys were undertaken on the 12th May and 9th June, at the pond located in the Calderstones Hospital Woodland/Railway Site Biological Heritage Site, south of the site boundary. The surveys were undertaken by Jeremy James MSc, BSc (Hons), MCIEEM CEcol, CEnv. Two visits were considered to be sufficient as there are no records for the species within 0.50 km of the pond and there are no other ponds located within 0.25 km of the site boundary.

2.22 The methods employed during the surveys included searching available vegetation for eggs, using a high powered torch (500,000 candlepower lamp) to search for amphibians after dark and terrestrial searching of any surrounding suitable habitat, such as log piles. The very shallow water level (1-2 cm) prevented the use of netting and bottle trapping methods.

Survey Limitations

2.23 Ecological surveys are limited by factors which affect the presence of plants and animals such as the time of year, migration patterns and behaviour. Therefore the survey of this site has not produced a complete list of plants and animals.


2.24 The list of invasive plant species included on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is extensive and these plants are found in a range of different habitats, including aquatic habitats. The extended Phase 1 survey checked, in particular, for the presence of Japanese knotweed, giant knotweed, hybrid knotweed, giant hogweed, rhododendron and Himalayan balsam. There may be other invasive plant species present on the site which were not recorded, but it is considered that this survey is sufficient to identify any significant constraints posed by invasive plants.

2.25 The results of this ecological survey have allowed an evaluation of the likely use of the site by protected and controlled species, the need for any additional survey work and the requirement for any mitigation works.

2.26 An assessment of effects on ecological features has been made using the available design and survey information and the professional judgement of the ecologist. This includes a consideration of the relevant legislation and planning guidance. If there are changes to the proposals, such as a change to the proposed development design or to the construction method and programme, the assessment would need to be reviewed.


3. Results

Statutory and Non-Statutory Wildlife Sites

3.1 There are no statutory sites located on or within 1.5 km of the site. 3.2 There are seven Biological Heritage Sites (BHS) on or within 1.5 km of the

site;

• Calderstones Hospital Woodland/Railway Line BHS extends east from the grounds of the Calderstones hospital to include the area of dismantled railway immediately south of the proposed development site. The BHS comprises alder and willow carr woodland, areas of swamp and grassland.

• Hard Hill Common BHS is located approximately 0.33 km north of the site. The BHS includes areas of purple moor-grass and rush pasture, diverse flushed habitats and areas of woodland flora.

• Barrow Brook Field BHS, located approximately 0.38 km north-east of the site and immediately east of the live railway. Comprises an area of damp, species rich, semi-natural neutral grassland.

• Mitton Wood BHS is located approximately 0.97 km east of the site boundary, at the confluence of the river Calder with the river Ribble. The woodland is listed in the Lancashire Inventory of Ancient Woodland.

• Mitton Hall Wood BHS, located approximately 1.35 km north-west of the site. It is a narrow band of woodland and scrub bordering the river Ribble.

• River Ribble BHS comprises the river and associated habitats and at the closest point and is located approximately 1.35 km north-west of the site.

• Small Field BHS is situated approximately 1.4 km north-east of the site and comprises a small area of semi-natural neutral grassland, flush and a stream.

Protected Species and Habitats Records

3.3 LERN provided species records inside a 1.5 km search buffer within the last 15 years. The records include the following species listed under the Section 41 (NERC Act 2006).

• Amphibians; great crested newt, common toad.

• Birds; house sparrow, lapwing, starling.

• Fish; European eel.

• Terrestrial mammals; pipistrelle species, brown hare, European otter.

• Insects; cinnabar, lunar hornet moth.

• Invasive species; Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam, monkeyflower, rhododendron, giant hogweed.

3.4 The search of Multi Agency Geographical Information Centre

(www.magic.gov.uk) identified several areas classified as Habitats of Principal Importance under the 2006 NERC Act within 1.5 km of the development site;

• 59 scattered areas of deciduous woodland priority habitat, of which two areas are located on site, either side of the path leading to the lych gate (TN2). The southernmost patch of woodland extends into the adjacent disused railway which also contains a pond (P1).


• Three areas of lowland fen priority habitat, the closest of which is located 0.32 km north of the site boundary.

• Two small areas of purple moor-grass and rush pasture, the closest of which is located approximately 0.35 km north of the site boundary, along Barrow Brook.

• One area of lowland calcareous grassland priority habitat, located approximately 0.37 km north-west of the site.

• One area of traditional orchard, located approximately 1.5 km south of the site boundary.

3.5 Three areas of ancient woodland are located within 1.5 km of the site, the closest of which is located 0.97 km south-west of the site boundary.

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

3.6 Target notes summarising key interest features for wildlife recorded during the extended Phase 1 Habitat survey are included in Appendix A. The Phase 1 Habitat plan for the study site is presented in Appendix B which includes the habitats present on site and the locations of the target notes.

3.7 The site is located just off Mitton Lane, Whalley, Lancashire. The site itself

comprises an area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland which opens out into rough grassland. The surrounding landscape comprises a mix of urban and rural areas, with both residential housing and grazing pasture surrounding the site.

Habitats

Semi natural broadleaved woodland (TN2) 3.8 Approximately one third of the site comprises an area of semi-natural

broadleaved woodland, extending from the site entrance to the lych gate. The canopy is dominated by ash, sycamore and beech, with occasional hawthorn, alder, poplar and oak. A diverse ground flora is dominated by lesser celandine, creeping buttercup, wood avens, wood anemone, and dog’s mercury. Scattered stands of pendulous sedge are also present, as well as English bluebell, which is more frequent towards the eastern side of the woodland. At the time of survey the Himalayan balsam was present in the north-eastern corner of the woodland at TN6. Semi-improved neutral grassland (TN12)

3.9 A large area of semi-improved neutral grassland exists between the woodland edge and the memorial to the west of the site. The grassland is rough and unmanaged, dominated by springy turf moss and tussock forming grasses such as cock’s-foot and tufted hair-grass. Also present within the sward is Yorkshire fog, occasional crested dog’s-tail, and herb species including lesser celandine, common sorrel, common knapweed, ribwort plantain, creeping buttercup, creeping thistle, willowherb, cow parsley and herb Robert. Approaching the boundary fence, spear thistle, hard rush and soft rush become more frequent. A small graveyard is present in the south-eastern corner of the grassland, where the occasional stand of pampus grass is present.

3.10 Either side of the entrance to the site, small areas of grassland are present, dominated by a mix of herb species including lords and ladies, daffodil, bramble, creeping buttercup, cleavers, garlic mustard, broad-leaved dock, wood avens, dandelion, willowherb species, lesser celandine and herb Robert.


Individual trees (TN’s 3, 5, 7 and 13)

3.11 Occasional hawthorn trees are present along the site boundary, adjacent to the expanse of rough grassland. A small group of alder, hawthorn and oak trees are located within the north-eastern corner of the grassland (TN13).

Dry ditches (TN4)

3.12 A series of shallow dry ditches with gently sloping banks are present within the woodland at TN2. Woodland flora described under TN2 is well established and a lack of aquatic vegetation indicates that the ditches are rarely wet. Ephemeral habitat (TN6 and TN8)

3.13 Areas of patchy, ephemeral vegetation are present on several of the gravel and earth mounds present within the woodland and along the grassland perimeter. Species present include lesser celandine, common nettle, creeping buttercup and herb Robert.

