RIDGE END, FINCHAMPSTEAD, BERKSHIRE PHASE 1 BAT … · Ridge End, Finchampstead - Phase 1 Bat...

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Invertebrate, Bird, Mammal, Reptile, Amphibian and Botanical Surveys Management Plans • Habitat Appraisal • Marine • NVC • EcIA

ECOSA Ltd, 1 Becks Mews, 108 Stockbridge Road, Winchester, Hampshire, SO22 6RN

Tel: 01962 866113 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ecosa.co.uk

Registered Office: 3-4 Eastwood Court, SO51 8JJ Registered in England No: 6129868

RIDGE END, FINCHAMPSTEAD, BERKSHIRE

PHASE 1 BAT SURVEY

Final Document October 2011

Ridge End, Finchampstead - Phase 1 Bat Survey ECOSA Ltd Final Document 21st October 2011 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

RIDGE END, FINCHAMPSTEAD, BERKSHIRE

PHASE 1 BAT SURVEY

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Background................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Aims and Scope of Report............................................................................................ 2 1.3 Site Setting and Description ......................................................................................... 2 1.4 Site Proposals............................................................................................................... 2

2.0 METHODS.................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Phase 1 Bat Survey Methods....................................................................................... 3

2.2.1 Bats ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Initial Protected Species Assessment .......................................................................... 3

2.3.1 Bats – Buildings Assessment .............................................................................. 4 2.3.2 Bats - Tree Assessment ...................................................................................... 4

2.4 Phase 1 Survey Timing and Weather Conditions......................................................... 5 2.5 Phase 1 Survey Equipment .......................................................................................... 5 2.6 Phase 1 Survey Limitations .......................................................................................... 5

3.0 RESULTS..................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Phase 1 Bat Survey Results......................................................................................... 6

3.2.1 Bats – Building Assessment ................................................................................ 6 3.2.2 Bats – Tree Assessment...................................................................................... 8 3.2.3 Foraging and Commuting Habitat........................................................................ 9

3.3 Additional Protected Species........................................................................................ 9 4.0 EVALUATION, IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 10

4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 10 4.2 Bats............................................................................................................................. 10

4.2.1 Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 10 4.2.2 Potential Impacts of Proposed Development .................................................... 10 4.2.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 10

4.3 Badgers ...................................................................................................................... 12 4.3.1 Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 12 4.3.2 Potential Impacts of Proposed Development .................................................... 12 4.3.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 12

MAPS Map 1 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Bat Survey Results APPENDICES Appendix 1 Protected Species Legislation COPYRIGHT © This report is the copyright of ECOSA Ltd. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person is prohibited.

© This report is the copyright of ECOSA Ltd. i


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• A Phase 1 bat survey was undertaken on 30th September 2011 at Ridge End,

Finchampstead, Berkshire.

• The survey involved a Phase 1 investigation to assess the potential for protected bat

species to be present within a residential dwelling to be demolished.

• The survey area comprises a large detached residential dwelling set within extensive

managed grounds. The building dates to the early/mid 20th century and contains a

sizeable roof void.

• The Phase 1 survey recorded the presence of both long-eared bat and pipistrelle bat

droppings within the roof void of the building, indicating the presence of a small roost

of at least two bat species. In addition, a number of features on the exterior of the

building were considered to offer suitable access, egress and roosting opportunities.

• A number of badger faeces were noted during the Phase 1 bat survey, indicating that

although badgers are not considered to be resident within the site, the site is used by

foraging badgers.

• Based on the results of the Phase 1 survey, it is considered that the building supports

small, low-status roosts of a pipistrelle and long-eared bat species. Such roosts are

considered to be of low ecological value.

• Due to the presence of roosting bats, it is recommended that Phase 2 surveys are

undertaken at the appropriate time of year in order to assess the status of roosting

bats at the site.

• It is recommended that a European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence will

be required prior to any demolition works taking place, although it is considered that

initial construction works can commence without any impact on bat species.

© This report is the copyright of ECOSA Ltd. 1


1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background

Ecological Survey & Assessment Limited (ECOSA) have been contracted by Adam

Architecture to undertake a Phase 1 bat survey at Ridge End, Finchampstead,

Berkshire RG40 3SY centred on National Grid Reference (NGR) SU 807 637.

This report presents the findings of the Phase 1 bat survey undertaken by ECOSA on

30th September 2011.

1.2 Aims and Scope of Report This report is based on a Phase 1 field survey which is aimed at assessing the

suitability of the site and its immediate surrounds to support protected habitats and

species. The Phase 1 survey allows an initial assessment of the biodiversity value of

the site to be made.

