METHOD STATEMENT. Report prepared by: Dave Anderson Batworker.co.uk European Protected Species (Bats)

Transcription

1 METHOD STATEMENT RECEIVED 10 September 2014 European Protected Species (Bats) Property: Grassington Old Hall, Wood Lane Grassington Figure 1: Grassington Old Hall Report prepared by: Dave Anderson Batworker.co.uk

2 DOCUMENT 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Executive summary Site: Location: NGR: SE The property is located in the centre of Grassington within a large established garden with a series of mature deciduous trees forming the western and southern boundary. Buildings: The Old Hall is a grade II listed building dating from the 13 th century with 17th century additions. It is a stone built building with cavity walls and features three double pitched and stone slate roofs. Bats: An initial scoping survey on 26th July 2014 found historic evidence of roosting by a low numbers of bats; field signs in the form of a small number (circa twenty) of dry and greyed droppings suggested a small roost by Myotis sp bats in one of the roof voids. Significant bat activity was considered unlikely at the time; there was no evidence of a maternity site, transitional mating roost or hibernaculum at the property.

3 A dawn survey on 1st August 2014 found evidence of two small transitional roosts used by Common Pipistrelle under lead flashing on the northernmost roof ridge and behind guttering above the entrance hall. A single Natterer's bat was seen to roost behind the lead downspout on the western face of the building, in the corner formed by the dining room and snug. An emergence survey on 7th August 2014 recorded a single Common Pipistrelle emerge from under lead flashing on the northernmost roof ridge and a single Natterer's bat emerge from behind the lead downspout. A second dawn survey on 19th August 2014 recorded use of both the lead flashing on the roof ridge and behind guttering by Common Pipistrelle and a single Natterer's behind the downspout. In light of the low numbers of bats using the site, the nature of roosting, and the proposed work it is the surveyor's opinion that a detailed Method Statement was the best way to progress with plans to carry out roof repairs while maintaing roost integrity. An EPS development licence is not required in situations where it can be demonstrated that satisfactory mitigation and enhancement works are sufficient to avoid offences being committed under the Habitat Regulations.

4 B introduction B1.1 Background to activity / development The Old Hall is being renovated and it is understood that roofing repairs will be undertaken as part of the development work. (Reference: Peter Harrison) B1.2 Full details of proposed works covered by the Method Statement. The proposed renovation works are mainly internal but will require repair to all three double pitched roofs. It is understood that there will be no structural work or alterations as part of the proposed development. C Survey and site assessment C1.1 Pre-existing information on the bat species present at this site Bat record data: records were obtained from East Lancashire Bat Group and from personal communications with experienced members of WYBG / ELBG. An initial scoping survey on 26th July 2014 found historic evidence of roosting by a low numbers of bats; field signs in the form of a small number (circa twenty) of dry and greyed droppings suggested a small roost by Myotis sp bats in one of the roof voids. One maternity roost of Whiskered/Brandt's bats is recorded within 1km of the site.

5 C1.2 Status of the species Common Pipistrelle is a common and widespread species typically associated with roosting in buildings. Natterer's bat is another widespread and common species particularly in upland areas and typically associated with roosting in traditional barns and lime kilns, it has been recorded at several swarming sites within theyorkshire Dales. C1.3 Objectives of the surveys Key objectives: (1) to determine the presence and / or absence of bats within the property and to confirm species present, numbers of roosting bats likely to be present and roost status (2) an assessment of the likely level of impact of the development on a protected species (3) to determine appropriate mitigation measures and (4) establish appropriate enhancement measures for this site. C1.4 Scaled map / plan of site