3.14 A strip of ephemeral habitat, comprising sparse bryophyte cover and scattered grass cover, runs up the centre of the path leading from the site entrance through the woodland and grassland. Bare ground

3.15 Bare compacted earth is present on the path leading through the site. Tall ruderal (TN8)

3.16 Tall ruderal vegetation is established on the mounds at TN5. Tall herb species present include rosebay willowherb, great willowherb and common nettle. The mound has also been colonised by tussocky grass species, including cock’s-foot and tufted hair-grass, pendulous sedge and occasional bramble scrub. Buildings/Lych Gate (TN's 9, 10 and 11)

3.17 Two small disused chapel buildings are located at the border of the woodland and grassland. Both buildings are constructed of red brick, with pitched slate roofs, timber supports and boarded windows.

3.18 The lych gate is constructed in a similar fashion to the chapel buildings, with red brick, painted timber supports and a pitched slate roof. The gateway is located between the two buildings, set back slightly within the woodland. Introduced shrub (TN's 6 and 10)

3.19 Himalayan balsam is present in a small area of the woodland immediately west of the small building at TN10 around one of the small earth/gravel mounds at TN6.

Fauna

Birds 3.20 The woodland and scattered trees onsite (TN’s 2, 3, 7 and 13) provide

nesting and foraging habitat for breeding birds. The buildings and lych gate also have potential to be used by nesting birds. At the time of survey a disused blackbird/song thrush nest was recorded above a roof support in the lych gate.


Amphibians 3.21 One pond (P1) was identified within 0.25 km of the site, located in the disused

railway, adjacent to the southern site boundary. The pond is very shallow and turbid with the existing bricks used to line the railway forming low, vertical banks. One area of the pond appeared to have a slight flow, leading to an outflow pipe passing underneath the road. Vegetation present both along the banks and in shallow areas of the pond comprises; lesser spearwort, lesser celandine, wood avens, pendulous sedge, cleavers, common nettle, meadowsweet and bramble. Several semi-mature alders are present in the pond and occasional broken dead tree limbs were present on the banks and in the water. The surrounding habitat is broadleaved woodland, shading the pond on all sides. A HSI assessment of the pond gave it a score of 0.49, indicating that the pond is of low suitability for great crested newts.

3.22 The following table gives the scores for each of the 10 indices used in the habitat suitability assessment and the overall score:

Table 3 – HSI assessment results for P1

Pond No.

SI1 - Location

SI2 - Pond area

SI3 - Pond drying

SI4 - Water quality

SI5 - Shade

SI6 - Fowl

SI7 - Fish

SI8 - Ponds

SI9 - Terr'l habitat

SI10 - Macrophytes

HSI

P1 1 0.8 0.1 0.33 0.2 1 1 0.7 0.67 0.35 0.49

3.23 The woodland and grassland habitats on site provide suitable terrestrial

habitat for amphibians.


Bats

3.24 The buildings on site (TN9 – B1 and TN10 – B2) have high potential to support roosting bats. Roosting features present include; numerous gaps in rotted soffits and fascias below the guttering, small gaps under ridge tiles, spaces under lead flashing on the roofs, broken roof tiles and open doors leading into B1. The building inspection survey results below provide detailed building descriptions along with evidence of bats found inside the buildings.

3.25 During the extended Phase 1 Habitat survey undertaken in 2015, four trees were identified on site with potential to support roosting bats. The trees were all assessed as having Category 2 status, with features offering limited potential to support roosting bats. Tree descriptions and photographs are presented within Appendix A.

Bat Roost Assessment of Trees

3.26 The supplementary tree survey undertaken in 2017 focussed solely on trees proposed for removal. This survey identified six additional trees with potential to support roosting bats. The semi-mature ivy clad ash was the only tree identified in both original and supplementary surveys (all other trees identified during the Phase 1 Habitat survey are not due to be affected by the proposals). The following table summarises the potential bat roost features and suitability. Tree numbers correspond with the arboricultural assessment report (Bowland Tree Consultancy, 2017). Table 4 - Summary of trees with bat roosting potential identified for removal.

Tree reference

Description of roosting features and potential

Photographs

T29 A semi-mature ash located adjacent to the existing wall at the site entrance has moderate ivy cladding. The tree is considered to have low bat roost potential.

T24 A mature ash adjacent to the

existing track has a small number of knot holes within the canopy, offering low bat roost potential.


Tree reference

Description of roosting features and potential

Photographs

G8 Two ash trees located south of the access track, recommended for removal due to short expected life expectancies. Both feature large open wounds within the main stem. Rotten heartwood and a thick healing collar have small gaps which may be exploited by crevice dwelling species. Overall the trees are considered to offer moderate potential for roosting bats.

T37 A mature ash situated adjacent to the access track features two crossing limbs within the canopy. Potential gaps, if sufficiently sheltered, may be used by crevice dwelling species. The tree has low potential for roosting bats.

T36 A mature ash located adjacent to

T37 is recommended for removal due to a short projected life expectancy. However, the tree is considered to offer low to moderate potential for roosting bats. Potential roost features comprise three closely spaced knot holes within a canopy limb.

T6 A semi-mature alder,

recommended for removal due to a short projected life expectancy, has a hollow main stem with three open wounds extending to approximately 1.8 m. The tree is considered to offer low to low to moderate potential for roosting bats.

Amphibian survey

3.27 Table 5 presents a summary of the torchlight surveys undertaken at P1. No evidence of any amphibian species was found during the surveys.


Table 5 – Amphibian survey results

P1 GCN Smooth newt

Palmate newt

Palmate/smooth ♀ indet.

Other (specify)

Notes

♂ ♀ indet. ♂ ♀ ♂ ♀

Visit 1 - 12.05.15

Temp: 12 °C min / Weather: Overcast, mild / Turbidity: 1 / Veg Cover: 10%

Torch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Midge larvae Water depth <1 cm

Egg Search 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Refugia search 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Visit 2 - 09.06.15

Temp: 5 °C min / Weather: Dry, clear, no breeze / Turbidity: 4 / Veg Cover: 10%

Torch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water depth <1 cm

Egg Search 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Refugia search 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Building Inspection

3.28 Descriptions of the interior and exterior of the buildings on site are given below. Table 6 outlines the potential bat roosting features of the buildings, evidence of bats found during the survey and the potential of the buildings to support roosting bats.

3.29 The former chapel buildings and lych gate are situated centrally within the site, adjacent to semi-natural broadleaved woodland, which provides optimal foraging habitat for bats. Further areas of scattered woodland, hedges and the dismantled railway adjacent to the site provide additional foraging and commuting features within the wider landscape. Potential roosting opportunities in the surrounding landscape include residential buildings, bridges and trees.

Building 1

3.30 Building 1 comprises a small, single storey disused chapel building of red brick construction (Photo 1). Externally, the building features a traditional slate pitched roof and a small flat roofed annex covered with lead flashing (Photo 2). The roof is in a poor condition and the timber soffits and fascia boards below the overhanging eaves are rotted. The northern gable end has decorative timber cladding and white render. Four pairs of windows, the large door to the north of the building and a further two windows above the southern gable end are all boarded over. Both timber doors below the flat roof section are open.


3.31 Internally, the layout of Building 1 comprises a single large space with two adjoining smaller storage areas to the south of the building. The main room lacks an enclosed roof void and features exposed timber rafters, ridge boards and purlins (Photo 3). A timber arch-braced truss supports the roof in the centre of the building. The two smaller rooms have boarded ceilings and an exposed steel supporting beam running parallel with the adjoining wall. A gap adjacent to the steel beam leads upwards to an internal cavity (Photos 4-5).

