BAT SURVEY REPORT - East Staffordshire · BAT SURVEY REPORT February 2012 ECO2172.batsur.vf ....

$Page 1: BAT SURVEY REPORT - East Staffordshire · BAT SURVEY REPORT February 2012 ECO2172.batsur.vf . P/2012/00201\r\rReceived 20/02/12. ... The site itself comprises a working dairy farm,$
NOVEMBER 2011 / ASPECT ECOLOGY 0

CONDER DEVELOPMENT LTD / PEGASUS PLANNING GROUP LTD

HIGH STREET, ROCESTER

BAT SURVEY REPORT

February 2012 ECO2172.batsur.vf

lisa.roberts

Text Box

P/2012/00201 Received 20/02/12

COPYRIGHT

The copyright of this document remains with Aspect Ecology. The contents of this document therefore must not be copied or reproduced in

whole or in part for any purpose without the written consent of Aspect Ecology.

PROTECTED SPECIES

This report contains sensitive information relating to protected species. The information contained herein should not be disseminated without the prior consent of Aspect Ecology.

LEGAL GUIDANCE

The information set out within this report in no way constitutes a legal opinion on the relevant legislation. The opinion of a legal professional should be sought if further advice is required.

Aspect Ecology Ltd Hardwick Business Park

Noral Way Banbury

Oxfordshire OX16 2AF

t 01295 276066 f 01295 265072

e [email protected] w www.aspect-ecology.com

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1

2. BAT SURVEY METHODOLOGY .........................................................................2

3. LEGISLATION AND ECOLOGY ..........................................................................4

4. SURVEY RESULTS AND EVALUATION.............................................................5

5. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................13

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................14

PLANS

PLAN 2787/BAT1 Site Location PLAN 2787/BAT2 Habitat and Ecological Features PLAN 2787/BAT3 Bat Survey Results

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Proposed access strategy: Aecom Drawing No.

50103077_002 APPENDIX 2 Data obtained from the ‘National Biodiversity Network’

(NBN) Database


High Street, Rocester ECO2172.batsur.vf Bat Survey Report

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background & Proposals 1.1.1. Aspect Ecology has been commissioned by Pegasus Planning Group Ltd on

behalf of Conder Developments Ltd, to undertake specific bat survey work at the site at High Street, Rocester in order to inform proposals for a new road junction to provide access into the site, which is understood to be required for future development purposes.

1.1.2. Details of the proposed new junction arrangements are shown at Appendix

1. The proposals will require the demolition of a number of existing buildings within the site and accordingly Aspect Ecology was commissioned in September 2011 to undertake specific bat survey work of the buildings in order to inform the proposals.

1.2. Site Characteristics 1.2.1. The site is located within the south west of the village Rocester immediately

south of High Street, which marks the northern site boundary. East of the site is largely residential development within Rocester, whilst to the west are a number of commercial units along High Street, along with a number of pasture fields. South of the site is further agricultural land in the form of grazed pasture fields.

1.2.2. The site itself comprises a working dairy farm, including a number of

buildings and areas of hardstanding located adjacent to High Street, which comprise the residential farm house along with a number of animal stalls, barns and other agricultural buildings.

1.3. Purpose of Report 1.3.1. The purpose of this report is to detail the results of the specific bat survey

work undertaken in order to establish the likely presence or absence of bats at the site and inform the forthcoming road junction scheme. Where appropriate, suitable recommendations and mitigation measures are also set out in the order to ensure that this group is fully safeguarded.

FEBRUARY 2012 / ASPECT ECOLOGY 1


2. BAT SURVEY METHODOLOGY 2.1. Desk Study

2.1.1. In order to compile background information pre-existing records of bats from

the area surrounding the site were obtained from the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway, which incorporates records from the National Biodiversity Records Centre and the Bat Conservation Trust amongst other sources. Information obtained from the NBN database is included at Appendix 2.

2.2. Field Survey 2.2.1. Survey work was carried out at the site in September 2011 following the

methodology set out within “Bat Mitigation Guidelines”, published by English Nature (now Natural England) in 2004 and the Bat Conservation Trust’s, “Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines” published in 2007.

