BAT RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT

Transcription

1 BAT RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR WESTFIELD ESTATE AND DERWENT PARK LOFTUS Environmental Consultants Chartered Landscape Architects The Studio 20 The Grove Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 1NE Tel: Fax:

2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Document Verification Job Title: WESTFIELD ESTATE AND DERWENT PARK, LOFTUS Job Number: 576 Document Title: BAT RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT Prepared by: C Gilchrist Date: May 2009 Checked: P Lupton Date: May 2009 Approved by: A Turner Date: May 2009 Revision Record Rev. No. Date Description Prepared by Checked by Approved

3 CONTENTS 4 1 Introduction 4 2 Site location and outline description 4 3 Pre-existing information on bats in the area 4 4 Survey methods 5 5 Results 5 6 Discussion 10 7 Mitigation and enhancement 11 8 Summary 12 9 References 13 Appendix 1 Photographs Westfield Estate 14 Appendix 2 Photographs Derwent Park 21 Figure 1 Site plan Westfield Estate 28 Figure 2 Site plan Derwent Park 29

4 1. INTRODUCTION Ajt Environmental Consultants were appointed to undertake a bat risk assessment of the housing at the Westfield estate and at Derwent Park in Loftus. There are plans to demolish some houses and re-roof others on the sites. The aim of the survey was to assess the potential of the sites to provide roosting and foraging opportunities for bats and to assess potential use by other protected species. 2. SITE LOCATIONS AND OUTLINE DESCRIPTION Westfield Estate is located in the north of Loftus. It is centred on grid reference NZ and is north of the A174 accessed from Westfield Terrace. Derwent Park is located in the east of Loftus and is centred on grid reference NZ Westfield Estate survey area comprises several streets of housing in an extensive residential area at the northern edge of Loftus. The housing is bordered to the north by amenity grassland and to the east by pastoral farmland and allotment gardens. The Derwent Park survey area comprises two former garage building and two semidetached bungalows. The buildings are bordered to the east by a cemetery, to the south by an area of grassland and to the west by a residential area. 3. PRE-EXISTING INFORMATION ON BATS IN THE AREA The National Biodiversity Network was consulted for records of bats in the local area. There were no records relevant to the sites or within 2km. The closest record was for Brown Long-eared bats (Plecotus auritus) and Brandt s bats (Myotis brandtii) 3km to the south east of Derwent Park and 4km to the south east of Westfield Estate.

5 4. SURVEY METHODS 4.1. Site survey Daytime surveys of the sites were undertaken in order to investigate the potential to support bats. External structures were inspected for suitable entry and exit points around eaves, soffits and tiles, as well as for droppings on brickwork, window ledges and the ground. Potential access points were inspected for signs of polishing, scratching and/or staining which might have been caused by the presence of bats. Other potential roosts, including gaps and crevices in walls and gaps between the weatherboards and walls, were noted. A selection of roof spaces were thoroughly searched for any bat signs and roofs assessed for suitability to allow bats to enter and leave the building. A description of each building type was made and features assessed for their suitability for both roosting and feeding bats, photographs were taken of the structures. The potential of the sites to provide foraging habitat for bats was also assessed. 4.2 Personnel Paul Lupton and Claire Gilchrist carried out the site survey and Claire compiled the report, overseen by Paul. Dr Caroline Gregory also provided safety cover during one survey visit. Paul is a licensed bat worker (No ) with many years experience in protected species survey and licensing work. Claire is a qualified ecologist with an MSc in Wildlife Conservation and Management and is a licensed bat worker (No ). Caroline is a qualified ecologist. 5. RESULTS The field survey work was undertaken on the 26th March, 3rd April and 1st May Access to all buildings was not possible as some were still tenanted.

6 The buildings on site at Westfield Estate were one of three main designs, all buildings were externally inspected and a selection of properties of each of the designs was internally inspected across the site. There were only four buildings at the Derwent Park site and these were all inspected externally and internally. No physical signs of bats were found during the building inspections at either site. As mentioned the buildings at Westfield were of three main designs and generic description of buildings and their potential for bats is provided in Table 1 and photographs of the structures in Appendix I. Table 2 provides a description of the buildings at Derwent Park and photographs are included in Appendix II.

7 Table 1 Westfield Estate Structure Description Building Type 1 Appendix I Two storey brickwork buildings with shallow pitched tiled roofs. Weatherboarding present on some areas but generally well sealed. Roof voids low, approximately 1m, and well insulated. Lined between tiles and wooden beams. Plates 1,2 No signs of use by bats were found in any of the voids, many had cobwebs and some had holes in roof. Building Type 2 Two storey brickwork buildings with sloping tiled roofs. Weatherboarding present on some aspects but few gaps and generally well sealed to walls. Appendix I Plates 3,4 Roof voids well insulated and lined between wooden beams and tiles. Cobwebs present in many and some with holes in roof. Building Type 3 Brickwork bungalows with pyramid hip tiled roofs. Brickwork well pointed, mortared ridge tiles and plastic guttering. Appendix I Plate 5 Roof voids low and well insulated, lined between wooden beams and tiles, no signs of use by bats. Grounds Appendix I Plates 8-10 Grounds were mainly amenity grassland, there were occasional trees but very little opportunity for foraging bats. The wider area provides poor foraging habitat with amenity grassland and pastureland. Some woodland to the south of Loftus will provide higher quality foraging habitat. There was a mature willow with some broken branches and holes which could be used by bats adjacent to Sycamore Walk.