Building 2 3.32 Building 2 utilises the same materials and construction design as Building 1,

except the two small storage spaces are situated at the northern end of the building and the flat roof is covered with roofing felt. All doors and windows to the building are fully boarded and the majority are well sealed (Photos 6-7).

3.33 Internally, Building 2 has timber framing and the remains of a plasterboard partition wall and ceiling that has now fallen through (Photo 8). The internal roof structure is the same as that of Building 1, with exposed timber supports and an arch-braced truss. Two disused birds’ nests are present along the ridge board. The two small additions have doors leading into the main room

Photo 1 Photo 2

Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5

Photo 6 Photo 7


and also feature a steel supporting beam above the divide and an associated cavity leading upwards (Photo 9).

Building 3

3.34 The lych gate comprises an open structure on timber supports, with a slate, pitched roof (Photo 10).

Photo 8 Photo 9

Photo 10


Building Inspection

3.35 Table 6 below provides information relating to the building inspection carried out at the site. Table 6: A summary of the three main buildings on site outlining the key features which may be used by bats, evidence found which may indicate the presence of bats and the predicted risk of the building (B1-B3).

Bat roosting features

Evidence Additional photographs Risk

B1

The exterior of the building offers potential roosting sites in the form of loose roof tiles, ventilation bricks, gaps beneath lead flashing and numerous holes in the timber soffits and fascia boards leading to a narrow boxed void running the length of the eaves. The open addition area on the southern elevation allows access to the building’s interior via a cavity between two interior walls. Access to the interior is also provided by a gap below the ridge tile towards the northern side of the roof (daylight seen entering from the inside the building).

There was no evidence of bats using the void behind the soffits/fascia boarding for roosting. Internally, abundant droppings and feeding remains in the form of butterfly wings are present inside the main room and the adjoining porch areas. This evidence suggests that bats which feed on butterfly/moth prey (e.g. brown long-eared) may use the space as a sheltered feeding perch. Numerous bat droppings were present on the interior wall of the porch area, suggesting this is a key access point for bats using the building.

High

B2

Building 2 also offers several features that may be used by single bats, including gaps underneath broken roof tiles, potential gaps in loose mortar between bricks and potential spaces under loose boarding over windows. The building also has a boxed area behind the rotted timber soffits and fascia boards, with a narrow cavity behind. On the southern gable end a hole in the timber framing may provide internal access (though no daylight could be seen entering from within the building). The doors to the building are sealed shut and there is no open access (as in B1) to the inside.

An internal and external inspection of B2 did not identify any evidence of bats using the buildings. There is no obvious access to the inside of the building as no daylight could be seen entering from within. However, numerous gaps and small crevices associated with the building’s exterior provide roosting opportunities for small numbers of crevice dwelling species, such as Pipistrelle spp., whiskered bats and Brandt’s bats.

High


Bat roosting features

Evidence Additional photographs Risk

B3

The lych gate structure is generally well sealed, however there are loose roofing tiles present.

No evidence of roosting bats was identified during the building inspection survey. Crevice dwelling species may find roosting opportunities below roof tiles.

Moderate


Bat Emergence/Re-entry Surveys

3.36 Emergence/re-entry surveys of the two former chapel buildings were carried out over three visits between June and August 2015. The large oak tree located within the rough grassland was also subject to a re-entry survey on the 17th July. The findings of these surveys are detailed below.

Building 1 (TN9)

1st visit (9th June -Surveyors SB, CW, JJ): 3.37 The dusk emergence survey in June commenced at 21.20, 19 minutes prior to

sunset (21.39), through to 23.20. The survey identified one possible emergence, considered likely to be a brown long-eared bat due to the evidence of butterfly wings, commonly associated with the feeding remains of brown long-eared bats during the building inspection. The bat was observed briefly in low light conditions and was not echolocating, from the open doorway on the southern elevation of the building at 22.19. Prior to that time a single brown long-eared was seen to fly in and straight out of the open doorway at 22.09. Additional observations of commuting and foraging bats detected during the survey comprised; two noctule bats commuting north and a further four noctule bats not observed by the surveyors (between 22.22 and 22.59); common pipistrelle bats foraging along the woodland edge and around the buildings from 21.47 and a possible (detected briefly) Myotis bat also foraging around the buildings at 22.38. 2nd visit (17th July – Surveyors SB, MB):

3.38 The bat survey in July started at 03.40 and ended at 05.00 (sunrise). The survey was undertaken before dawn in order to identify bats returning to potential roosting sites within the building. Between 03.49 and 04.31 three brown long-eared bats were observed flying into the building via the open door and a total of four were seen emerging from the building. Commuting noctule bats (five passes between 04.10 and 04.43, flying north); foraging common pipistrelle (12 passes between 04.09 and 04.34) and foraging soprano pipistrelle (five passes between 04.25 and 04.37) were also observed throughout the survey. 3rd visit (12th August SB, LR, DF), 20.46 sunset:

3.39 The August dusk survey commenced at 20.25, 21 minutes before sunset at 20.46, and ended at 22.20. During the survey, the surveyor at Location A observed six confirmed emergences and two possible emergences of brown long-eared bats, exiting out of the open door at the rear of the building towards the woodland. These occurred between 21.13 and 21.30, from 27 minutes after sunset. Video footage of the survey indicates that a total of 16 bats emerged from the building between 21.12 and 21.34. Between 21.21 and 21.45 a further seven observations of brown long-eared bats were recorded foraging over the grassland around the buildings and along the edge of the woodland. The surveyor at Location B observed brown long-eared bats (5 passes) flying around the building, between 21.28 and 22.11. The surveyor at Location B also observed a single common pipistrelle emerge from the north facing gable end of the building at 21.02. In addition to brown long-eared bats and common pipistrelle; soprano pipistrelle, Myotis species and noctule bats were detected by both surveyors. A noctule was observed commuting north over the grassland at 21.15. A further four noctule passes (bats not seen) were recorded between 21.17 and 22.05. Common and soprano pipistrelle bats were observed frequently foraging around the buildings and in the woodland canopy from 21.05 until 21.58. A single Myotis bat was detected between 21.45 and 21.55 flying low over the grassland close to the building. It was noted by both surveyors that bat activity levels significantly decreased after 22.00.


Building 2 (TN10)

1st visit (9th June SB, CW, JJ): 3.40 During the initial dusk emergence survey (21.20 to 23.20, sunset time: 21.39) two

common pipistrelles were observed emerging from the southern gable end at 22.01 and 22.07. A further two possible (low light conditions hindered view) emergences of common pipistrelle from the southern gable end occurred at 22.20. In addition, common pipistrelle bats were detected foraging over the grassland and woodland east and west of the buildings throughout the survey. A possible Myotis species was detected flying along the woodland edge at 22.03 and an unseen noctule bat was heard commuting overhead at 22.38. 2nd visit (17th July SB, JJ, MB):

3.41 No bats were seen returning to the building to roost during the second visit (03.40 – 05.00, sunrise time: 05.00). Common pipistrelles were observed foraging above the woodland edge intermittently between 04.14 and 04.36. A total of three noctule bat passes (bats unseen) were recorded at 04.11, 04.13 and 04.22. 3rd visit (12th August SB, LR, DF):

3.42 No bats were observed emerging from the building during the survey (20.25 – 22.20, sunset time 20.46). The first bat detected by the surveyor at Location C was a common pipistrelle bat foraging around the woodland edge at 21.08. From 21.11 to 22.15, common pipistrelle bats were frequently observed foraging around the building. At 21.30 a common pipistrelle bat flew towards the building and was seen to briefly hang up under the eaves prior to taking flight again. Two noctule bats were observed at 21.15 and 21.17 flying north over the grassland east of the building and a Myotis bat (unseen) was detected at 22.00 and 22.09. Oak tree (TN13) Visit (17th July, JJ)

3.43 During the dawn survey, common pipistrelle and Myotis bats were detected foraging around the oak tree and occasional noctule bats were recorded (not seen) commuting overhead. At 04.25 a common pipistrelle was considered to have roosted in the canopy of the oak tree as the bat was not seen commuting away from the tree.