2.2.2. Buildings. A number of buildings on the site are to be lost to the proposals

and were therefore subject to full internal and external inspection surveys using ladders, torches, mirrors and binoculars where necessary to check for any evidence of use by bats.

2.2.3. Evidence of the presence of bats was searched for with particular attention

paid to any loft voids and gaps between rafters and beams. Specific searches were made for bat droppings that can indicate present or past use and the extent of use, whilst other signs that can indicate the possible presence of bats were also searched for, e.g. presence of stained areas, feeding remains or bats themselves.

2.2.4. Emergence/ Dawn Return Survey. Dusk bat emergence and dawn return

surveys were carried out on 22nd/23rd and 29th/30th September 2011 to identify any bats leaving or entering potential roost sites in the buildings. The survey work focussed on the buildings highlighted to offer greatest potential to support roosting bats.

2.2.5. Two surveyors were positioned at the western and eastern ends of the farm

courtyard, allowing monitoring of buildings that were deemed to offer greatest potential to be used by bats (see ECO2 for locations). Each surveyor used a Bat Box Duet hand-held electronic detector and MP3 recording equipment to aid identification of any bats observed. For dusk emergence surveys, surveyors were in position approximately 30 minutes prior to sunset, remaining in place for approximately two hours. During the dawn re-entry surveys, surveyors were in place from 1.5 to 2 hours before sunrise and remained in place until sunrise. In addition, general levels of bat activity at the site, e.g. foraging/commuting were recorded during the surveys.

2.2.6. This survey work was carried out during suitable weather conditions, as set

out at Table 1, below.



Survey Date Sunset / Sunrise Time Weather Conditions 22 September 2011 19:05 Mild, still, cloudy, 18°C 23 September 2011 06:50 Mild, still, 12°C 29 September 2011 18:51 Warm, dry, 19°C 30 September 2011 07:05 Clear, still, dry, 10°C

Table 1: Details of weather conditions and timings of Bat Survey Visits undertaken at the site during September 2011

2.2.7. Where appropriate, recorded bat calls were analysed using Bat Sound

software (version 3.30). 2.3. Survey Constraints 2.3.1. During surveys of buildings, evidence for some crevice-dwelling bats can be

difficult to find, particularly beneath tiles, within cavity walls or under any other small crevices present within the exterior fabric of the buildings. Nonetheless, during the current survey work, access was available to all areas of the buildings being surveyed, with the majority being open into the roof structures, such that the majority of the structures were visible allowing a relatively good level of confidence in the results. In addition, specific targeted emergence/re-entry survey work has been undertaken to further confirm the presence or absence of bats and accordingly the survey information available is considered to provide a robust picture of the overall levels of use of the site by bats.



3. LEGISLATION AND ECOLOGY 3.1. Legislation

3.1.1. All British bats are classed as European Protected Species and therefore

receive protection under ‘The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010’, making it an offence to:

• Deliberately kill, injure or capture bats;; • Deliberately disturb bats, including in particular any disturbance which is

likely to impair their ability to survive, to reproduce or to rear or nurture their young, or their ability to hibernate or migrate, or which is likely to affect significantly their local distribution or abundance;

• Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a bat.

3.1.2. In addition, all British bats are also listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which contains further provisions making it an offence to intentionally or recklessly:

• Damage or destroy, or obstruct access to, any structure or place which

any bat uses for shelter or protection; or • Disturb bats while occupying a structure or place which it uses for that

purpose. 3.1.3. If proposed development work is likely to destroy or disturb bats or their

roosts a licence may need to be obtained from Natural England which would be subject to appropriate measures to safeguard bats.

3.1.4. Bats are also UK/Local BAP priority species.

3.2. Ecology

3.2.1. There are at least 17 breeding bat species in Britain. Many of them are

considered threatened due to a variety of factors including habitat loss and disturbance/damage to roosts. Of these 17 species, a number regularly use buildings as roost sites.

3.2.2. Bats are highly mobile flying mammals, which, in Britain, feed entirely on

insects. They are able to fly and feed in the dark by using a system of echolocation that gives them a ‘sound picture’ of their surroundings.