8 Table 2 Derwent Park Structure Description Building 1 Appendix II Plates 1,2 Unoccupied, unheated single storey garage with pitched fibre cement sheeting roof. Breezeblock construction with stone facing. No windows, no weatherboarding but metal strip beneath metal guttering. Metal double sliding door to west. No roof void, steel girders and interior wall cemented to roof. Large hole in top of wall to east. Evidence of nesting activity from breeding birds in previous years but none of current use. Building 2 Appendix II Plates 3,4 Unoccupied, unheated single storey building with flat, felted roof. Wall type was mostly brick without a cavity, hardboard area to west where larger door has been boarded up. Wooden boarding around top 0.5m of roof, some gaps below but unsuitable for use by bats. No roof void. Buildings 3,4 Unoccupied, unheated brickwork bungalows with pitched tiled roof. Wooden soffits and boarded windows. Appendix II Plate 5-8 Tiles tight with only one small gap noted and wooden soffit well sealed to wall. Roof voids present, roof lined and beams wooden, end walls well pointed, no obvious access points. Cobwebs present and no signs of use by bats.

9 Grounds Appendix II Plate 9 Buildings 1 and 2 were set in hardstanding. Buildings 3 and 4 were set in a small overgrown mainly rough grassland garden with a boundary hedge. Large cemetery to east with shrubs and cherry trees in the centre, mature Scot s Pine are the only sizeable trees but likely to provide good foraging habitat for local bats.

10 6. DISCUSSION 6.1 Westfield Estate No evidence of bats was found during the surveys and the potential of the structures on site to support void dwelling or hibernating bats is assessed as low although there is a single mature willow tree present with low-medium risk of supporting bats. Brick work was well pointed and weatherboarding generally tightly sealed to walls although occasional gaps and holes were noted. There were also gaps under tiles at edges of roofs which could be used by bats. Roof voids were generally too low and cluttered to be suitable for use by roosting bats of void dwelling species and cobwebs were present in many indicating no current use. The site is subject to vandalism, especially where many of the properties are unoccupied. Large numbers of tiles have been removed exposing roof voids to weather (Appendix I Plate 11) and making voids completely unsuitable for occupation by bats. However there is a risk that gaps between tiles and roof lining exposed by this activity could be used by bats of crevice dwelling species. The site is generally very exposed and there are no records of bats being present in the area. Foraging habitat is poor on site, most of the gardens having been cleared of shrubs and is restricted to an area of open space with a few trees. There is a small risk that structures and the mature willow tree could be used by species of crevice-dwelling bat during summer and as such an evening activity survey is recommended to establish the level of bat activity on site. This may show no requirement for any further survey work. No evidence of use of the site by other protected species was identified. The only other potential wildlife issue was impact on nesting birds. House sparrows (Passer domesticus) and starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) were present on the site and appeared to be using gaps under tiles (Appendix I Plate 7). Both species were seen carrying nesting material during survey visits. There is also ivy present on some houses (Appendix I Plate 6) and this could also provide nesting opportunities for birds of several species. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act

11 1981 it is prohibited to intentionally damage or destroy the nest (whilst being built or in use) of a wild bird. Works during the bird breeding season (mid March to late June) should be avoided unless the site can first be inspected for signs of use by nesting birds by a suitably qualified person. House sparrows are often resident in buildings all year round and the birds themselves are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Prior to demolition, even outside the bird breeding season, precautions such as hand removal of roof tiles and ivy should be taken to ensure no birds are killed or injured by works. 6.2 Derwent Park No signs of bats were discovered during the survey and all buildings inspected at Derwent Park were low risk in terms of supporting roosting bats. Buildings 1 and 2 provided no obvious opportunities, lacking roof voids or a complex enough structure to provide opportunities for use by bats. The roofs and soffits of the semi-detached bungalows were well sealed with no obvious access points into roof voids, there were few opportunities for bats of crevice dwelling species and it is unlikely, given the lack of bat records for the area that the structures are used by bats. No further survey work for this site is recommended. Nesting birds were also an issue in Building 1 at Derwent Park and timing of demolition outside of the bird breeding season is advised to prevent impact upon nesting birds. An inspection prior to works could be carried out at other times of year. 7. MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT No evidence of use of the buildings by bats was found during the survey and although there were opportunities for bats to access roof voids the voids themselves were largely unsuitable. There were opportunities for bats of crevice dwelling species under gaps between roof tiles and lining. As the risk associated with the buildings involves only use by summer roosting bats, demolition of housing during the winter hibernation season of bats (November March) will remove any risk of impacting upon bats which may