Static Detector Survey

3.44 A single Anabat express static detector was deployed on site on the 9th June, just within the rear doorway to Building 1 (Appendix C), recording information on bat calls for a total of eight nights. Sonogram analysis of zero-crossing recordings using Analook software identified the following bat species on site during this period; common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, brown-long eared, noctule and Myotis bats. Appendix D presents a summary of the recordings, comprising the number of passes recorded per species for each dusk and dawn period and the time after sunset/before sunrise that the first and last bat passes were detected. The timing of recordings can be an indication of the likely presence of an active roost within proximity of the site if bats are detected within the time period that bats are considered likely to emerge/re-enter a roost.

3.45 Over the total period the most frequently recorded species was common pipistrelle (n = 706; 87.9% of all recorded bat passes), followed by noctule (n = 68; 8.5%), brown long-eared (n = 16, 2%), Myotis (n = 8, 1%) and soprano pipistrelle (n = 5; 0.62%).

3.46 During the dusk recording periods, the timing of initial common pipistrelle recordings ranges from between 19 and 32 minutes after sunset. Noctule bats


were recorded in small numbers (2 – 11 passes) across the majority of dusk and dawn periods. Timings of recorded noctule bat passes commence from as early as 8 minutes after sunset and conclude at sunrise. No brown long-eared bats were recorded during the dusk time periods and a small number (16) were detected during the dawn period, between the times of 00.46 and 04.24. Soprano pipistrelle and Myotis bats were recorded on the static detector between the times of 22.25 and 01.18 and 23.45 and 01.44 respectively.


4. Evaluation and Assessment of Potential Impacts

Scheme Proposal

4.1 Proposals for the site involve the construction of a crematorium building and funeral chapel, with associated car park in Whalley, Lancashire (Appendix F). The scheme will also involve improved vehicular access for construction and landscaping works within the woodland.

Evaluation and Impact Assessment

Designated Sites 4.2 There are no statutory designated wildlife sites within 1.5 km of the site. Seven

Biological Heritage Sites (BHS) are located within 1.5 km of the site. The Calderstones Hospital Woodland/Railway Line BHS adjoins the southern boundary of the development site.

4.3 A portion of the Calderstones Hospital Woodland/Railway Line BHS is located

immediately adjacent to the wooded section of the southern site boundary. This non-statutory wildlife site represents an important length of continuous and connective habitat and it will be retained. If unmitigated, construction activities may impact upon this locally important wildlife corridor through physical damage, including trampling and disturbance to the soil/ground flora.

4.4 Due to the small footprint of the proposed works and the distance between the development site and the remaining BHSs (>0.3 km) no other non-statutory wildlife sites are considered to be at risk from the proposal.

Habitats

4.5 Habitats of listed in Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 within 1.5 km of the site include; lowland calcareous grassland, lowland fen, purple moor-grass and rush pasture, deciduous woodland and traditional orchard.

4.6 The habitats present within the site include; bare earth, ephemeral vegetation, tall ruderal, deciduous woodland, semi-improved neutral grassland, scattered scrub, scattered trees and introduced shrub. Of particular note is the deciduous woodland at TN2, which is listed as a Habitat of Principal Importance (HPI) under Section 41 of the NERC Act (2006).

4.7 The proposed scheme will result in the loss of some areas of semi-improved neutral grassland, tall ruderal vegetation and ephemeral vegetation. These habitats are commonly occurring and of low ecological value, therefore it is considered that the development is not likely to have any impacts in respect of these habitat types.

4.8 Under revised changes to the site layout, areas of broadleaved woodland HPI will be lost to accommodate the widening and creation of new access roads. Additional temporary disturbance of woodland ground flora, including areas supporting English bluebell, is also likely during construction and landscaping works.

Invasive species

4.9 Himalayan balsam is an invasive species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, meaning it is illegal to cause the plant to spread in the wild. There is a risk that the proposed landscaping works to be undertaken in the woodland could cause the spread of this species unless appropriate mitigation measures are undertaken.


Fauna Birds

4.10 The broadleaved woodland and scattered trees offer nesting and foraging habitats for birds. The buildings and lych gate also provide potential nesting sites.

4.11 Any removal of trees as a result of the proposed works would result in the loss of habitat for nesting birds and could result in disturbance and the killing or injury of birds, nests and eggs if site clearance is carried out within the breeding bird season (March – September). This would be an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended.

4.12 The buildings and lych gate present on site also provide nesting habitat for bird species. A disused nest was identified above a supporting timber in the lych gate. Further evidence of nesting birds in the form of droppings down external walls of the buildings was also identified during the surveys and disused nests were identified inside the buildings during the building inspection survey. Conversion and restoration of the buildings may result in disturbance to breeding birds if works are completed within the breeding bird season. Amphibians

4.13 Terrestrial habitat used by foraging, resting and dispersing amphibians is provided by the rough grassland and deciduous woodland on site.

4.14 There is one pond within 0.25 km of the site (P1), located within the dismantled railway, immediately south of the woodland on site. The pond falls within the Calderstones Hospital Woodland/Railway Line BHS. The pond is likely to be ephemeral, with few aquatic plant species suitable for egg laying and was assessed to provide poor habitat suitability for great crested newts. The site offers potential refugia/hibernation habitats for amphibians in the form of woodland, unmanaged grassland and piles of debris/rubble.

4.15 The data search with LERN identified a total of 23 records for great crested newts (in the years 2009 and 2011) at a cluster of locations within the 1.5 km search area. The closest of these records is approximately 0.73 km south of the site, beyond the A59 (Appendix G).

4.16 The broadleaved woodland and rough grassland on site could provide suitable

habitat for amphibian species particularly great crested newts during the terrestrial phase. However, the distance between the site and potentially suitable breeding habitat and the significant barrier (A59) between other suitable great crested newt breeding habitats reduces the suitability of the habitats on site to support great crested newts.

4.17 Given the close proximity of the pond to the development site, two amphibian

survey visits were undertaken. It was considered that two surveys were sufficient as the pond was very shallow, likely to dry out and offered poor habitat suitability for great crested newts. The surveys found no evidence of any amphibians, including great crested newts. It is considered unlikely that great crested newts would be present on site; therefore they are not considered further within this report.

Bats

4.18 The buildings on site (B1 and B2) have been identified as supporting roosting common pipistrelle (maximum 2 bats emerged), and brown long-eared bats


(maximum 16 bats emerged). The surveys suggest the common pipistrelle roosts comprise transitional day roosts, whereas the brown long-eared roost is likely to be a small maternity roost. Common pipistrelle and brown long-eared bats are both common and widespread in England. Common pipistrelle roosts containing 1-2 individual bats are considered to be of low conservation importance in accordance with Mitchell-Jones (2004). The brown long-eared maternity roost is considered to be of moderate conservation importance.

