Tree survey at:- 4/09/2017

Transcription

1 Tree survey at:- LAND AT THE FORMER GOODIG HOTEL, PWLL ROAD, BURRY PORT, LLANELLI, CARMARTHENSHIRE. SA16 0TB. 4/09/2017 A European Protected Species Licence will NOT be required for this development to be undertaken. Contact: Glyn Lloyd-Jones glyn.igecol@gmail.com Iestyn Evans Iestyn.igecol@gmail.com

2 Contents Executive Summary 2-3 A note on Bat Surveys 3 Surveyors 3 Introduction 4 Equipment Used and Methods 4-5 Location of Property and description 5 Bat Survey Results 6 Discussion of the Results 7 Limitations of Survey 7 Recommendations Compensation & Mitigation advice 7 Notes 7 Method Statement 8 Conclusion 8 Appendix Appendix References 23 Legal disclaimer 24 1

3 Executive Summary The owner of the former Goodig Hotel and associated land is seeking planning permission to fell, de-limb / crown lift a number of trees to create space for a development site for approximately 100 dwellings. Tree work would be likely to affect bats or roosts should they be present. I&G were commissioned to carry out a bat survey of the trees on site and the site itself. The survey consisted of a daytime scoping (presence / absence) survey as well as activity surveys to ascertain usage by bats. During the preliminary inspection no bats or their signs were found in/on any of the trees. The trees that were identified as having most potential were recorded using tags already on the trees from an unknown previous survey and new tags attached by I&G Ecology to ensure they had more attention during activity surveys than the young and healthy (lower potential) trees. A previous ecological survey undertaken by BE Ecological Ltd in July 2017 only identified seven trees within the application site which offered potential to provide bat roosting habitat. Five were classified as having low potential for bats and two as providing moderate potential for bats. (This report should be read in conjunction with LAND AT THE FORMER GOODIG HOTEL, PWLL ROAD, BURRY PORT, Nr LLANELLI ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL, JULY 2017 undertaken by BE Ecological Ltd 2017). We recommend that as part of the development plans for the site, a number of bat measures (see appendix 2) are included to compensate for the potential loss of roosting opportunity and to provide site enhancement. Due to the lack of bat interest and the low risk of encountering any bats, the development should proceed as planned, but with due care and vigilance. There were no signs of owl activity. In line with NRW recommendations we have included their checklist for Low Risk sites (from NRW Approach to Bats and Planning p5, October 2015): A lower risk case is one where a bat report confirms that bats are present, but NONE of the following apply: Maternity roosts of any bat species regardless of the size of the roost. Please note that some species form small maternity roosts. It is therefore essential that sufficient justification is set out in the bat report to support the assessment of the nature of the use of the roost by bats. Hibernation roosts of any species. Any proposal involving greater horseshoe bat, lesser horseshoe bat, barbastelle bat, Bechstein s bat, grey long-eared bat, Leisler s bat, serotine bat and Nathusius pipistrelle bat. Any proposal involving roost sites for 3 or more different bat species. Any mating or swarming site considered to be important on the basis of the submitted bat report. If one or more of the above criteria do apply, there is a higher risk of the proposal being detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in its natural range, meaning that a licence will in all likelihood be necessary for the development to proceed legally. 2

4 None of the above checklist applies; no bats are confirmed as present and no bats are likely to be harmed or disturbed by the proposed development meaning this is an extremely low risk case and NRW will not need to be consulted. An EPS licence will also not be necessary for this development to proceed. Care during construction 1. Work to stop immediately if in the unlikely event that bats are encountered during any works and I&G to be called for advice and guidance. A note on Bat Surveys Bats are the only mammal capable of true flight and are notoriously difficult to survey for as they cannot be heard unaided and they are difficult to see due to their nocturnal behaviour. They are also small and can live in the smallest of crevices so may often, as a result of their size, be overlooked. Bats may also change their resting and feeding places regularly throughout the year depending on the time of year and weather conditions, so other signs of use are also looked for such as their droppings or signs of feeding. Any sign of use is enough to confirm that the space has bat interest and is enough to confirm the importance of the location to bat species. All species as well as their resting places are protected by law and the site is protected even when bats are not present. They are also longer lived than other mammals of a similar size e.g. Horseshoe bats are known to live for years and the other species of bats years. A single bat colony may have several roost sites which it uses throughout the year. Surveyors Glyn Lloyd-Jones has significant experience in survey and presentation skills and has also assisted many other licensed bat surveyors over the past years. He possesses both a bachelors degree (with honours) and masters degree in the biological sciences. Licence number 72789:OTH:CSAB:2016 Iestyn Evans has extensive experience in conservation, habitat improvement and management and has also worked with other licensed bat workers for many years. Licence number 73319:OTH:CSAB:2016. Peter Watts, Greg Evans and Ceri Daugherty provided extra surveyor effort during the activity surveys. 3