1.3 Site Setting and Description The site is situated approximately 1.5 kilometres (km) north-east of the village of

Finchampstead, Berkshire and is located just to the east of the B3348, at the

confluence of The Ridges and Wellington Avenue.

The site comprises an extensive plot containing a large, detached residential

dwelling, detached garage, tennis court, swimming pool and extensive managed

grounds containing grass lawns, ornamental plantings and mature trees and shrubs.

1.4 Site Proposals The proposals for the site will entail the demolition of the existing residential dwelling

and the construction of a new, larger dwelling to the east.



2.0 METHODS

2.1 Introduction This section details the methods used during the Phase 1 bat survey undertaken at

Ridge End, Finchampstead, Berkshire.

2.2 Phase 1 Bat Survey Methods The Phase 1 bat survey was carried out on 30th September 2011. The survey

involved a walkover of the site to record evidence of any protected bat species.

Details of the survey methods are given below.

2.2.1 Bats The residential building within the site was investigated externally to identify potential

bat access/egress locations and roosting areas such as gaps or holes in roof tiles,

fascias and soffits and to record direct evidence of bat presence such as droppings

and urine staining. A detailed investigation of all safely-accessible internal areas was

carried out to record evidence of bat roosting activity such as live animals, corpses,

droppings, feeding remains, urine staining and fur staining. The building was

assessed as to its suitability for supporting roosting bats. The survey conformed to

current Bat Conservation Trust guidelines1.

An assessment was made of the suitability of trees on the site to support roosting

bats based on the presence of features such as holes, cracks, splits, loose bark and

covering of ivy. An assessment was made of the suitability of the site and the

surrounding landscape to support foraging and/or commuting bat species. The survey

conformed to current Bat Conservation Trust guidelines.

2.3 Initial Protected Species Assessment Details of the assessment criteria used to determine the ecological value of on-site

attributes is outlined below. During the Phase 1 survey the assessment criteria are

based on the potential for the site to support the species considered; this is usually

based on the on-site habitat features and their suitability for the species considered

(Paragraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2). Where a species has been confirmed as present during

the Phase 1 survey then the ecological value of that species at the site is assessed.

However, in many cases Phase 2 surveys will be required to assess the status of

species and hence the importance of a population at the site, therefore the

assessment of value should be considered a provisional assessment.

1 Bat Conservation Trust (2007). Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London



2.3.1 Bats – Buildings Assessment

An assessment was made of all surveyed buildings within the site. Each building has

been graded for its potential to support bats based upon the following criteria2:

Bats Present – Evidence of bat presence confirmed during survey. Evidence may

include presence of bats themselves (live or dead), presence of droppings, feeding

remains, urine stains etc. Where possible, a provisional assessment of roost status is

made although this will require further Phase 2 surveys to confirm status.

High Potential - High potential buildings are those that have features highly suitable

for use by roosting bats, including gaps around soffits, hanging tiles, extensive roof

spaces etc. High potential buildings are often, but not always, buildings of more

historic construction. Further Phase 2 surveys will be required to confirm the

presence/absence of bats.

Medium Potential - Medium potential buildings have a moderate number of features

that may be utilised by bats for roosting, these may include loose fascias, roof spaces

etc. Further Phase 2 surveys are likely to be required to confirm the


Low Potential - Low potential buildings are those that provide limited bat roosting

potential although some features that may be utilised by bats may be present. Further

Phase 2 surveys are likely to be required to confirm the presence/absence of bats.

No/Negligible Potential - Negligible potential buildings are extremely unlikely to

support roosting bats due to the absence of suitable features. Further Phase 2

surveys are unlikely to be required for buildings with negligible potential.

2.3.2 Bats - Tree Assessment

The trees on site were graded for their importance to bats using the following criteria:

• Bats Present – In some instances, bat presence can be confirmed from trees

e.g. where droppings or staining is visible, where roosting bats have been

observed entering/emerging from a tree or where roosting bats can be heard.

Such trees will require further Phase 2 surveys to assess roost status.

2 The criteria are an attempt to qualify the potential for a given building or tree to support roosting bats and are to a degree subjective. Bats may make use of a single feature on an otherwise unsuitable building or tree and therefore an assessment of bat potential cannot solely be based on the quantity of potential roost features present.



• High Potential - High potential trees have features such as loose bark, splits

and deep/extensive holes suitable for roosting bats. High potential trees are

generally large and/or mature specimens. Further Phase 2 surveys will be

required to assess the presence/absence of bats.