4.19 The proposal involves the conversion of these buildings into offices. As roosting bats are known to be present, construction works could lead to the loss of roosting habitat and/or blocking access to suitable roosting habitat, as well as potential disturbance, injury and mortality to common pipistrelle and brown long-eared bats.

4.20 Four trees on site have been identified as having potential to support roosting bats, assessed as having Category 2 status (Hundt, L. 2012). Of these, the large oak tree situated in the grassland at the eastern end of the site (TN13) was subject to a single dawn re-entry survey, during which a common pipistrelle was thought to have roosted in the canopy, as it was seen foraging around the tree, but not flying away from the tree during the dawn survey. However, the proposed crematorium building has since been relocated away from the oak tree, hence it is anticipated that there will be no impacts to the aforementioned tree.

4.21 Of the trees proposed for removal under current plans, seven were identified as having potential to support roosting bats during the supplementary tree assessment undertaken in March 2017. They were assessed as having low, low to moderate and moderate suitability for roosting bats (Collins, 2016). Potential roosting features identified may be used by small numbers of crevice dwelling species, such as common pipistrelle. Unmitigated, the removal of these trees risks could cause disturbance or harm to individual roosting bats.

4.22 The broadleaved woodland and scattered trees provide optimal foraging and commuting habitat for bats. The removal of individual trees within the woodland during the works would result in a loss of foraging habitat within the site for bats. Unmitigated, impacts on bats as a result of loss of foraging habitat are anticipated to be moderate.

4.23 An evaluation of the static detector recordings retrieved from the site suggests that common pipistrelle and noctule bats are likely to be roosting close by, given that the earliest and latest recordings of this species were made within the expected emergence/re-entry period for these species. Brown long-eared bats were only detected by the static detector during the dawn recording periods. However, accurate determination of the presence of this species from static detector recordings is limited, as the species does not always echolocate when emerging/entering a roost site and the echolocation of brown-long eared bats is very quiet and unlikely to be detected over distances exceeding 5 metres. Considering this, the recordings do indicate that brown long-eared bats were within very close proximity of the static detector, positioned at a potential access point to the building, therefore it is considered likely that they were entering the building.

4.24 Static detector recordings of soprano pipistrelle and Myotis bats occurred in low numbers, outside of the expected periods that bats emerge and return to a roost. This indicates that one or two commuting/foraging bats were briefly present in the area and it is considered unlikely that these species are roosting within proximity of the site.


5. Recommendations and Mitigation

Habitats

Deciduous woodland/scattered trees 5.1 The creation of access roads within the woodland will result in the loss of a

number of mature trees. It is recommended that any impacts are minimised by retaining as many trees as possible as part of the development. Mitigation for the loss of trees will be implemented within the soft landscaping scheme for the site. This includes whip planting within the woodland exceeding the minimum 2:1 basis for replacing trees. Species used will be native and of local provenance. The addition of berry bearing trees/shrubs will add to the biodiversity value of the site. The planting of species that are already present in the adjoining BHS would enhance and complement the BHS. Examples include; ash, silver birch, alder, hazel, hawthorn and elder.

5.2 The semi-natural broadleaved woodland ground flora will be lost and temporarily impacted as a result of revised works to widen and create new access roads. It is recommended that any disturbance to the woodland soils where English bluebells are located is minimised. Where impacts occur, the bulbs are to be removed and replanted in a safe location away from the construction works. Revised soft landscaping proposals include a seed mix suitable for woodland edges to be used within a 5 m buffer of the main access drive.

Invasive species

5.3 Himalayan balsam is listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, making it illegal to cause it to spread in the wild. If works are to be carried out within close proximity of these species (TN6) the following measures should be taken:

• Where possible, the invasive species should be marked up on site with hi visibility netting/ fencing to ensure that construction works avoid these areas.

• Where avoidance is not possible, removal and control of invasive species must follow legal requirements and best practice guidance. The contractor will implement measures that will ensure that this species is not spread off site. These measures should include the retention of all potentially contaminated soil on site. Contractor’s boots and vehicle tyres should be washed down prior to leaving site to ensure that contaminated material is not taken off site.

• If works occur in areas where Himalayan balsam is present during the growing season (May - Sept), then areas should be periodically strimmed to prevent plants reaching maturity and therefore prevent the release and potential spread of seeds. This should be undertaken before the plants set seed.

Fauna

Birds 5.4 Any tree removal works should take place outside the breeding bird season which

runs from late February until September, in order to prevent any impacts upon nesting birds. Vegetation/tree clearance that must be carried out within the breeding bird season should be subject to a pre-clearance bird survey carried out by a suitably experienced ecologist. No works will be carried out within 5 m of an identified nest until the young have fledged and are no longer returning to the nest


site. Works will only be undertaken once a scheme ecologist has declared the nest to be no longer in use.

5.5 It is recommended that restoration work to be undertaken on the buildings is also completed outside of the breeding bird season (late February to September inclusive). If this is not possible, the buildings should be subject to a pre-construction bird survey carried out by a suitably experienced ecologist.

5.6 Mitigation for the loss of breeding bird habitat will include the planting of native species of trees, shrubs and hedgerow, including native species-rich hedgerow extending along the northern and southern boundaries of the grassland area. Ensuring any new planting comprises native species and berry-bearing species will provide alternative foraging habitat for birds. The provision of alternative nesting opportunities in the form of nest boxes within the new development is also a suitable form of mitigation for loss of nesting habitat.

Bats

5.7 The loss of areas of broadleaved woodland will reduce the available foraging habitat for bats in the area. Impacts should be minimised by retaining as many trees as possible within the woodland. In addition, revised soft landscaping proposals provide suitable compensation for any loss, comprising whip planting within the woodland; formal hedgerows surrounding the car park; native species-rich hedgerows extending along the site boundaries; and extra heavy standard planting within the grassland area.

5.8 Of the trees identified as having bat roosting potential, it is recommended that trees G8, T36 and T6 are retained, as their removal is not necessary to facilitate the construction of the proposed access track. If removal is necessary (i.e. due to health and safety concerns) further advice should be sought from the project ecologist. Trees T29, T24 and T37, all considered to have low suitability for bat roosts, will be lost as part of the proposals. Given the low bat roost suitability of the trees, the following Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMs) are considered appropriate to mitigate the low risk of encountering a small number of bats using the trees:

• All contractors undertaking tree works will be made aware of the potential presence of roosting bats prior to commencement of works (Appendix H);

• Careful timing of works is recommended; any felling works are to be completed between October and March, when hibernating bats are unlikely to be present; and,

• If any bats are found, all work must cease immediately and await instruction from the project ecologist.

5.9 The buildings on site provide roosting habitat for common pipistrelle and brown long-eared bats. It is considered that the buildings support transitional day roosts for common pipistrelle and a small maternity roost of brown long-eared bats. Mitigation for the loss of roosting habitat will be incorporated into the refurbishment and design of the buildings on site and is to be informed by the features of the existing roosts.

5.10 For species that typically roost in crevices, including common pipistrelle, roosting

opportunities can be provided in new/refurbished buildings in a variety of ways including:


• access to soffits boxes and eaves via a small gap (15-20 mm) between soffits and walls;

• timber cladding mounted on 20-30 mm counter battens with bat access at the bottom or sides;

• access to roof voids via bat bricks, gaps in masonry, soffit gaps, raised lead flashing or purpose-built bat entrances; and,

• access to roof voids over the top of a cavity wall by appropriately constructed gaps.