3.2.3. In winter when prey is scarce, British bats hibernate in humid parts of

buildings, caves or hollow trees where temperatures are typically stable. They may wake occasionally but only become fully active again in the spring.

3.2.4. Female bats gather together in maternity roosts in summer to give birth and

rear their single offspring. Like other mammals bats have fur and give birth to live young. Infant bats suckle on their mother’s milk for several weeks until they can fly and hunt insects for themselves. Bats are long-lived mammals and some British species are known to live to over twenty-five years of age.



4. SURVEY RESULTS AND EVALUATION 4.1. Specific survey work was undertaken of the buildings within the site in order

to identify any evidence for use by bats and provide a detailed assessment of the potential of buildings to support roosting bats.

4.2. Roosts

Buildings – Inspection survey work 4.2.1. A total of 9 buildings are present within the site, all of which were appraised

for their potential to support roosting bats. The buildings were also subject to detailed internal inspections for any evidence of use by bats, such as droppings, scratch marks, fur or staining or individual bats themselves. The results of this survey work are detailed at Table 2 below.

4.2.2. In summary, the majority of buildings are considered to provide at most very

limited opportunities for roosting bats, due to the nature of their construction. 4.2.3. In addition, the habitats within the immediate surroundings of the buildings

were recorded to comprise largely of hardstanding, with the only vegetation present in the form of small areas of rank grassland, which are unlikely to provide particular bat foraging/commuting habitat or routes, reducing any likelihood that the buildings could be used by bats.

4.2.4. No evidence for the presence of any significant or regular bat roosts at the

site was recoded during any of the surveys undertaken.

Buildings – Emergence survey work 4.2.5. In order to further confirm the presence or absence of roosting bats within

the buildings at the site, dusk emergence and dawn return surveys were undertaken at the site in September 2011, focussing on buildings B1 and B2, which were recorded to offer the greatest potential to support the greatest potential to support roosting bats of those present at the site. In addition, general levels of bat activity elsewhere within the site were noted during the survey work.

4.2.6. The results of the emergence/return survey work are set out within Table 3.,

below and at Plan 2172/BAT2. 4.2.7. In summary, no bats were recorded emerging from, or returning from roosts

within the buildings at the site during the survey work undertaken. Low levels of Common Pipistrelle activity were noted during the survey work, including a number of commuting passes and occasional foraging activity by a small number of bats predominantly associated with the taller vegetation along the eastern site boundary.


Table 2: Building descriptions and assessment of bat roosting potential

Building Description Features providing bat roosting potential Evidence of bats

B1 – Area 1

Brick built former thrashing barn with a pitched roof supporting slate tiles, Internal brick walls divide the barn. The slate tiles rest directly onto the wooden rafters and battens, with no lining material such that all areas are clearly visible and exposed. Internally the building is open to the roof structures. The building is in use on a daily basis as a private saw mill with active machine room, wood store and small workshop.

Very limited potential to conceal roosting bats exist under individual tiles, whilst the underside of tiles is largely visible internally. Potential access points are available into the barn through gaps in the roof and windows, although the nature and active use of the building are such that it is unlikely to offer substantial roosting opportunities for bats. Low potential to support roosting bats.

No evidence for the presence of any bats was recorded during the inspection survey.

B1 – Area 2

A continuation of B1, a brick built dairy shed with hayloft above attached to east of building B1. The building has a pitched, slated roof with the tiles laid directly onto wooden battens and rafters. Internal brick walls divide the barn with grain chutes and a modern freezer room installed on the ground floor. The first floor appears to comprise of old hayloft and grain storage areas. The building appears to be used for storage associated with the private saw mill.

Very limited potential roosting spaces exist for bats under individual tiles, whilst the underside of tiles is largely visible internally. Possible access points are available into the barn through gaps in the roof, brickwork, doors and external shutters over windows. Low potential due to very small number of suitable joints, all of which were recorded to support dense cobwebs. Low potential to support roosting bats.

No evidence for the presence of any bats was recorded during the inspection survey.