5 Introduction This report has been produced by I&G Ecological Consulting on behalf of Pobl Group who seek planning permission to fell and de-limb / crown lift a number of trees to create space for a development site for approximately 100 dwellings. Equipment Used and Method of Survey Survey methodologies were implemented as appropriate based on the surveyors' assessment of the site features and with particular reference to the advice in Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good practice guidelines 3 rd Edition (The Bat Conservation Trust, 2016) & The Bat Workers' Manual 3rd ed. (JNCC 2004). The preliminary tree inspection surveys were undertaken on Sunday 16th July 2017 at 16:00hrs. The survey consisted of a visual inspection of the trees for: Staining around holes, caused by natural oils in the bats fur. Stains beneath a hole, caused by bat urine and faeces. Scratch marks around a hole, caused by bat claws. Bat droppings beneath a hole. Audible squeaking from within a hole, especially on hot days or at dusk. Insects (especially flies) around a hole. Evidence of bat use, including droppings, feeding remains, staining and scratching around possible roost exit and entry points. Potential bat features such as holes, splits and flaking bark. General condition of the trees. The potential of the trees for bats were classified into one of the following categories: High Roosting Potential Trees with significant potential containing a large number of suitable features or features present appear optimal; Medium Roosting Potential Trees with roosting features appearing less suitable; Low or No Roosting Potential Trees with few if any features suitable for roosting. Endoscopes, high powered torches, a thermal imaging camera and a close-focussing monoculars were used when necessary to aid the surveyor s assessment. Elekon bat scanners, Batbox III and Magenta 5 s were used to detect bat calls. Dusk and dawn activity surveys were undertaken to provide further confidence in our findings. A dusk survey was undertaken on Sunday 16 th July and started at 21: C start temperature and no breeze with dappled cloud cover, sunset occurred at 21:25. The survey drew to a close at 23:25. A dawn survey was undertaken on Thursday 17 th August and started at 04: C start temperature with a light breeze and partial cloud cover, sunrise occurred at 06:06. The survey drew to a close at 06:10. 4

6 An Anabat Express was placed out on site for approximately 19 nights to passively record the bat activity on the site. These results can be seen in Appendix 2. Location of Property and Description (Characteristics) Grid Reference: SN The site lies within on the edge of an urban area and comprises a single agriculturally improved grassland field surrounded by rough common grazing, walls, hedges and mature trees. This tree survey for bat roosting potential supports a planning application for a housing development of approximately 80 units There are no designated sites on or adjacent to the proposed development site. The Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Burry Inlet Special Protection Area (SPA), Burry Inlet and Loughor Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Pwll Lagoon SSSI, Pembrey Coast SSSI and the Burry Inlet Ramsar site are all within 2km of the site. There are a number locally designated sites including Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and Country Parks. No areas of Importance for Nature Conservation are identified within the Adopted Local Development Plan. Figure 1: Aerial view of the development site at Goodig Hotel (from Bing Maps). Figure 1.1: Aerial Showing the nearest designated sites, to the south of the site is the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC and to the North West of the site is Gwernydd Pembre SSSI (MagicMap). 5

