Bat Activity Survey Report - Tameside · September 2017 following guidance from Collins, J., Bat...

Company Reg. No: 06305254 VAT No: 217401149

Bat Activity Survey Report

For: Mark Cunningham of Leandra Limited

Site

Roe Cross Green Mottram in Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE

Date: August and September 2017

Surveying Ecologist:

Natasha Estrada BSc (Hons), MRes, MCIEEM

Natural England Bat Licence: 2015-12213-CLS-CLS

Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE

Page 2 of 22

Client: Mark Cunningham of Leandra Limited

Site Name: Roe Cross Green, Mottram-in-Langendale, Hyde SK14 6SE

Grid Reference: SJ 98819 96370

Report: Bat Survey Report

Date of survey: August and September 2017

Surveyed by: Natasha Estrada BSc (Hons), MRes, MCIEEM

Issue: Revision: Stage: Date: Prepared by: Approved by:

1 -

Draft

for

review

3 October

2017

Jane Gruber,

Estrada Ecology

Ltd

Natasha Estrada MCIEEM,

Estrada Ecology Ltd

2 n/a FINAL 9 October 2017

Jane Gruber, Estrada Ecology

Ltd

Natasha Estrada

MCIEEM, Estrada Ecology

Ltd


Page 3 of 22

Executive Summary

The surveys recorded no evidence of use of the building on site by any species of bat. Land, immediately outside the site boundary to the north,

was recorded as being a commuting route for common pipistrelle bat,

Pipistrellus pipistrellus; likely to be to, and from a roost identified to the

north-east.

A low level of noctule, Nyctalus noctula bat activity was recorded along

the periphery of woodland, to the south of the survey site.

As a precautionary measure, it is recommended that roofing tiles on the

northern elevation of the property are stripped under ecological supervision. Artificial lighting should be minimised to prevent overspill

on land outside the northern elevation.

Every effort has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this report and its

contents. However, in view of potential ecological constraints to development, or the likely presence or absence of species, it must only

be viewed as a snap shot in time and not be viewed as definitive. Due to external factors, such as seasonality, weather etc, having the

potential to affect survey results, no liability can be assumed for omissions or changes that may, or may not occur, after the date this

report was produced.


Page 4 of 22

Contents:

Summary

1 Introduction and Site Description

2 Protected Species Legislation

3 Survey and Site Assessment

4 Survey Methodology

5 Survey Findings

6 Interpretation and Evaluation

7 Site Status Assessment

8 Ecological Constraints

9 Assessment of Impacts

10 Mitigation

11 Biodiversity Enhancements

Appendices and photographic plates


Page 5 of 22

1 Introduction and Site Description

1.1 Estrada Ecology Ltd was commissioned to undertake a preliminary roost assessment, and subsequent bat activity surveys to satisfy

a planning application to demolish an existing building on site, to

facilitate redevelopment of the site into five residential dwellings.

1.2 The property is located on land at Roe Cross Green, Mottram-in-Langendale, Hyde SK14 6SP; central OS grid reference SJ 98819

96370.

1.3 A preliminary roost assessment of the property, conducted on 22

August 2017, within the bat activity season 2017, by a licenced bat ecologist (2015-10170-CLS-CLS), recorded the building on

site to contain a moderate level of suitability to provide features which bats could utilise for roosting or as a place of shelter. No

field sign evidence of bats was recorded at the time of survey.

1.4 Two activity surveys following guidance outlined within the Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines 2016 were recommended to

ascertain presence / likely absence. Surveys entailed one dusk

and one pre-dawn survey.

2 Protected Species Legislation

2.1 All species of bat and their breeding sites or resting places (roosts)

are fully protected under The Conservation of Habitats and Species

Regulations 2010 (as amended).

The Regulations prohibit: the deliberate killing, injuring or taking

of bats; the deliberate disturbance of any bat species in such a

way as to be significantly likely to affect:

• their ability of to survive, hibernate, migrate, breed, or rear or nurture their young; or the local distribution or abundance of

that species. • damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place

(roost);

• the possession or transport of bats or any other part thereof.

Bats are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act

1981 (as amended) through their inclusion in Schedule 5.