12 occasionally be using the features present. Should bats be found during works then demolition must stop and a licensed bat worker be contacted for assistance. In addition, we would recommend that any houses that are to be demolished should have ridge tiles and the lower three layers of tiles removed by hand prior to demolition. The buildings should then be left for seven days before demolition can commence to allow the weather in. This tile removal should be supervised by a bat worker who can be on hand to deal with any issues that may arise. An emergence survey prior to this process would be advisable to identify any potential problems/issues. Enhancement should be carried out to ensure that the opportunities provided by the present buildings are also available in the new structures. This should include allowing access to roof voids by creating gaps under ridge tiles and provision of crevice roosts. Crevice roosts could be provided using bat bricks which are built into the new houses or leaving gaps beneath weatherboarding or bargeboards. Any landscaping of the site such as planting of trees and shrubs will improve foraging habitat for bats. 8. SUMMARY A bat risk assessment was carried out by licensed and experienced bat workers at the Westfield Estate and Derwent Park, Loftus on the 26th March, 3rd April and 1st May Westfield Estate had opportunities for bats of crevice dwelling species of bat to access gaps between tiles and roof lining and under tiles at the edges of roofs. At Derwent Park no evidence of use of the buildings by bats was found and the potential for use of the buildings on site by void dwelling and hibernating bats was assessed as low. No further survey work is proposed for this site. No other impacts on protected species are expected as a result of the development although precautionary advice for avoiding impact on nesting and resident birds is provided.

13 9. REFERENCES Altringham, J. D. (2003). British Bats. Harper Collins, London. Altringham, J. D. (1996). Bats, Biology and Behaviour. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bat Conservation Trust. (2007). Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London. Bat Conservation Trust. (undated). Bats and the Law. Bat Conservation Trust, London. British Standards Institution. (2006). PAS 2010 Planning to halt the loss of biodiversity: biodiversity conservation standards for planning in the UK Code of Practice. British Standards Institution, London. English Nature. (2004). Bat Surveys for Development Proposals in North-East England. English Nature, Northumbria Team. English Nature. (2004). Technical Information Note 4: Bats. English Nature, Northumbria Team. English Nature and Defra. (2004). Bats, Buildings and Barn Owls. A Guide to safeguarding protected species when renovating traditional buildings for Development Proposals in North-East England. Defra. Entwhistle, A. C., Harris S. et al. (2001). Habitat management for Bats. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Macdonald, D. & Barrett, P. (1993). Mammals of Britain and Europe. Collins Field Guide. Harper Collins, London. Mitchell-Jones, A. J. & McLeish, A. P. (2004). The Bat Workers Manual (3 rd Ed.). Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Mitchell-Jones, A. J. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. Mullarney, K., Svensson, L., Zetterstrom, D. & Grant, P. J. (1999). Bird Guide. Collins, London. Richardson, P. (2000). Distribution Atlas of Bats in Britain and Ireland. Bat Conservation Trust, London. Royal Society for Protection of Birds. (2002). Birds of conservation concern in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. Royal Society for Protection of Birds, Sandy. Russ, J. (1999). The Bats of Britain and Ireland. Alana Ecology Ltd. Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 192; The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). HMSO, London. Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended). HMSO, London.

14 APPENDIX 1 PHOTOGRAPHS Westfield Estate

15 Plate 1 Hazel Walk western aspect Brickwork generally well pointed and many buildings lacking weatherboarding which could be used by bats Plate 2 Roof void of shallow pitched roof design Cobwebs within void and no signs of occupation by bats

16 Plate 3 Hazel Walk western aspect Sloping roofed design, gardens cleared of shrubs and trees Plate 4 Roof void of sloping roof design No signs of use by bats, lofts generally similar well insulated and internally felted.

17 Plate 5 16 and 15 Beech Grove south western aspect Brickwork well pointed and few opportunities for use by bats. Plate 6 70 / 74 Sycamore Walk Ivy covered house providing nesting opportunities for birds.

18 Plate 7 Gaps under roof tiles with potential for use by bats and birds Gaps under tiles but weatherboarding generally tightly fitted to wall. Plate 8 Open space between west of Sycamore Walk

19 Plate 9 Amenity grassland to north Plate 10 Mature willow Mature willow with some broken branches suitable for use by bats

20 Plate 11 Sycamore Walk Holes in roof where vandals have broken through roof.

21 APPENDIX 2 PHOTOGRAPHS Derwent Park

22 Plate 1 Building 1 garage Plate 2 Building 1 interior

23 Plate 3 Building 2 Plate 4 Building 2 interior

24 Plate 5 Buildings 3 and 4 southern aspect (15, 16 Derwent Park) Plate 6 Buildings 3 and 4 northern aspect

25 Plate 7 Building 3 soffit Plate 8 Building 3 interior

26 Plate 9 Cemetery to east

27 FIGURES FIGURE 1: SITE PLAN Westfield Estate FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN Derwent Park

28 FIGURE 1: SITE PLAN FOR WESTFIELD ESTATE, LOFTUS 28 of 28

29 FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN FOR DERWENT PARK, LOFTUS 29 of 29