7 Results The site visit (Scoping Survey) was used to identify all potential access and egress points for bats on the trees and identify crevices and possible dwelling places. No signs of bat activity were found. All but eight trees surveyed were of low potential (a maximum of Category 2) with no holes, cracks or areas of rot. The eight trees that were identified (tag numbers 00781, 00782, 00783, 00784, 00788, 00723[these tags were already on the trees from a previous unknown survey] and 0091, 0090 attached to the trees by I&G Ecology) had slightly more potential due to their size and having some ivy growth, cracks, damaged limbs or flaking bark. A pre-survey search revealed that the trees sit in an area favourable for foraging and commuting bats. The A484 road runs to the south of the site, a feature often used by foraging bats and for commuting between sites. The site itself comprises a single agriculturally improved grassland field surrounded by rough common grazing, walls, hedges and mature trees; the site has excellent feeding and foraging habitat for bats. A species data search revealed that the nearest records for bats are at 298m to the south near St. Mary s Church, Burry Port. These records are made up of unnamed chiroptera, N.noctula, P.pipistrellus, P.pygmaeus, M.daubentonii, unknown Myotis and P.auritus. The Anabat (passive recording) results indicate (unsurprisingly) that the site is used by bats for foraging and feeding. Bats were actively flying up and down the A484 road on the edge of the site and around the woodland edge and within the large area of open grassland. The bats recorded during the Anabat and activity surveys were Noctule, Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle, Brown Long Eared, Greater Horseshoe and Lesser Horseshoe bats. During the activity surveys no bats were seen to take any interest in the trees especially the trees identified as having most potential. The eight trees were classed as being of low - medium potential due to having some ivy growth, cracks, damaged limbs or flaking bark. No sign of bat use was found during the scoping stage. All accessible cracks, crevices and holes were endoscoped with no evidence of bat use found. All the other trees were classed as having low potential due to the lack of suitable features. The activity surveys saw no bats pay any attention to any of the trees on site, but did detect bat activity, predominantly the Pipistrellus species. The commuting and feeding was largely focussed up and down the road adjacent to the site with its warm tarmac surface. Bats were also seen commuting and feeding within the grassland area and along the woodland edge. 6

8 Discussion During our survey we found no evidence of bats or bat activity associated with any of the trees that are to be felled, de-limb / crown lifted. The majority of the trees are of small to medium diameter with little or no features of interest to bats. Of the eight trees (identified as possessing moderate potential) five are in reasonably good condition, one large Scots Pine is dead and a large Oak that has fallen is still alive but is in poor condition. Minor limb removal has been undertaken in the past on some of the trees, mainly the ones nearest the access tracks. There is sparse ivy cover on many of the trees which may offer some potential for bat use. Most of the wooded area to the north of the site will remain undisturbed along with some of the trees within the development area which will be retained as aesthetic /attractive site features, the boundary hedge to the west of the site will remain untouched. A number of bat boxes and bird boxes will be attached to these trees to compensate for any potential loss of roosting areas. The site is used by bats for foraging and feeding. In preparing this report I&G have applied the principle of proportionality i.e. that the extent of mitigation and compensation/enhancement is proportionate to the predicted degree of risk to ecology (BS42020) and have also applied a precautionary approach. Limitations of Survey All potential for bats was thoroughly investigated and any typical bat signs such as droppings and staining were searched for, the trees were fully accessible. As a precaution we recommend that if there s a period of 2 years or more between when the survey was completed and when the work commences that a further survey or scoping survey should be undertaken to ensure that the situation regarding bats has not changed since the time of the last survey. Recommendations and Mitigation Work is to stop immediately if in the unlikely event that bats are encountered during any felling work and I&G to be called for advice and guidance. A number of bat and bird boxes will be attached to other trees around the site. Notes Bats could be present all year round, especially if making casual use of the site. If bats are encountered I&G should be consulted and advice sought. Natural Resources Wales (Tel ) will also be able to help. 7

9 Method Statement Below, we outline a description of how work may be undertaken on site that will ensure bats are not harmed during any building works. 1. If in the unlikely event that any bats are discovered during the felling works then the licenced ecologist must be informed and felling worked stopped until a licenced bat ecologist is on site and the bats no longer at risk of harm. Natural Resources Wales can also be approached for advice. Any works may be undertaken following the points below: Timing - All work should be undertaken outside the bird breading season, any nests found should be confirmed vacant before any works are undertaken. The Felling Work All felling work can be carried out at any time but with due care. I & G recommend sectional felling of the large trees and lowering the branches to the ground. All the cut sections should be left on site for at least 24 hours to allow any bats that may be using the trees to find other roosting sites. Conclusion There is presently no bat interest in the trees to be felled, de-limb / crown lifted. If the recommendations are followed and bat boxes and bird boxes are erected on site, the surrounding area will likely become more attractive to bats seeking protection and shelter. These measures will also greatly enhance the ecological functionality of the site. There is little room to accommodate new tree planting as the new dwellings will occupy most of the site. 8