Page 6 of 22

Under the Act, they are protected from:

• intentional or reckless disturbance (at any level); obstruction of access to any place of shelter, breeding or rest; selling,

bartering or exchange of these species, or parts of.

Seven British bat species are listed as Species of Principle Importance (SPI) under the Natural Environment and Rural

Communities (NERC) Act 2006. These are: barbastelle

(Barbastella barbastellus); Bechstein’s (Myotis bechsteinii); noctule (Nyctalus noctula); soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus

pygmaeus); brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus); greater horseshoe (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum); and lesser horseshoe

(Rhinolophus hipposideros).

2.2 Under the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the presence of any protected species is a material planning consideration. The

Framework states that impacts arising from development proposals must be avoided where possible, or adequately

mitigated/ compensated for, and that opportunities for ecological

enhancement should be sought.

2.3 Under certain circumstances, a licence may be granted by Natural England to permit activities that would otherwise constitute an

offence. In relation to development, a scheme must have full

planning permission before a licence application can be made.

2.4 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan sets out the priorities for the UK, regarding habitats and species of principle importance for

conserving biodiversity in the UK. Local areas have then identified the habitats and species within their areas which are on the

national list and those which are of importance locally.

3 Survey and Site Assessment

3.1 Existing information on bats, (all species) at the survey site

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit was contacted for bat records for the site and a 1km radius. A total of seven bat records were

returned for the search area; comprising of two confirmed species; common pipistrelle, Pipistrellus pipistrellus, and soprano

pipistrelle, Pipistrellus pygmaeus. Of those records, two roost records for both common and soprano pipistrelle were recorded


Page 7 of 22

approximately six hundred metres north east of the survey site.

Of the remaining records all are for un specified “other signs” for

common and soprano pipistrelle bats.

Figure 1: Bat records for the site provided by Greater Manchester

Ecology Unit for the survey site plus a 1km radius.


Page 8 of 22

3.2 Status of bats in the local / regional area

The details of bat records for a 1km radius from site are outlined in Figure 1. Consultation infers that bats of local provenance are likely

widespread, but under recorded.

3.3 Objectives of the survey

The objective of this survey was to establish the presence or

absence of bats, and whether bats (all species) were using the building for roosting, or as a place of shelter. If present, then to

identify to species level, determine the population size and nature of the roost. Where appropriate, the presence of other European

protected species was surveyed for, and findings reported. Furthermore, the occupation by birds of all species was noted and

the activity level assessed.

3.4 The building

The traditional multi-storey stone building, with a stone tiled roof

is located within a wider plot of hardstanding.

The traditional stone-built building has a stone-tiled roof, which is

in relatively good condtion. However, the roof does have numerous potential access points for bats to gain entry to the

buildings eg missing mortar in stonework and lifted tiles.

No field sign evidence of use by bats was recorded during the

preliminary ecological appraisal.

Figure 2: The sites location within its wider setting.


Page 9 of 22

4 Survey Methodology

4.1 Daytime survey (all structures)

An inspection survey of the property was undertaken in

September 2017 following guidance from Collins, J., Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists,

Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd Edition 2016.

Where accessible, all cracks and fissures in the buildings were examined with a pro vision recording endoscope. Furthermore,

investigation with a FLIR E60 thermal imaging camera was

conducted to ascertain if any bats were in situ.

Attention was paid to fissures within stonework. Windows, window sills, where present, and any debris were examined for bat field

signs. Features which have the potential to support roosting bats

were recorded as were any evidence of occupation by birds.

An external examination was conducted to identify potential roost sites and access points and any signs of actual occupation such as

scratch marks, droppings, smudge marks, discarded moth wings

and urine staining etc.

4.2 Assessment of site and surrounding habitats

The site is situated within the semi-rural area of Roe Cross, some 0.7 km south east of the town of Mottram-in-Longdendale, Hyde.

The surrounding landscape provides some suitable natural roosting, foraging and commuting features which bats could

utilise. Habitats recorded within the search area include:

• Deciduous Woodland • Lowland Heath

• Mixed Woodland

4.3 Search of existing bat roost records

Bat species recorded within a 1km radius of the site are

highlighted in Figure 1. Two roost records exist for approximately

six hundred metres north east of the survey site.