6 C1.5 Site and habitat description The Old Hall is a grade II listed building dating from the 13 th century with 17th century additions. It is a stone built building with cavity walls and features three double pitched and stone slate roofs. The property is located in the centre of Grassington within a large established garden with a series of mature deciduous trees forming the western and southern boundary. C1.6 Field surveys undertaken at the site The site has been surveyed on four occasions: 1. Site scoping survey: 26th July Dawn and site swarming survey: 1st August Evening emergence survey: 7th August Dawn and site swarming survey: 19th August 2014 Two surveyors were present: (i) David Anderson, an experienced ecologist and bat researcher with many years experience of field work and bat ecology, a founder member of the East Lancashire Bat Group and Batworker.co.uk, formerly Natural History Curator and manager of the East Lancashire Biological Records Centre. (Natural England licence No: , Conservation, Science and Education). (ii) Sharon Anderson, an experienced bat worker. C1.7 Survey results An initial scoping survey on 26th July 2014 found historic evidence of roosting by a low numbers of bats; field signs in the form of a small number (circa twenty) of dry and greyed droppings suggested a small roost by Myotis sp bats in one of the roof voids. A dawn survey on 1st August 2014 found evidence of two small transitional roosts used by Common Pipistrelle under lead flashing on the northernmost roof ridge and behind guttering above the entrance hall. A single Natterer's bat was seen to roost behind the lead downspout on the western face of the building, in the corner formed by the dining room and snug. An emergence survey on 7th August 2014 recorded a single Common Pipistrelle emerge from under lead flashing on the northernmost roof ridge and a single Natterer's bat emerge from behind the lead downspout. A second dawn survey on 19th August 2014 recorded use of both the lead flashing on the roof ridge and behind guttering by Common Pipistrelle and a single Natterer's behind the downspout. The evening emergence and dawn surveys were carried out using one Wildlife Acoustics EM3 full spectrum detector and an Elekon Batlogger full spectrum detector. A Sony HDR SR5 video camera in nightshot mode was used with four Infrared illuminators to monitor bats emerging and returning to the western end of the building in order to pinpoint roosting sites.

7 C1.8 Interpretation / evaluation of survey results The building would appear to be used by small numbers of male bats as a satellite roost to gain access to breeding females located in a roost somewhere to the east of the site. This is supported by considerable levels of song flight recorded around the grounds where male bats were advertising their presence. Common pipistrelle in low numbers were recorded using two roost sites. (1) An area of raised lead flashing on the ridge of the northernmost roof (2) Behind guttering above the entrance hall. A solitary Natterer's bat was recorded using a roost behind the lead downspout in the corner formed by the dining room and snug As a cautionary note, it is worth recording the fact that that solitary pipistrelles are sometimes present in all types of building, regardless of time of year, location or even suitability of the structure. Common pipistrelles tend to highly mobile and capable of crevice-roosting under roofing material, fascia-soffit, gaps in stonework and around poorly-fitting doors and window frames. Experience tends to suggest that solitary pipistrelle particularly can turn up almost anywhere and at any time. D Impact assessment D1.1 Short-term impacts: disturbance Low risk; occasionally solitary roosting bats may be disturbed. Torpid bats in cold conditions are usually unable to move out of the way of danger. Work in that location should be stopped, any exposed bat(s) covered or removed to a small container in a dark quiet place, and advice sought immediately. D1.2 Long-term impacts: Roost loss: Minimal impact on a local bat population. The destruction of a bat roost at the property is unlikely. However, in the event of bats being exposed or disturbed, seek advice immediately (see METHOD STATEMENT SUMMARY) D1.3 Long-term impacts: Fragmentation and isolation: minimal, the impact of the proposed development on local bat species is likely to be insignificant. D1.3 Predicted scale of impact Minimal loss of roosting sites of a common and relatively widespread species. E N/A Land ownership

8 F References: Hundt, L., (2012) BCT Bat Surveys, Good Practice Guidelines 2nd Edition. JNCC / BCT., The State of the UK s bats. NBMP Population Trends Mitchell-Jones, AJ., McLeish, AP., (2004), JNCC Bat Workers Manual 3rd Edition. Mitchell-Jones, AJ., (2004), English Nature Bat Mitigation Guidelines, version January 2004 Morris, C., (2009), The Morris Batslate, Vincent Wildlife Trust. Natural England, Bat Mitigation details. NE Cumbria Team. Russ, J., (2012), British Bat Calls, A Guide to Species Identification. Pelagic Publishing. G Annexes G1.1 Mitigation drawings Natural England (Cumbria Team).