10 Appendix 1 British bat species and their status 9

11 Timing of Surveys and applicability of survey methods As the mitigation guidelines state: The presence of a significant bat roost can normally be determined on a single visit at any time of year, provided that the entire structure is accessible and that any signs of bats have not been removed by others. Roosts required by bats Taken from Bat Mitigation Guidelines (2004) Hibernation sites (Hibernacula). Sheltered areas with relatively stable winter temperatures. Underground cavities, caves, mines, cellars, hollow trees and cavities and crevices in buildings or similar structures are examples. Nursery roosts (maternity roosts). Places usually warm, where adult females of a colony gather to give birth and rear their young. These are often traditional sites with a history of such use and include roof voids, walls, soffit boxes, hollows and cracks/splits in trees and cavities in bridges and similar structures. Night roosts /feeding perches. Places where bats may gather at night away from the day roost after initial feeding. These places are often quite exposed and may not be suitable for day roosting. They are often recognisable by deposits of droppings and insect remains. Intermediate /dispersal roosts. Sites where small numbers of bats may gather after hibernation before taking up residence in the nursery roost. Bats may return to these sites after dispersal from the nursery roost and before entering hibernation. Mating/male roosts. Places that an individual male may defend from other males and to which he will attempt to lure females. These will include small holes/cavities in trees, stonework, caves, mines and buildings. 10

12 Bats and the Law. Bats are protected by the following pieces of legislation: Schedule 5 and 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the CROW [Countryside Rights of Way] Act 2000) The Environmental Damage (Prevention & Remediation) Regulations 2009 A protected species and its habitat is protected under this legislation as well as others. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (regulation 41) fully protects all bats and their roosts, making it an offence to deliberately kill, injure or capture (take) bats; to deliberately disturb bats; damage or destroy bat roosts or resting places (this is considered an Absolute Offence as damage and destruction may detrimentally effect the Continuous Ecological Functionality of that roost / resting place); possess or transport a bat or any part of a bat; sell (or offer for sale) or exchange bats or parts of bats. For any disturbance to occur a derogation or EPS licence must be gained from Natural Resources Wales. To gain an EPS Licence from Natural Resources Wales (NRW), NRW must be satisfied that; i. granting the licence would not be detrimental to the Favourable Conservation Status (fcs) of the populations of species concerned within its natural range. ii. the derogation (licence) is in the public interest of Health and Safety or for other reasons of over-riding public interest, including those of a socio-economic nature or will have a benefit of primary importance to the environment. iii. there is no satisfactory alternative to the derogation which would allow the described development to proceed but which would avoid or reduce, the need for any adverse impact to the species. Bats are also protected by; Appendix III of the Bern Convention Appendix II of the Bonn Convention (including the Convention's Agreement on the conservation of Bats in Europe) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act All bats are listed in Annex IV of the EC Habitats Directive and the British species listed in Schedule 2 of the Habitats Regulations 1994 (as amended) and are therefore designated as European Protected Species. These protected species are afforded enhanced protection and more stringent licensing provisions than those protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WACA) alone. 11

13 Birds and the Law Apart from a few game and pest species, almost all birds are afforded some level of statutory protection under the WACA (1981). The vast majority of British birds and their nests are protected from reckless harm or damage, killing or injury. This protection is also extended to their eggs and young. The Barn Owl and other rare species are afforded extra enhanced protection against disturbance whilst nesting as they are designated a Schedule 1 species in the WACA. This protection is extended to the animal and their nest only while the nest is in use, the site itself is not protected per se once nesting behaviour has ceased and is no longer occupied by eggs or young. Best practice indicates that sites that are important for rarer species (e.g. Barn Owl) should be retained in a favourable condition for that species or provision of a suitable alternative be made (e.g. Owl Box etc) as the species and nesting site may be detrimentally affected by the proposed development. The Barn Owl is a species for special consideration where any old agricultural building is concerned as it is considered a nationally declining species, a Red Data Bird and is also cited on the Amber List of Birds of Conservation Concern both within Wales and the wider UK. This species as well as another two out of the five known species of owl normally resident in the British Isles regularly use buildings / barns as nesting sites. 12

14 Appendix 2 Tag Species Potential bat feature Number Pinus sylvestris Scots Loose bark Pine Pinus sylvestris Scots Loose bark Pine Pinus sylvestris Scots Loose bark Pine Pinus sylvestris Scots Loose bark Pine Fraxinus excelsior - Ash Involutions in trunk Acer pseudoplatanus - Sycamore Involutions in trunk 0091 Acer pseudoplatanus - Sycamore Large hole in main trunk 0090 Quercus petraea Sessile oak Fallen tree, large open crack through trunk. Figure 2: showing the trees identified as having some bat potential during the scoping survey. The table shows the Tree ID tag number, Species, and the features identified as having potential for bat use. Figure 3: showing some of the features identified on the eight trees during the scoping survey as having bat roosting potential. The firs picture shows a large hole in the trunk, the second shows a large split through the trunk and the third shows the rough flaky bark of the Scots Pine trees. 13