B2

Building B2 is a three storey farm house of brick construction with pitched, slate-tiled roofs. The building was occupied by tenants at the time of survey. Two loft voids are present within the building, one located over the western extension and the other over the main part of the building. The building appeared to be in a relatively poor state of repair with a number of missing tiles to the roof.

Potential roosting spaces exist for bats under individual tiles and the internal roof voids. Possible access points are available into the house through gaps in the roof, open doors and damaged windows. Moderate potential to support roosting bats

A single bat dropping consistent in size and character for Brown Long-eared bat was observed in the top room of the house along with four tortoise shell butterfly wings. It is likely from the limited evidence that this represents a single exploratory/foraging bat entering the building. No further signs or evidence of regular use by bats was observed within the building.

B3

Building B3 comprises a brick-built workshop with a pitched roof of metal. Large wooden doors are present at the northern end with glass windows in the sides. The southern end of the building comprises a former pig sty. Internally the metal roof is supported on recent, rough sawn timbers. The northern end of the building is in use daily as a workshop and for storage.

Very limited potential roosting spaces exist for bats within B3, particularly given the metal roof. Negligible potential to support roosting bats.

No evidence for the presence of any bats was recorded from the building during the inspection survey.




B4

Building B4 comprises a milking shed of blockwork construction with a flat, metal roof. A former feed store with descending chutes is also located above the milking parlour itself.

Negligible potential roosting spaces present, particularly given the flat metal roof. Negligible potential to support roosting bats.

No evidence for the presence of any bats was recorded within the building during the inspection survey.

B5

Building B5 is a brick-built cow shed with a pitched roof supporting slate tiles. The barn has several broken windows and door that will not shut. Signs of a former hayloft are present which appears to have collapsed. The slate-tiled roof appears to be sliding off the western side of the building, opening up the interior to the elements.

Few potential roosting spaces exist for bats within the barn roof. The internal timbers do not support suitable features for bats (i.e. joints, holes, splits etc) and the roof damage exposes the inside of building to elements, at time of survey the building was very damp. Negligible potential to support roosting bats.


B6

Building B6 comprises a former stable block of timber construction with wooden facades and a pitched roof of corrugated metal. The building is open-fronted on northern side. The stable is understood to be used to overwinter horses. Signs of rats were recorded in the straw on floor.

Some timbers used in the construction of the stable support joints with gaps that may be suitable for roosting bats. At the time of survey these were all covered with dense cobwebs. Generally however, the building is considered to be unsuitable for roosting bats due to its open nature and lack of an enclosed roof voids. Low potential to support roosting bats.





B7

Building B7 comprises a large cattle barn of metal construction with additional workshops attached to the eastern end of the building. The barn is used daily to house hand reared cattle and for storage of agricultural machinery and supplies. The building is lit throughout the night and in active use through the day. The workshop is of timber frame construction with wooden façades and a pitched asbestos roof. The workshop appears to be in a poor state of repair. All windows in the workshop were missing panes, sections of the floor had collapsed and damage to the wooden façade was noted.

No suitable features for roosting bats were observed during the internal inspection. Potential access points into the main barn include the gap between barn facade and gates on the front of the barn. Potential access points into the former workshop include holes in the wooden façade and broken windows. Negligible potential to support roosting bats


B8

Building B8 is an open sided barn of metal framed construction with concrete low sides. The barn is used daily for housing and feeding cattle. During the emergence surveys the building was observed to be internally lit throughout the night.

No features suitable of supporting roosting bats were observed during the internal inspection. Negligible potential to support roosting bats.





B9

Building B9 is a metal framed building supporting shallow pitched roof of metal with partial block work walls to the south. The barn is open on three sides and used daily for housing cattle.

No features suitable of supporting roosting bats were observed during the internal inspection. Negligible potential to support roosting bats.



Table 3: Results of Bat emergence/return survey work undertaken at the site during September 2011

Date Buildings subject to survey focus Results

22 September

2011 (Dusk)

B1, B2

The first bat was recorded at 19:30 commuting across the site. Throughout the survey low levels of common Pipistrelle bat activity (total of 6 observed passes, 3 heard passes) were recorded flying around/over the site from offsite. Occasional foraging and commuting by Pipistrelle bats was also recorded along the eastern boundary over the rank grass and hardstanding adjacent to building B1. In addition, a single Noctule bat was observed flying over the site, a further two passes were heard at 20:05. The last bat, a common pipistrelle was recorded 21:04 moving over the site from offsite. No bats were recorded emerging from any of the buildings within the site.