5.11 It is highly recommended to retain and modify the brown long-eared roost in situ,

as creating new mitigation roosts for this species is rarely successful (Mitchell-Jones 2004). Brown long-eared bats readily fly within roof spaces and typically roost beneath the ridges. The bat survey results have shown that brown long-eared bats are using the open door and narrow space above the steel supporting beam to gain access inside the building. On emergence, the majority of the bats were seen to fly straight into the woodland adjacent to the building. Scattered droppings and feeding remains throughout the interior of the building suggest the bats are using the exposed rafters for roosting and feeding perches. Based on these findings, a separate roof void should be retained for the bats to use. This will be achieved by installing a ceiling into the converted office building, at a height that will maximise the space of the void above, providing space for brown long-eared to fly within the roost.

5.12 Suitable access points for brown long-eared bats will need to be built into the conversion proposals for the building. Previous developments involving successful mitigation for the retention and modification of an existing brown long-eared roost have included the installation of ‘Morris’ style bat access slates in combination with soffit access points to allow brown long-eared to enter a dedicated loft void (Photo 11) (Ecus, 2012). In this case, it is recommended that access slates are installed on the western roof slope, allowing bats to emerge and re-enter the roost straight to/from the woodland on site. Holes must be cut in the roofing felt (traditional bitumen F1 type), adjacent to rafters, beneath the access slates to allow bats to crawl in and out.

Photo 11: ‘Morris’ style bat access slate

5.13 It is highly recommended to undertake these mitigation proposals in both buildings

on site, in order to demonstrate ecological enhancement of the site. The renovation works must occur over the winter months, when brown-long eared bats are not breeding and are unlikely to be using the building. Furthermore, it is suggested that conversion and mitigation works are first carried out on Building 2, and completed prior to works commencing on Building 1 (with the confirmed


roost). Hence, if bats are disturbed during conversion works on the second building, they have the opportunity to make use of roosting habitat provided by Building 2. Additional Schwegler 2FN bat boxes, which are known to be used by brown long-eared bats within woodland habitat (BSG Ecology, 2014), should also be placed on mature trees within the woodland, close to the buildings.

5.14 External lighting, such as security lights, road or path lighting, close to roost entrances must be avoided both during and post construction, as external lighting is known to have detrimental impacts on the emergence behaviour of roosting bats (Mitchell-Jones 2004). Lighting of retained habitat should also be avoided to avoid impacting on foraging and commuting bats.

5.15 In addition to the provision of suitable mitigation measures for bats, the following reasonable avoidance measures (RAMS) must be adhered to during the works:

• All works should be undertaken between October and March, outside of the active season, when it is unlikely bats will be roosting within the buildings.

• Before any works proceed all contractors should be made aware of the likely presence of bats and the signs to look for and procedure if bats are found or discovered.

• All work to the roof and metal flashing is to be undertaken by hand.

• Prior to works commencing, three Schwegler 2F bat boxes will be installed on mature trees at site before works on the building begin (such that if any bats are found during works they can be released by the supervising ecologist). If a bat is found or suspected when the ecologist is not on site all works should cease and the ecologist called immediately, leaving the bat in situ.

• If the bat is in immediate danger it should only be picked up with gloved hands and placed in a secure container with air holes in a dark, quiet place until experienced bat worker arrives at site.

5.16 Renovation works on the buildings will be required to be performed under a

European Protected Species mitigation licence issued by Natural England. Licenses are usually only issued following granting of full planning permission and discharge of all relevant planning conditions. Applications can take up to six weeks to process following receipt of all required documentation. Information on the licensing process can be found in Natural England’s European Protected Species: Mitigation Licensing - How to get a licence document (Natural England, 2010).

5.17 The license application will include a method statement outlining a detailed mitigation and monitoring strategy, the implementation of which will be a condition of the licence. The implementation of the mitigation strategy may be subject to seasonal constraints. Sufficient time will need to be allowed in the development programme to enable bats to find the new roosts prior to destruction of existing roosts. Subject to confirmation of the above mitigation strategy at the detailed design stage and its implementation, it is anticipated that the favourable conservation test can be met and the EPS licence application will be successful.

Enhancement measures

5.18 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF March 2012), states that the planning system should contribute to “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. It also states that “opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged”.


5.19 As designs for the site develop an ecologist can provide site specific advice on

way to enhance the wildlife value of the final development and contribute towards a net gain in biodiversity. Simple examples of enhancement measures which could be considered and designed into the proposals include (but are not limited to);

5.20 Measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site include:

a) Seeking the advice of a professionally/suitably qualified ecologist throughout

the progress of the development in order to maximise ecological and biodiversity gains at each stage.

b) Eradication of Himalayan balsam from the site, in the interest of preserving the woodland ground flora and preventing the spread of the invasive throughout the woodland. This should be achievable, given the relatively small area currently colonised by the species.

c) The installation of additional bat boxes to further increase bat roosting opportunities on site. In particular, the 1FQ Schwegler bat roost can be fixed to external walls and is suitable for use as an artificial maternity roost.

d) Creation of brash and log piles for insects, butterflies, fungi, birds and small mammals.

e) The retention of standing deadwood within the woodland where safe will also provide valuable habitat for insects, fungi and birds.

Re-survey of the Site

5.21 If no works are undertaken on site within 12 months of this survey or if any changes to the proposals are made, a further ecological survey may be necessary (because of the mobility of animals and the potential for colonisation of the site).


References Bat Conservation Trust, (2012) Bat Survey Good Practice Guidelines 2nd Edition

Bowland Tree Consultancy, (2017) Arboricultural Impact Assessment Overview. BSG Ecology, (2014) Maximising occupation of bat boxes in ancient woodland in Buckinghamshire: a summary of recent research. Ecus, (2012) Bat Conservation Trust Case Studies http://roost.bats.org.uk/case-studies/former-psychiatric-hospital-pavilion

CIEEM, (2013) Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.

Collins, J. (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust.

JNCC, 1993 revised 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A technique for environmental audit (reprint). Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. Natural England (2010). Guidance Note: European Protected Species and the Planning Process - Natural England’s Application of the ‘Three Tests’ to Licence Applications http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/113030. Natural England, 2001. Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines

Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S. & Jeffcote M. (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10 (4), 143-155.

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/113030


Legal Information This report provides guidance of potential offences as part of the impact assessment. This report does not provide detailed legal advice and for full details of potential offences against protected species the relevant acts should be consulted in their original forms i.e. The Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, as amended, The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

Site Designation Legislation

(England & Wales)

Protection Guidance

Local Sites There is no statutory designation for Local Sites.

SINCs are given protection through policies in the Local Development Plan.

Development proposals that would potentially affect a Local Site would need to provide a detailed justification for the work, an assessment of likely impacts, together with proposals for mitigation and restoration of habitats lost or damaged.

Further guidance can be found in the National Planning Policy Framework and the accompanying joint Circular (ODPM Circular 6/2005 & Defra Circular 01/2005) to PPS9 for England or Technical Advice Note (TAN) 5 in Wales, which is still valid.

Habitats & Species

Legislation

(England & Wales)

Guidance

Species and Habitats of Principal Importance for the Conservation of Biodiversity

Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 S.40 (which superseded S.74 of the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000).

S.40 of the NERC Act 2006 sets out the duty for public authorities to conserve biodiversity in England and Wales.

Habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity are identified by the Secretaries of State for England and Wales, in consultation with NE and NRW, are referred to in S.41 of the NERC Act for England and S.42 for Wales. The list of habitats and species was updated in 2008:

England: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140605090108/http:/www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/habsandspeciesimportance.aspx

Wales: http://www.biodiversitywales.org.uk/49/en-GB/Section-42-Lists

The habitats and species listed are not necessarily of higher biodiversity value, but they may be in decline. Habitat Action Plans and Species Action Plans are written for them or are in preparation, to guide their conservation.

Ecological impact assessments should include an assessment of the likely impacts to these habitats and species.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140605090108/http:/www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/habsandspeciesimportance.aspx

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140605090108/http:/www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/habsandspeciesimportance.aspx

http://www.biodiversitywales.org.uk/49/en-GB/Section-42-Lists


Species Legislation

(England & Wales)

Offences Notes on licensing procedures and further advice

(England & Wales)

Species that are protected by European and national legislation

Bats

European protected species

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Reg 41

• Deliberately1 capture, injure or kill a bat;

• Deliberate disturbance2 of bats;

• Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place used by a bat.

The protection of bat roosts is considered to apply regardless of whether bats are present.

An NE licence in respect of development is required in England.

England: https://www.gov.uk/bats-protection-surveys-and-licences

European Protected Species: Mitigation Licensing- How to get a licence

(NE 2010)

Bat Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature 2004)

Bat Workers Manual (JNCC 2004)

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)4 S.9

Intentionally or recklessly3 obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter or protection or disturb a bat in such a place.

Licence from NE is required for surveys (scientific purposes) that would involve disturbance of bats or entering a known or suspected roost site.

https://www.gov.uk/bats-protection-surveys-and-licences


Species Legislation

(England & Wales)

Offences Notes on licensing procedures and further advice

(England & Wales)

Birds

Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012

• N/A Authorities are required to take steps to ensure the preservation, maintenance and re-establishment of a sufficient diversity and area of habitat for wild birds in the United Kingdom, including by means of the upkeep, management and creation of such habitat. This includes activities in relation to town and country planning functions.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)4 S.1

• Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird;

• Intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built;

• Intentionally take or destroy the nest or eggs of any wild bird.

Schedule 1 species

Special penalties are liable for these offences involving birds on Schedule 1 (e.g. most birds of prey, kingfisher, barn owl, black redstart, little ringed plover).

Intentionally or recklessly3 disturb a Schedule 1 species while it is building a nest or is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; intentionally or recklessly disturb dependent young of such a species.

No licences are available to disturb any birds in regard to development.

Licences are available in certain circumstances to damage or destroy nests, but these only apply to the list of licensable activities in the Act and do not cover development.

General licences are available in respect of ‘pest species’ but only for certain very specific purposes e.g. public health, public safety, air safety.

England: https://www.gov.uk/wild-birds-protection-surveys-and-licences

https://www.gov.uk/prevent-wild-birds-damaging-your-land-farm-or-business

Other species

Rabbits, foxes and other wild mammals

For BAP species and Species of Principal Importance, see below

Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

Intentionally inflict unnecessary suffering to any wild mammal.

Natural England provides guidance in relation to rabbits (Technical Information note TIN003, Rabbits- management options for preventing damage, July 2007) and foxes (which are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 from live baits and decoys, see Species Information notes SIN003 (2011), Urban foxes and SIN004 (2011) The red fox in rural areas as well as other wild mammals.

Lawful and humane pest control of these species is permitted.

https://www.gov.uk/wild-birds-protection-surveys-and-licences



Whalley Crematorium: Ecological Impact Assessment


Appendix A – Extended Phase 1 Target Notes

Target note

Photographs Description

TN1

Two small areas of semi-natural neutral grassland are adjacent to the site entrance and the road. Species present include lords and ladies, daffodil, bramble, creeping buttercup, cleavers, garlic mustard, broad-leaved dock, wood avens, dandelion, willowherb, lesser celandine, herb robert and feather moss.

TN2

Semi-natural broadleaved woodland extends from the site entrance to the lych gate, each side of a bare earth path. Canopy species include ash, hawthorn, alder, sycamore, poplar, beech and oak. A diverse ground flora comprises common nettle, lesser celandine, creeping buttercup, wood avens, wood anemone, pendulous sedge, lords and ladies, dogs mercury, dandelion, bramble, feather moss, herb Robert, bluebell (becoming more frequent on the eastern side of the woodland), cow parsley, ramsons, tufted hair-grass, Yorkshire fog, common sorrel, common feather moss, rough stalked feather moss, glittering wood moss and carpet moss. Dry ditches traverse the woodland (TN4) and frequent rubbish creates artificial refugia.

TN3

A semi-mature ash tree with dense ivy cladding. Ivy cover offers potential roosting opportunities; however, the tree is located close to the road and streetlights, which is likely to deter roosting bats, therefore overall the tree is considered to offer low bat roosting potential.



TN4

A series of dry, shallow ditches are present within the woodland with sloping banks and channels dominated by woodland ground flora detailed at TN2. Additional species present include primrose and pocket moss.

TN5 A large dead beech tree and a nearby tall rotted stump are located in the north-western corner of the woodland. They provide dead wood habitat. The beech tree also features flaking bark, offering low potential to support roosting bats.

TN6

A mound of earth covered in gravel is located in the north-eastern corner of the woodland. The vegetation is patchy and ephemeral, comprising lesser celandine, common nettle, creeping buttercup, herb robert, and rough stalked feather moss. There are dead stems of the Himalayan balsam also present. Artificial refugia is also present in the form of scattered rubble, bricks and wood boarding.

TN7

A dead sycamore tree, located on the right side of the path and close to the eastern edge of the woodland offers dead wood habitat. The tree offers low potential to support roosting bats as there are no entrance holes and the bark is well sealed.



TN8

South of the path in the woodland and extending into the grassland area are several further mounds of earth. The vegetation is dominated by tall herbs, tussocky grasses and pendulous sedge. Species present include willowherb, tufted hair-grass, herb Robert, common nettle, bramble and occasional wood avens.

TN9

One of two small single storey disused chapel buildings, located south-east of the lych gate. The building is constructed of red brick with a pitched roof and a small flat-roofed addition. One of the gable ends features timber cladding and render. All the windows are boarded up and well-sealed. The building has high potential to support roosting bats, with multiple roosting features including; gaps underneath the flat roof covering, numerous gaps in the soffits and fascia below the guttering, small gaps beneath loose ridge tiles and broken roof tiles.

TN10

The second small chapel building is located across from the first and is of a similar construction. This building also offers high roosting potential for bats, featuring rotted soffits and fascia boards, with multiple potential access points. The windows are all boarded and well-sealed, with the exception of the boarding above the flat roofed addition, which is loose and offers potential roosting space for crevice dwelling bats. There are also gaps under lead flashing used to repair holes in the roof.



TN11

The lych gate is constructed of red brick and timber supports. The structure offers low potential to support roosting bats, with potential spaces under loose roofing tiles.

TN12

East of the woodland is a large expanse of unmanaged neutral grassland, located either side of a dirt path leading to the war memorial area. Dominant species include tufted hair-grass, cock's-foot and Yorkshire fog. Also present is crested dogs-tail, springy turf moss, lesser celandine, common sorrel, common knapweed, ribwort plantain, creeping buttercup, creeping thistle, willowherb, cow parsley and herb robert. Around the perimeter of the grassland spear thistle, hard rush and soft rush are also present. The south-east corner of the area comprises a small graveyard of a similar species composition plus occasional stands of pampus grass.

TN13

Located in the north-eastern quarter of the grassland is a series of mature scattered alders, hawthorns and a large oak tree. The oak tree has a broken dead limb in the canopy which offers low potential to support roosting bats.