15 Figure 4: showing an example of many of the featureless trees on site, these trees had smooth bark, no cracks, broken limbs or other features of interest to bats. Figure 5: showing survey considerations when examining trees. 14

16 Figure 6: showing categorisation of trees according to their features (Good Practice Guidelines)

17 Figure 7: showing the many features exploited by bats Goodig Hotel Development Site Attached to Tree south. Night Recorded August 2017 Anabat triggered last recording Date Species Time Number of passes 16 Pipistrellus pipistrellus 20: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 20: Plecotus auritus Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrellus pipistrellus Pipistrellus pygmaeus Pipistrellus pipistrellus

18 Night recorded August 2017 Anabat triggered last recording I&G Ecological Consulting Date Species Time Number of passes 17 Pipistrellus pipistrellus 22: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 22: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 01: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 02: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 04: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 05: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 05:48 1 Night recorded August 2017 Anabat triggered 21:11 last recording 03:46 Date Species Time Number of passes 18 Plecotus auritus 21: Plecotus auritus 21: Plecotus auritus 21: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 22: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 22: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 23: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 00: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 03:46 2 Night recorded August 2017 Anabat triggered 20:15 last recording 23:46 Date Species Time Number of passes 19 Pipistrellus pygmaeus 20: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 21: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 22: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 23:46 1 Night recorded August 2017 Anabat triggered 21:36 Date Species Time Number of passes 20 Plecotus auritus 21:36 1 Night recorded August 2017 No calls recorded 17

19 Night recorded August 2017 Anabat triggered 22:08 last recording 04:12 Date Species Time Number of passes 22 Pipistrellus pipistrellus 22: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 22: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 22: Plecotus auritus Pipistrellus pipistrellus 22: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 22: Plecotus auritus 00: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 01: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 01: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 02: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 02: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 04:12 1 Night recorded August 2017 Anabat triggered 20:12 last recording 02:39 Date Species Time Number of passes 23 Pipistrellus pipistrellus 20: Rhinolophus ferrumequinum 21: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 01: Rhinolophus ferrumequinum 01:27 1 partial 24 Pipistrellus pipistrellus 02:39 1 Night recorded August 2017 Anabat triggered 03:50 Date Species Time Number of passes 24 Pipistrellus pygmaeus 03:50 1 Night recorded August 2017 No calls recorded Night recorded August 2017 No calls recorded Night recorded August 2017 No calls recorded 18

20 Night recorded August 2017 Anabat triggered 19:43 last recording 00:33 Date Species Time Number of passes 28 Pipistrellus pipistrellus 19: Plecotus auritus 21: Plecotus auritus 21: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 22: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 22: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 22: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 00:33 1 Night recorded August 2017 Anabat triggered 19:35 last recording 23:03 Date Species Time Number of passes 29 Pipistrellus pipistrellus 19: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 20: Pipistrellus pipistrellus 21: Rhinolophus hipposideros 22: Plecotus auritus 23:03 1 Night recorded August 2017 Anabat triggered 21:10 last recording 02:56 Date Species Time Number of passes 30 Pipistrellus pygmaeus 21: Pipistrellus pygmaeus 02:56 1 Night recorded 31 August - 1 September 2017 Anabat triggered 22:33 Date Species Time Number of passes 31 Pipistrellus pygmaeus 22:33 1 Night recorded 1-2 September 2017 No calls recorded Night recorded 2-3 September 2017 No calls recorded Night recorded 3-4 September 2017 No calls recorded The anabat was attached to an individual tree located at SN from the 16 th August until 4 th September The species detected during this time were Noctule bats and low passes of a Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle, Brown Long Eared, Greater Horseshoe and Lesser Horseshoe bats. The calls recorded were in small numbers and are likely to be commuting bats which are likely to be going to foraging grounds. This is supported by the timings of the passes and by the low number of passes occurring. No bats were recorded between the 20 th and 21 st August or during the evenings of between the 25 th and 28 th, and no bats were recorded from the 1 st to the 4 th 19