Page 10 of 22

4.4 Activity surveys

For each survey, the surveyors operated a Bat Box Duet, in combination with an MP3 recorder. An Anabat static detector was

also used to record bat passes and activity on the site. Where possible, species were identified from contacts, and if the bat was

seen, visual cues were used to aid identification. All bat passes and contacts were recorded on to field maps. Where possible the

behaviour of the bat was also recorded, to further inform of the use of the site. The number of bats observed was also recorded.

Bat activity is strongly affected by weather conditions and surveys were conducted in suitable weather conditions as outlined within

the Bat Conservation Trust’s Bat Survey Guidelines 3rd Edition. All

surveys were undertaken in dry and calm conditions, during which

bats are most likely to be active.

The emergence survey commenced half an hour before dusk, and

ended over two hours after dark to encompass the emergence times of different species within the locality. The pre-dawn re-

entry survey commenced two hours pre-sunrise and ended thirty minutes post-sunrise. Surveyors were located at differing

elevations of the building in locations of potential roost sites.

As the building was deemed to have moderate potential to be used

by bats, two activity surveys were conducted in line with the BCT

Best Practice Survey Guidelines 2016.

Table 1: Timings of the activity surveys

Date Sunset/

Sunrise

Start

time

End

time

Weather conditions

24 August 2017 20.07 19:40 22:11 21°C, 63% humidity, 8mph WSW

wind, clear

20 September 2017 06:49 04:33 07:15 16°C; 84% humidity, 6 mph SW

wind, light cloud

4.5 Analysis of bat calls

Bat echolocation calls recorded by the AnabatWalkabout were analysed using AnalookW software to confirm the identity of the

bats present and to calculate the approximate number of passes by each species. A bat pass is defined as an unbroken stream of

echolocation calls recorded as a bat passed in and out of the

detector’s range.


Page 11 of 22

Where possible bats were identified to species level.

Because many bat species having overlapping call parameters, for example between long-eared calls and serotine calls, or between

the two species of Nyctalus (noctule and Leisler’s bat) and Myotis

spp. identification to species level is not always possible.

Where species identification of these bats has not been possible,

these calls have been grouped as either species, as recommended

in the Best Practice Guidelines (Hundt, 2012).

For Pipistrellus species, the following criteria was used to classify

calls; this is based on measurements of peak frequency:

• Common pipistrelle > 42 and <49 kHz

• Soprano pipistrelle >51 kHz

• Nathusius’ pipistrelle <39 kHz • Common pipistrelle / soprano pipistrelle > 49 and <51 kHz

(i.e. call parameters are such that it is not possible to determine which pipistrelle species made the echolocation

call) - this is subsequently recorded as Pip 50. • Common pipistrelle / Nathusius’ pipistrelle > 39 and <42 kHz

(i.e. call parameters are such that it is not possible to determine which pipistrelle species made the echolocation

call) - this is subsequently recorded as Pip 40.

4.6 Timing

The preliminary ecological assessment was undertaken on 22

August 2017. The activity surveys were conducted on dates throughout August and September 2017, during suitable weather

conditions as outlined in Table 1.

4.7 Personnel

The preliminary roost assessment was undertaken By Helen

Holford (Natural England Bat licence 2015-10170-CLS-CLS) an experienced bat ecologist. The activity surveys were carried out

by experienced bat ecologist Natasha Estrada (Natural England bat licence 2015-12213-CLS-CLS); a full member of the Chartered

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM), and the named ecologist on several EPS mitigation licences for

bats, assisted by suitably qualified, seasonal assistants.


Page 12 of 22

5 Survey Findings

5.1 No bats of any species were recorded emerging from or re-

entering the property during the surveys.

5.2 A peak count of eleven common pipistrelle bat passes was recorded during the emergence survey. All contacts came from

the north east, past Old Road to the immediate north of the site, before dispersing nto woodland to the south of the site. The first

contact was recorded at 20:13, with the final contact being

recorded at 20:27.

5.3 Two noctule, Nyctalus noctula bat contacts were recorded at 19:56 and 20:13 respectively, flying above woodland to the south of the

survey site. The second contact was heard but not seen. No

further contacts of any species of bat were recorded after 20:27.