Appendix B – Extended Phase 1 Habitat Plan



Appendix C – Bat Emergence/Re-entry Survey Plan



Appendix D – Bat Static Detector Results

Static detector recording results for dusk periods, 9th – 17th June

Recording date

Bat species recorded and total number of passes

Recording times

Time of first recorded bat pass after sunset (mins)

Common pipistrelle

Soprano pipistrelle

Noctule Myotis

09.06.15 21 22.03 - 23.25 25

10.06.15 26 22.11 - 23.56 32

11.06.15 76

22.07 - 23.54 28

1

22.25 46

4 22.44 - 23.19 65

12.06.15 108

22.11 - 23.51 31

4

22.42 - 23.04 62

1

23.33 113

1 23.45 125

13.06.15 8

21.59 - 23.57 18

82 22.00 - 23.50 19

14.06.15

8

21.49 - 23.23 8

59 22.00 - 23.49 19

15.06.15

10

22.07 - 23.47 25

104 22.11 - 23.47 29

16.06.15 89

22.15 - 23.53 32

4

22.26 - 23.06 43

1 22.44 61

Grand total 565 3 38 1 Total bat passes: 607

Static detector recording results for dawn periods, 9th – 17th June Recording date

Bat species recorded and number of passes Recording times

Time of first bat pass recorded before sunrise (mins)

Common pipistrelle

Soprano pipistrelle

Brown long-eared

Noctule Myotis

10.06.15 4 01.20 - 02.10 149

11.06.15 23

00.01 - 03.59 39

2

03.19 - 03.37 61

2 00.23 - 01.18 200

12.06.15

2

03.51 - 03.59 39

27

00.39 - 03.27 69

2

00.46 - 02.11 147

5 00.00 - 01.44 184

13.06.15 11

00.14 - 04.38 0



26

00.04 - 04.26 12

2

01.58 - 02.55 103

2 00.00 - 01.06 212

14.06.15

8

00.21 - 04.37 0

18

00.19 - 04.21 16

1

2.27 130

15.06.15 2 04.08 - 04.15 22

3

02.05 - 03.30 67

3 00.04 - 00.37 240

16.06.15 4

00.21 - 02.52 105

20 00.29 - 04.18 19

17.06.15 24

00.11 - 04.24 13

2

00.50 - 04.24 13

3 03.17 - 04.32 5

Grand total

141 2 16 30 7 Total bat passes: 196



Appendix E – List of Scientific Names

Common name Latin name

Alder Alnus glutinosa

Ash Fraxinus excelsior

Atlantic salmon Salmo salar

Badger Meles meles

Beech Fagus sylvatica

Blue blister lichen Toninia sedifolia

Bramble Rubus fruticosus

Broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius

Brown hare Lepus europaeus

Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus

Brown/sea trout Salmo trutta

Carpet moss Mnium hornum

Cinnabar moth Tyria jacobaeae

Cleavers Galium aparine

Cock's-foot Dactylis glomerata

Common knapweed Centaurea nigra

Common lizard Zootoca vivipara

Common nettle Urtica dioica

Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus

Common primrose Primula vulgaris

Common sorrel Rumex acetosa

Common toad Bufo bufo

Cornflower Centaurea cyanus

Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens

Creeping thistle Cirsium arvense

Crested dog's-tail Cynosurus cristatus

Curlew Numineus arquata

Daffodil Narcissus pseudonarcissus

Dandelion Taraxacum spp.

Dog's mercury Mercurialis perennis

English bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta

European eel Anguilla anguilla

European otter Lutra lutra

Feather moss Brachythecium spp.

Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata

Giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum

Glittering wood moss Hylocomium splendens

Grasshopper warbler Locustella naevia

Great crested newt Triturus cristatus

Grey partridge Perdix perdix

Hard rush Juncus inflexus

Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

Herb Robert Geranium robertianum

Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera

House sparrow Passer domesticus

Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus

Lesser celandine Ranunculus ficaria

Lesser spearwort Ranunculus flammula

Lords and ladies Arum maculatum

Meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria

Monkeyflower Mimulus sp.

Noctule bat Nyctalus noctula

Oak Quercus sp.

Otter Lutra lutra

Pampus grass Cortaderia selloana

Pendulous sedge Carex pendula

Pipistrelle Pipistrellus spp.

Pocket moss Fissidens spp.

Poplar Populus spp.

Ramsons Allium ursinum

Reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus

Rhododendron Rhododendron spp.

Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata

River jelly lichen Collemma dichotomum

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus

Small heath Coenonympha pamphilus

Soft rush Juncus effusus

Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus

Spear thistle Cirsium vulgare

Spotted flycatcher Muscicapa striata

Springy turf moss Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus

Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Sycamore Acer pseudoplantanus

Tree pipit Anthus trivialis

Tree sparrow Passer montanus

Tufted hair-grass Deschampsia cespitosa

Water vole Arvicola amphibius

West European hedgehog

Erinaceus europaeus

White-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius



pallipes

Willow Salix spp.

Willowherb Epilobium spp.

Wood anemone Anemone nemorosa

Wood avens Geum urbanum

Wood warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix

Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus



Appendix F – Proposed Plans



Appendix G – Results from LERN Data Search

Records of great crested newt (2009, 2011)



Appendix H – Bat Information for Contractors

Legislation Covering UK Bat Species All UK Bat species are protected by European and UK law, in practical terms this means it is an offence to:

• Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat; • Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost

or deliberately disturb a group of bats; • Damage or destroy a bat roosting place (even if

bats are not occupying the roost at the time); • Possess or advertise/sell/exchange a bat (dead

or alive) or any part of a bat; • Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a bat

roost.

Penalties on conviction: the maximum fine is £5,000 per incident or per bat (some roosts contain several hundred bats), up to six months in prison, and forfeiture of items used to commit the offence, e.g. vehicles, plant, machinery. Defences include:

1. Tending/caring for a bat solely for the purpose of restoring it to health and subsequent release

2. Mercy killing where there is no reasonable hope of recovery (provided that person did not cause the injury in the first place – in which case the illegal act has already taken place).

Where bats can be found:

• Free hanging from ceilings/pipes

• Under barge boards

• In cavity walls

• Under roof coverings

• Between beams

• In cracks in stone or concrete

• Behind peeling paint/wall coverings

• In holes in walls or pipes

• Gaps behind window frames, door frames, lintels

• Behind ivy-cladding

• In trees (cracks, holes, ivy cladding)



Signs to Look for:

Live or Dead Bats – these can be found in various places in buildings or within trees.

Bat Droppings – the presence of droppings indicates a bat roost and can be found in all the places mentioned above and on the ground beneath these features. Bat droppings look like mouse droppings but will crumble between your fingers (they are dry and made entirely of insects).

Procedure if bats are found: If you find a bat or suspect bats to be present you must stop works immediately and contact the project manager. Contractors should avoid handling bats as a very small number of bats in the UK have been identified as carrying a rabies virus called European Bat Lyssavirus (EBLV). If handling is absolutely essential to move bats away from harm, gloves must be worn. If bat is in imminent danger Stop works ---------- > Gloves on ---------- > place bat in a box/safe place ---------- > Call Bowland Ecology (Tel. 01200 446777) Bat is not in immediate danger Stop works ---------- > Call Bowland Ecology (Tel. 01200 446777)

ribble remembrance · 2017. 3. 22. · bowland ecology ltd 1 control sheet 2 york street,...

Documents