21 of September. This is likely to be due to poor weather conditions or temperatures which resulted in bats not commuting or not foraging due to the lack of insects. In very poor weather conditions, some bats may not leave their day time roosts and will sometimes enter a state of torpor to conserve energy. The remaining bat species are common and often found using woodland, amenity grassland and hedges and trees for foraging and commuting opportunities. Figure 8: showing the results from the Anabat placed out on site for nineteen nights. Figure 9: showing the WWBIC data search results for bats in the area around the proposed development site. 20

22 Figure 10: showing the proposed layout for the development site. From the plans most of the trees around the boundary of the site will remain. 21

23 Will bats prevent my development from taking place? Bats do not cause structural damage, are seldom a risk to animals or humans, do not make nests and primarily feed on insects. If bats are found in most cases mitigation measures can be identified that will enable the development to go ahead. Key facts Bats are not rodents They do not chew wood, wires or insulation They do not build nests They feed primarily on insects They do not bring insects into the roost Have one baby a year Seasonal visitors in houses Certain types of bat can catch up to 600 insects in 1 hour Bats are not blind Seldom transmit disease to humans or animals Only bite in self defence Access, size of roost space and structure Crevice-dwelling bats (such as Soprano Pipistrelles) can crawl into their roosts via small gaps in the range of 15-20mm high by 20 50mm wide. The roost area should maintain a crevice of this approximate size gap that the bats can roost between. The area this roost provision covers can be small but about 1m2 would be useful for summer nursery roosts. The height of entry can be from 2-7m. Roof-void dwelling bats require similar dimensions to access the roost but typically need timber joists or beams on which to roost. The height of entry can be from 2-7m. Bats needing a flying area require the same access dimension as mentioned above, 15-20mm (h) x 20-50mm (w) situated over 2m in height. The roosting area should not be trussed, to allow flight, and should ideally be of similar dimensions to what is being replaced, or larger. Horseshoe bats need a larger access so that they can fly (instead of crawl) directly into the roost. Lesser horseshoe bats need an access of 300mm (w) x 200mm (h), while greater horseshoe bats need 400mm (w) x 300mm (h). As above, the roosting area should not be trussed, to allow flight, and should again ideally be of similar dimensions to the roost being replaced. 22

24 References Bat Conservation Trust, Bats in Buildings. Bats and the Built Environment Series: Volume 1. British Standards Institute, BS 42020:2013. Biodiversity. Code of practice for planning and development. August BSI (2015) BS8596:2015 Surveying for Bats in Trees and Woodland. British Standards Institution, London, UK. Dietz, C., Helversen, O. von, Nill, D., Bats of Britain, Europe and Northwest Africa. A. & C. Black, London. HM Government (1981). The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (As Amended). London. HMSO Collins, J (ed.) (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd Ed. The Bat Conservation Trust. London. Mitchell-Jones, AJ (2004a). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough Mitchell-Jones, AJ; Mcleish A,P (2004a) Bat Workers Manual. English Nature, Peterborough Mitchell-Jones, A.J., COOKE, A.S., BOYD, I.L., STEBBINGS, R.E., Bats and remedial timber treatment chemicals a review. Mammal Rev. 19, Morris, P.A. (1993). A Red Data Book for British Mammals. The Mammal Society, London Waring, S. D; Essah, E. A; Gunnell, K; Bonser, R. H. C (2013). Double Jeopardy: The Potential for Problems when Bats Interact with Breathable Roofing Membranes in the United Kingdom. Architecture and Environment (2013). Welsh Assembly Government (WAG 2003). List of Species and Habitats of Principal Importance for the Conservation of Biological Diversity. Welsh Government. Cardiff Williams, C., Biodiversity for low and zero carbon buildings: a technical guide for new build. RIBA Pub., London. 23

25 I&G Ecological Consulting Legal Disclaimer This report was prepared by I&G Ecological Consulting at the instruction of, and for use by, our client(s) named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. I&G Ecological Consulting excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability. We confirm that in preparing this Report we have exercised reasonable skill and care, taking into account the project objectives, the agreed scope of the work and prevailing site conditions. Advice in this report is based on the judgement of I&G Ecological Consulting and the interpretation of data gathered during the course of their survey on the property named in this document. The findings and advice given during the course of this survey is provided by employees of I&G Ecological Consulting acting only on behalf of I&G Ecological Consulting. The employees of I&G may hold other paid employment but none of their advice or work undertaken in respect of producing this report refers to any roles or responsibilities held in any other employment other than that held at I&G Ecological Consulting. All work undertaken in this report is the sole responsibility of I&G Ecological Consulting. 24