5.4 During the pre-dawn activity survey, a peak count of six common

pipistrelle bats was recorded along Old Road, to the north of the site. All bats were recorded to be flying to the east, with initial

contacts recorded alongside woodland to the south.

5.5 One noctule bat contact was recorded on the second survey (pre-

dawn) at 05:15. No other contacts from any bat species were

recorded during the survey.


Page 13 of 22

Figure 3: Identified commuting ground

6 Interpretation and Evaluation

6.1 The surveys produced no evidence to indicate use of the property by bats of any species. No bats of any species were recorded

emerging from, or re-entering the property.

6.2 The adjacent Old Road, to the immediate north, was recorded as

being used by common pipistrelle bat as a commuting line to and

from land to the north east.

6.3 There is no evidence of use of the building by breeding birds

current or historical.

6.4 Light levels on the northern elevation of the site are negligible and

not of an intensity which could impede bat occupation or foraging / commuting activity. Light levels on the southern elevation are

elevated by strong street lighting and security lighting, largely over spilling the southern elevation of the property. The intensity

is high and likely to dissuade use of this elevation by bats of local

provenance.


Page 14 of 22

6.5 Land within the application boundary does not appear to be a

major foraging ground or commuting line. A commuting line

immediately outside the site boundary to the north was recorded

during the survey period.

7 Site Status Assessment

7.1 During the survey period, no evidence was collated to infer use of the building by bats of any species. Light overspill on the southern

elevation of the building and plot is deemed of an intensity likely to dissuade use of the immediate area particularly by more light-

intolerant species of bats, particularly Myotis and Plecotus species.

7.2 Evidence suggests use of Old Road, to the immediate north as a

commuting line for common pipistrelle bat. Two known roosts are located some 600 metres to the north east, and behaviour is

deemed likely dispersal from these roosts to favoured foraging

grounds in woodland to the south.

7.3 No evidence of use by breeding birds was recorded within the

building.

8 Ecological Constraints

8.1 There were no ecological constraints at the time these surveys were undertaken. Activity surveys were undertaken by suitably,

experienced staff in suitable weather conditions, and in line with

BCT guidance 2016.

9 Assessment of Impacts

9.1 No evidence was recorded throughout the survey period to indicate use of the property by bats of any species. A small

common pipistrelle commuting line was recorded, outside the site

boundary to the north.

9.2 No evidence of use of the property by breeding birds was recorded

during the surveys.

10 Mitigation

10.1 Mitigation is required to avoid or reduce the impact of development proposals on the population of bats present, either


Page 15 of 22

roosting or feeding. Licences are required where a roost site is

threatened in some way by a scheme.

10.2 Under current plans no impacts on bats and their roosts are

predicted. Due to the presence of commuting bats immediately outside the site boundary to the north it is recommended, as a

purely precautionary, measure that the roofs on the northern elevation of the property are stripped by hand, in the presence of

a suitably qualified ecologist.

10.3 Should bats or field sign evidence of bats be recorded, then all

works should cease and a suitable mitigation strategy compiled

via consultation with Natural England.

10.4 No impacts are predicted in respect of breeding birds at this

juncture. It is recommended that demolition works are undertaken outside the bird breeding season (March – August

inclusive). Should timing constraints make this impractical then a pre-works walkover survey for breeding birds should be

undertaken.

10.5 Due to land outside the northern site boundary being used by

common pipistrelle bats as a commuting line, it is recommended that artificial light overspill is minimised during, and post

redevelopment works on this elevation.

10.6 Biodiversity enhancements should be avoided on the southern

elevation of the site, due to elevated light levels.

11 Biodiversity Enhancements

11.1 To enhance roosting potential within the proposed redevelopment

of the site, the following measures are recommended.

11.2 Two Ibstock enclosed bat box “C” should be integrated into the fabric of the buildings on Plots Five and Six. The Ibstock enclosed

box is idea for pipistrelle bat species.

The boxes can be integrated into the brickwork of the buildings

and are available in several finishes to suit the aesthetics of the design. The boxes require no ongoing maintenance and provide

several roosting zones ideal for crevice dwelling bat species. Due


Page 16 of 22

to the integrated nature of the boxes and their durability, they are

designed to be retained in situ for the lifetime of the building.