23 September

2011 (Dawn)

B1, B2

The first bat, a Common Pipistrelle was recorded at 05:58. Low levels of Pipistrelle bat activity (total 8 passes) were recorded during the dawn survey along with further occasional foraging and commuting also recorded along the eastern boundary by up to 1 bat. Other species recorded include a single Myotis species bat, passing across the site from an offsite area. There was no concentrated activity at any building on site. The last bat was recorded at 06:24 circling over the trees along the eastern boundary, the bat was then observed to fly away from the site, heading east. No bats were observed re-entering any of the buildings within the site.

29 September

2011 (Dusk)

B1, B2

The first bat, a Common Pipistrelle was recorded commuting over the site at 19:19. During the survey low levels of bat activity was recorded with single Pipistrelle bats recorded commuting around/over the site (total of 10 observed passes, 8 heard passes) with very occasional foraging activity also noted. The last bat pass recorded was at 20:38. No other species were recorded during the survey on this date. No bats were recorded emerging from any of the buildings within the site.

30 September

2011 (Dawn)

B1, B2

Very low levels of Common Pipistrelle bat activity were recorded during the survey with only three Pipistrelle bat passes being recorded between 05:42 and 06:28. No other bat activity or species were recorded anywhere within the site from 06:28 to the end of the survey. No bats were observed re-entering any of the buildings within the site.

4.2.8. A line of semi-mature trees and well-managed hedgerow providing possible

commuting routes for bats along the eastern boundary. However this boundary is shared with the existing residential development and well lit reducing the likelihood that significant numbers of bats will use it.

Foraging / Commuting Features

4.2.9. The site is located immediately adjacent to High Street, which is well lit as

discussed above. Only very low levels of bat activity were recorded within the site during the evening/dawn survey work, with the majority of activity recorded well after dusk. Bat activity recorded comprised occasional passes across the site and bouts of foraging activity concentrated around the eastern boundary by single Common Pipistrelle bats. The only other species recorded during the surveys were Noctule bats, commuting singly across the

NOVEMBER 2011 / ASPECT ECOLOGY

11


site from east to west and a single Myotis species bat recorded flying over the farm courtyard on the 23rd September.

4.2.10. The evening and dawn surveys recorded only very small amounts of

foraging and commuting activity by bats, with the majority of this activity limited to the eastern boundary (see PLAN 2787/BAT2 Bat Survey Results). As the vast majority of the site comprises buildings and hardstanding, there are few opportunities for foraging bats. The small garden area associated with building B2, along with the boundary trees in this location provide some opportunities for foraging bats, however this is small in extent, dominated by only a couple of common species and is isolated from other vegetated areas. Accordingly, the buildings and associated areas within the site which are to be affected under the proposals are unlikely to represent an important resource for bats.



5. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1. No evidence for the presence of any roosting bats was recorded within the

site during the survey work undertaken, which included internal and external searches as well as night-time survey work. The majority of the buildings within the site were recorded to be of construction types that offer negligible potential to support roosting bats. The remaining two buildings (B1 and B2) offer some, albeit low potential roosting opportunities for bats. Accordingly, the night-time survey work focussed on these two buildings, which further recorded no evidence of any use by roosting bats. As such, based on the survey work undertaken it appears unlikely that the site supports any roosting bats.

5.2. Nonetheless, given the nature of buildings B1 and B2 which offer some

(albeit limited) potential opportunities for this group should they colonise the site, in order to accord with standard guidance and ensure that bats are fully safeguarded in line with planning policy and legislative requirements, the following safeguards are recommended under any redevelopment proposals for the site:

• Should any considerable time (e.g. over one year) elapse between the

survey work detailed above and any works affecting the buildings providing suitable opportunities for bats (buildings B1 and B2), it is recommended that a further check survey of the buildings be undertaken immediately prior to such works to confirm the continued absence of bats (planning policy requires that planning applications are informed by up to date ecological information and accordingly, should a similar length of time elapse prior to submission of an application, update survey work is likely to be required to support an application in order to confirm that bats have not begun using the buildings in the intervening period).