9 DOCUMENT 2: A DELIVERY INFORMATION Mitigation and Compensation The overall purpose of the Method Statement is to ensure that bats and their roosts are fully protected to ensure the favourable conservation status of the species. The Method statement is designed to minimise or remove any potential disturbance to roosting bats; this is most easily achieved through appropriate timing of the works. Works carried out in late summer and autumn (usually September / October) will ensure that young bats are able to fly and forage independently and there is no risk to pregnant females or flightless pups. Spring (usually March / April) is just before the main birthing season and defined as May to August when major works should be avoided. The Bat Mitigation Guidelines (BMG) specify that sites with bat roosts of commoner / rarer species require flexibility over provision of bat boxes, access to new buildings etc. [with] no conditions about timing or monitoring (reference: BMG, Figure 4, page 39 Guidelines for proportionate mitigation). A Timing constraints Roofing work should take place between October and March. Although the optimum times are considered to be during the spring and autumn periods when bats are least vulnerable to roost disturbance. (Bat Mitigation Guidelines, pp.42 / 43). B Works to be undertaken by the ecologist or suitably experienced person B.1 Capture and exclusion Not required. In the unlikely event of bats being exposed or disturbed, contact Dave Anderson immediately for emergency advice; a site visit will be arranged to assess the situation and if necessary safely remove bats from the site. C Works to be undertaken by the Developer/Landowner C.1 Bat roosts C1.1 In-situ retention of roost(s) Provision of purpose-built ridge tiles and access slates into roof works. Two ridge tiles (Natural England ridge tile design 4A) should be installed enabling bats to enter the cavity formed beneath roofing material and under felt / sarking membranes. C1.2 Modification of existing roosts(s) N/A C1.3 New roost creation (including bat house, cotes and Bat boxes) Four access slates (Natural England slate design detail 1B) to be installed on roof pitches either side of ridge. Details of both roof access designs are shown in APPENDIX A.

10 D Post-development monitoring Not required (BMG, page 39) E Timetable of works Roof adaptations to accommodate ridge and slate access points for bats should be in place at the design stage Roofing work should take place between October and March. The proposed works should proceed with caution and vigilance for the unexpected presence of roosting / torpid bats If bats are absent continue with proposed works Work requiring bat-friendly design adaptations to be implemented consult ecologist if further advice is needed Page 9 of 14 If solitary bats being are disturbed or exposed during the course of the work STOP WORK in that area and seek advice immediately. Bats can be safely removed from site by ecological consultant or experienced / licensed person

11 METHOD STATEMENT SUMMARY: Grassington Old Hall, Wood Lane, Grassington. Action: Method: Notes: 1. Timing of the works Roofing works to take place between October and March BMG Table 6.1 Page Design adaptations Bat-friendly designs ie. ridge and slate access points, should be included in the designs at the earliest opportunity. Design adaptations are described in COMPENSATORY WORKS below; Natural England s drawings are shown in APPENDIX A. 3. Accidental exposure of bats In the unlikely event of bats or their roosts being exposed or vulnerable to harm, suspend further work in that area. Cover the exposed bats to reduce any further risk of harm and seek advice immediately. EMERGENCY ADVICE Call Dave Anderson (Batworker) on (mobile); a site visit will be arranged to assess the situation and recover any bats / safely remove them from site. 4. Legal responsibilities All contractors and project managers should be made aware of the legal protection afforded all species of bat in the UK and procedures should be in place to mitigate for the potential impact on bats before any building work is undertaken. The onus lies with the applicant to satisfy herself that no offence will be committed if the development goes ahead, regardless of whether planning permission has been granted. 5. Site Contractors. A copy of the Method Statement should be available to site / project managers in advance of any demolition works being carried out. 6. Compliance The existence of a Method Statement helps to establish a defence against prosecution for intentional (WCA), deliberate (Habitat Regulations.) or reckless (WCA) disturbance of bats or damage to roosts. (WCA) Wildlife and Countryside Act. A Method Statements is normally required by the local planning authority to ensure that procedures are in place before the development works are carried out. It is the responsibility of the LPA to ensure that the proposed works would not result in breaches of the Habitat Regulations. (Habitat Regs.) (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations (1994) (as amended 2010). Post-development monitoring is not required although the local planning authority may require further inspection of the site to ensure that the design adaptations have been correctly installed as recommended.

12 ENHANCEMENT / COMPENSATORY WORKS ACTION METHOD: 1. Ridge access tiles PROVIDE: 2 No. ridge tiles; these should be incorporated into the roof design allowing bats to enter the roof void via a narrow gap beneath the ridge tile (20mm 25mm maximum gap to encourage access by bats but deny access to birds. NB. There must be a gap provided through the roofing felt to allow bats to enter the roof void. 2. Bat access slates See example of RIDGE TILE ACCESS 4A recommended by Natural England. PROVIDE; 4 No. access slates per roof See example of BAT ACCESS SLATE 1B recommended by Natural England. The Morris Bat Slate is a similar design to the bat access slate 1B above and full details are attached. NB. There must be a gap provided through the roofing felt to allow bats to enter the roof void. A4 versions of these designs are shown in Appendix A. These modifications are relatively easy to install. To be fully effective, the design modifications should first be discussed with the ecological consultant to ensure the roof adaptations are correctly installed.

13 APPENDIX A

14 APPENDIX B

15 APPENDIX B This fully illustrated PDF document is available online