Figure 4: Proposed location of Ibstock enclosed bat box ‘C’

It is proposed that the boxes are located on the north-eastern

elevation of the plots as indicated in Figure 4. The boxes should

be located as high as possible to prevent grounding and predation, and it is recommended that they are sited directly below the

soffits. No artificial light should be allowed to overspill the location

of the boxes.

11.3 Within Plots One to Four inclusive, it is recommended that one

small enclosed Ibstock bat box ‘B’ is installed within the fabric of each of the buildings on the northern elevations. Specifically

designed for pipistrelle species, the boxes provide a number of


Page 17 of 22

differing roosting zones, and thus environmental conditions. As

with all bat boxes, they should be integrated into the fabric of the

buildings and located as high as possible to prevent grounding and

predation.

Figure 5: Enclosed Ibstock bat box ‘B’

11.4 Due to the intensity of light overspill onto the southern elevation

bordering Roe Cross Road, it is recommended that biodiversity

enhancement features are not located within this area.

11.5 Artificial lighting

Due to commuting bats being recorded outside the northern site boundary along Old Road, it is recommended that no artificial

lighting overspills onto this location, either during the proposed

works, or post redevelopment of the site.

Where required, light levels within the site should be of low

intensity and illuminate only the immediate area required. Lights

should be positioned in at sharp downward angle with illumination directed on the intended source using shields or hoods. Thus,

overspill will be minimised as will be disturbance.


Page 18 of 22

11.6 Consideration of lighting type:

• It is recommended that any lighting on site should comprise of low pressure sodium lamps housed in glass glazing, thus

reducing the amount of UV being emitted. • Lamps should be situated with the luminaire angled sharply

downwards to illuminate the intended source reducing overspill. No bare bulbs or upwards lighting should be

implemented. • Narrow spectrum bulbs should be considered for reducing the

potential number of species in the surrounding area affected by lighting.

• Hoods should be fitted to the lights if overspill is too great.

However, this may not be necessary if the light is angled sharply downwards.

• Overspill can be reduced and light directed to its intended source by limiting the height of the lighting column. Light at

low level can reduce ecological impacts. The lighting column should be no higher than 1.5 metres above the height of the

intended source of illumination.


Page 19 of 22

Appendix One: The building, south eastern aspect


Page 20 of 22

Appendix Two: Example of potential access for bats; missing mortar.


Page 21 of 22

Appendix Three: : Example of potential access for bats; lifted tiles.


Page 22 of 22

References

Collins, J. (2016). Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) Bat Surveys for

Professional Ecologists, Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition

Bibliography

Davies, T.W., et al (2012). Street lighting changes the composition of

invertebrate communities. Biology Letters, 8 764-767

Eisenbeis, G., (2006). Artificial night lighting and insects: attraction of

insects to streetlamps in a rural setting in Germany. In C. Rich & T. Longcore (eds.). Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting.

Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 281–304.

Entwistle, A. C., Racey P.A. and Speakman, J.R. (1996) Roost seltion by

brown long-eared bat. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 399-408

Stone, E., (2014) Bats and Lighting – Bats Conservation Trust.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd

=4&ved=0CDgQFjADahUKEwj1nrTOpMbHAhVF2RoKHfA7B3s&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bats.org.uk%2Fpublications_download.php%2F132

7%2FBats_and_Lighting_EStone_2014.pdf&ei=2nLdVfXJOMWya_D3nN

gH&usg=AFQjCNH-lbr2AXoaMhop4aSNb9N-VfuVuA&cad=rja

Swensson, A., M., and Rudell, J., (1998). Mercury vapour lamps

interfere with the bat defence of tympanate moths. Animal Behaviour, 55, 223-226.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDgQFjADahUKEwj1nrTOpMbHAhVF2RoKHfA7B3s&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bats.org.uk%2Fpublications_download.php%2F1327%2FBats_and_Lighting_EStone_2014.pdf&ei=2nLdVfXJOMWya_D3nNgH&usg=AFQjCNH-lbr2AXoaMhop4aSNb9N-VfuVuA&cad=rja





Date post:	23-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Bat Activity Survey Report - Tameside · September 2017 following guidance from Collins, J., Bat...

Documents