• Demolition or other works affecting the suitable buildings, in particular

including removal of roof structures should be undertaken with care, during favourable weather conditions and not during heavy rain, high winds or low temperatures. In particular the roof tiles should be removed with care, by hand with a watching brief for any bats that may have colonised the site. Should any bats be encountered within the site during such works, all works should cease immediately and Aspect Ecology Ltd contacted for further advice.

• In order to minimise the effects of the proposals on bats utilising the site

and surrounding areas, it is recommended that any new lighting scheme at the site be designed to minimise any potential light spill through the use of directional fittings and/or deflectors or other similar features where appropriate.



6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.1. Aspect Ecology has been appointed by Pegasus Planning Group Ltd on

behalf of Conder Developments Ltd, to undertake specific bat survey work at the site at High Street, Rocester in order to inform proposals for a new road junction to provide access into the site..

6.2. This report sets out the results of specific bat survey work undertaken at the

site by Aspect Ecology Ltd, including internal and external inspection surveys and night-time emergence/re-entry survey work in order to determine the presence of likely absence of roosting bats at the site and any potential implications in regard to the proposals.

6.3. Site Description. The site comprises an existing, active dairy farm, with

associated agricultural buildings and hardstanding, situated adjacent to High Street in the west of Rocester. In particular a total of 9 buildings were recorded to be present at the site, all of which were surveyed for bats.

6.4. Bat Survey Results. The majority of the buildings present within the site are

of construction types that are unlikely to be used by roosting bats, albeit 2 buildings, situated adjacent to High Street were noted to offer potentially suitable opportunities for bats. Based on the results of the survey work undertaken, there appears to be no evidence for the presence of any roosting bats within any of the buildings at the site, albeit the site was recorded to be frequented by low numbers of foraging/commuting bats, largely limited to Common Pipistrelle. Overall, given the habitats present and the low levels of use recorded, the site is unlikely to be of particular importance to bats and accordingly, this group does not appear to represent a particular constraint on the proposals at the current time. Nonetheless, due to the presence of suitable buildings within the site, the potential exists for bats to colonise at any time and accordingly, in line with standard guidance, a number of measures are recommended in order to ensure that this group is fully safeguarded during any works.

6.5. Conclusion. In conclusion, based on the results of the detailed bat survey

work undertaken at the site, there is no evidence for the presence of any bat roosts, or other significant use of the buildings at the site by bats. Accordingly, this group does not appear to represent a current major constraint on the proposed demolition of the buildings to provide a new access route into the site.


PLANS

PLAN 2172/BAT1

Site Location

Based upon the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Aspect Ecology Ltd . Licence No. 100045262, West Court, Hardwick Business Park, Noral Way, Banbury, Oxfordshire, OX16 2AF

REV.

PROJECT

TITLE

DRAWINGNO.

DATE

2172/BAT1

SITE LOCATION

HIGH STREET,ROCESTER

NOVEMBER 2011N

Aspect Ecology Limited - West Court - Hardwick Business ParkNoral Way - Banbury - Oxfordshire - OX16 2AF

01295 276066 - [email protected] - www.aspect-ecology.com

KEY:

SITE LOCATION

PLAN 2172/BAT2

Habitats and Ecological Features


PLAN 2172/BAT3

Bat Survey Results


APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

Proposed access strategy: Aecom Drawing No. 50103077_002


APPENDIX 2

Data obtained from the ‘National Biodiversity Network’ (NBN) Database

Search Area: OS grid-squares TQ3, TQ4, TQ13, TQ14Date of Search: November 2011

Aspect EcologyECO2172.NBN.xl

High Street, Rocester, DerbyshireInformation Obtained from the National Biodiversity Network Database

Brown Long-eared Plecotus aunitus

Site name Gridref Date Recorded

Ashbourne church SK177465 05/09/1980Site name protected SK04R 1982Site name protected SK14C 1986Site name protected SK04Q 1988Site name protected SK04M 1991Site name protected SK13N 1998Site name protected SK14Y 1998Site name protected SK14X 2001Site name protected SK04I 2001Site name protected SK04I 2001Site name protected SK04I 2001Site name protected SK04I 2001Site name protected SK04 25/08/2001Site name protected SK04 08/09/2001Site name protected SK04 10/11/2001Site name protected SK14R 2002Site name protected SK04 03/11/2002Site name protected SK14W 2006Site name protected SK14Y 2006Site name protected SK14V 2008Site name protected SK03 04/08/2009

Chiroptera (Unspecified bat species)


Site name protected SK14Y 1982Site name protected SK13C 1984Site name protected SK13T 1984Site name protected SK14S 1985Site name protected SK14Y 1985Site name protected SK03X 1985Site name protected SK03J 1986Site name protected SK04R 1986Site name protected SK04V 1986Site name protected SK13C 1988Site name protected SK13L 1988Site name protected SK13L 1988Site name protected SK14A 1988Site name protected SK14A 1988Site name protected SK14Y 1988Site name protected SK03W 1988Site name protected SK03E 1988Site name protected SK03R 1988Site name protected SK04E 1988Site name protected SK14Y 1989Site name protected SK03W 1989Site name protected SK03R 1989Site name protected SK03W 1989Site name protected SK04T 1989Site name protected SK04T 1989Site name protected SK13C 1998Site name protected SK14Y 2000Site name protected SK04 2009Site name protected SK04 28/05/1983Site name protected SK03 20/07/1989Site name protected SK04 18/08/1989Site name protected SK04 04/08/1998Site name protected SK0139 12/08/1998Site name protected SK0139 19/08/1998

Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus sensu stricto


Site name protected SK04 15/07/1998No site name available SK0545 15/07/1998Site name protected SK04 04/08/1998No site name available SK0545 04/08/1998No site name available SK0545 11/07/2000Site name protected SK04 12/07/2000No site name available SK0545 25/07/2000Site name protected SK04 26/07/2000Site name protected SK03 02/04/2002Site name protected SK04 03/07/2002No site name available SK0545 03/07/2002Site name protected SK04 10/06/2003Site name protected SK04 07/07/2003No site name available SK0545 07/07/2003Site name protected SK03 09/07/2003Site name protected SK03 10/07/2003

Bats

Mammals

Site name protected SK04 16/05/2004No site name available SK0048 06/06/2004No site name available SK0048 27/06/2004Site name protected SK03 25/03/2005No site name available SK0048 09/06/2005No site name available SK0048 22/06/2005Site name protected SK04 03/06/2006Site name protected SK04 03/06/2006Site name protected SK04 03/06/2006Site name protected SK14 26/03/2007Site name protected SK14 21/05/2007Site name protected SK13 24/07/2008Site name protected SK04 07/08/2008Site name protected SK13 03/06/2009Site name protected SK04 03/06/2009

Daubentons Myotis daubentonii


Site name protected SK04 04/10/1990Site name protected SK0345 05/08/1997Site name protected SK04 05/08/1997Site name protected SK0345 19/08/1997Site name protected SK04 19/08/1997Site name protected SK04 09/08/1998Site name protected SK0139 12/08/1998Site name protected SK03 12/08/1998Site name protected SK0139 19/08/1998Site name protected SK03 19/08/1998Site name protected SK0139 22/08/2000Site name protected SK03 23/08/2000Site name protected SK0139 29/08/2000Site name protected SK04 29/08/2000Site name protected SK03 30/08/2000Site name protected SK04 26/09/2000Site name protected SK04 04/10/2000Site name protected SK04 21/05/2001Site name protected SK04 02/07/2001Site name protected SK04 08/09/2001Site name protected SK04 14/04/2002Site name protected SK04 01/06/2002Site name protected SK04 01/08/2002Site name protected SK04 04/09/2002Site name protected SK04 03/11/2002Site name protected SK04 25/05/2003Site name protected SK0139 08/08/2004Site name protected SK03 09/08/2004Site name protected SK0139 21/08/2004Site name protected SK03 22/08/2004Site name protected SK0345 15/08/2005Site name protected SK04 15/08/2005Site name protected SK0345 24/08/2005Site name protected SK04 24/08/2005Site name protected SK04 01/03/2006Site name protected SK04 23/05/2006Site name protected SK04 21/06/2006Site name protected SK14 16/07/2006Site name protected SK04 08/04/2007Site name protected SK13 03/06/2009

Long-eared bat species Plecotus sp.


Boylestone SK1835 1975No site name available SK0742 14/08/1982No site name available SK108443 08/10/1986

Myotis bat species Myotis sp.


No site name available SK055358 05/09/1986Site name protected SK04 17/06/2003Site name protected SK04 21/06/2006Site name protected SK04 21/06/2006

Natterers Myotis nattereri


Site name protected SK04 28/01/2001Site name protected SK04 08/09/2001Site name protected SK04 10/11/2001Site name protected SK04 20/11/2005Site name protected SK04 21/06/2006

Site name protected SK04 12/06/2008

Noctule Nyctalus noctula


Site name protected SK03 07/10/2005Site name protected SK14 25/06/2006Site name protected SK04 01/07/2006Site name protected SK04 03/06/2009

Pipistrelle Pipistrellu sp.


Ashbourne SK1746 April, 1974 Marston Montgomery SK13 July, 1982 Ashbourne,Offcote SK14 June, 1983 No site name available SK1335 21/07/1986No site name available SK005498 29/07/1986No site name available SK023468 29/07/1986No site name available SK185475 31/07/1986No site name available SK072432 28/08/1986No site name available SK007430 08/10/1986Site name protected SK04 04/10/1990No site name available SK0545 04/08/1998No site name available SK0545 11/07/2000No site name available SK0545 25/07/2000Site name protected SK04 10/07/2002Site name protected SK04 10/07/2002Site name protected SK04 10/07/2002Site name protected SK13 04/09/2002Site name protected SK04 04/09/2002No site name available SK0545 07/07/2003Site name protected SK04 07/06/2004Site name protected SK04 28/06/2004Site name protected SK04 04/07/2004Site name protected SK04 09/06/2005Site name protected SK04 22/06/2005Site name protected SK04 21/06/2006Site name protected SK04 21/06/2006Site name protected SK04 21/06/2006Site name protected SK04 21/06/2006Site name protected SK04 21/06/2006Site name protected SK14 25/06/2006Site name protected SK04 25/06/2006Site name protected SK04 29/06/2006Site name protected SK04 01/07/2006Site name protected SK14 16/07/2006Site name protected SK14 16/07/2006Site name protected SK14 16/07/2006Site name protected SK14 16/07/2006Site name protected SK14 16/07/2006Site name protected SK14 16/07/2006Site name protected SK04 16/07/2006Site name protected SK14 16/07/2006Site name protected SK04 17/07/2006Site name protected SK04 21/04/2008

Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus


No site name available SK1134 15/06/1993No site name available SK1134 15/06/1994No site name available SK1134 15/06/1995No site name available SK1134 15/06/1996No site name available SK1134 10/06/1997No site name available SK1134 21/06/1997No site name available SK1134 08/06/1998No site name available SK1134 18/06/1998No site name available SK1134 28/05/1999No site name available SK1134 10/06/1999No site name available SK1134 24/06/1999No site name available SK1134 07/06/2000No site name available SK1134 17/06/2000No site name available SK1134 14/06/2001No site name available SK1134 23/06/2001No site name available SK1134 10/06/2002No site name available SK1134 21/06/2002No site name available SK1134 08/06/2003No site name available SK1134 22/06/2003No site name available SK1134 19/05/2004No site name available SK1134 06/06/2004No site name available SK1134 23/06/2004Site name protected SK04 21/06/2006Site name protected SK04 21/06/2006Site name protected SK14 16/07/2006

Site name protected SK04 03/06/2009

Whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus


Site name protected SK13L 1995

Brandt's bat Myotis brandtii


Site name protected SK03M 1986


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

BAT SURVEY REPORT - East Staffordshire · BAT SURVEY REPORT February 2012 ECO2172.batsur.vf ....

Documents