• Medium Potential - Medium potential trees have some interest for roosting

bats such as broken snags, some flaking bark, a covering of ivy or shallow

holes. Further Phase 2 surveys will be required to assess the


• Low Potential - Low potential trees have some, although generally limited

potential to support roosting bats. Further Phase 2 surveys are likely to be

required to assess the presence/absence of bats.

• Negligible Potential - Negligible potential trees are those that provide few or

no features with bat roosting potential. Generally these trees are immature

specimens. Further Phase 2 surveys are unlikely to be required to assess the


2.4 Phase 1 Survey Timing and Weather Conditions

The Phase 1 bat survey was carried out by a suitably experienced and licensed

ECOSA surveyor on 20th September 2011. The weather conditions were dry and

warm with 100% cloud cover, an ambient temperature of 16˚ Celsius and a light

south-westerly breeze, approximately Force 2 on the Beaufort Wind Scale.

2.5 Phase 1 Survey Equipment

During the Phase 1 survey the surveyor was equipped with 10x32 binoculars and a

high-powered torch.

2.6 Phase 1 Survey Limitations

Not all potential bat roosting features are accessible to the surveyor, e.g. gaps within

soffit boxes, behind fascias, beneath roof materials or holes or cracks in trees, and

therefore assessments are based upon the potential for these features to provide

suitable roosting opportunities.

It is not always possible to provide definitive assessments of a species’

presence/likely absence at a site and so in the absence of direct evidence

assessments and recommendations are based on the presence of suitable habitat

within/adjacent to a site.


Ridge End, Finchampstead - Phase 1 Bat Survey ECOSA Ltd Final Document 21st October 2011 _________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Introduction This section details the results of the Phase 1 bat survey undertaken at Ridge End,

Finchampstead and provides an assessment of the status of bats and of the ecological

value of the site. An outline of protected species legislation relevant to the survey findings

is presented in Appendix 1.

3.2 Phase 1 Bat Survey Results

3.2.1 Bats – Building Assessment

The residential dwelling within the site comprises a large, two-storey detached structure

dating to the early/mid 20th century (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The building is brick-built

with a rendered upper storey, and forms an L-shaped footprint with the largest section

aligned approximately east-west, and a smaller section protruding northwards. Three tall

brick chimney stacks are present.

The extensive roof is of hipped design and clad with small clay roof tiles and half-round

clay tiles along all ridges, including hip ends. The westernmost hip end of the main

section reaches down well-below first floor level. A deep wooden soffit is present along all

elevations.

Figure 1 (left) Residential Dwelling, Eastern Elevation

Figure 2 Residential Dwelling, Western Elevation

Externally, the building is in relatively sound repair, although there are a large number of

potential access, egress and roosting locations within the roof. Due to the roof materials

used, many crevices and gaps are present due to the natural bowing of the clay roof tiles

(Figure 3), thereby providing roosting opportunities and/or access/aggress to the roof

void via tears within the bitumen felt lining below the roof tiles.

6


Figure 3 Roof Detail, Showing Gaps Beneath Roof Tiles

Internally, the building contains a large roof void, corresponding to the entire footprint of

the building. The void contains a standard trussed rafter framework (Figure 4) and the

roof is lined below with bitumen felt material. Bare chimney brickwork is present (Figure 5). The floor is insulated with a mix of Rockwool-type material and vermiculite chippings.

Figure 4 (left) Roof Void, Showing Trussed Rafter Framework

Figure 5 Roof Void, Showing Bare Chimney Brickwork

Two clusters of bat droppings were recorded within the roof void. A cluster of

approximately 30 mixed long-eared bat Plecotus3 type and pipistrelle Pipistrellus type4

3 There are two species of long-eared bat, the brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus and the grey long-eared bat Plecotus austriacus. These species can only be separated by examination of physical characteristics and unless confirmation of identification has been made by visual identification the two species shall be referred to in this report as long-eared bat. The brown long-eared is much the commoner of the two species, typically being found roosting within large roof voids although small voids and trees are also utilised. The grey long-eared bat is rare and confined to southern England and like the brown long-eared typically roosts in roof voids. 4 There are three species of pipistrelle bat, the common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, the soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus and the Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii. The species can be separated by their echolocations, examination of physical characteristics and by DNA analysis of their droppings. Unless confirmation of identification has been made by visual identification the three species shall be referred to in this report as pipistrelle bat. All three species will roost in similar locations within buildings. The common pipistrelle is widespread and generally the commonest bat species, it is frequently found in urban areas. The soprano pipistrelle has a tendency to form larger roosts

7


droppings was noted on the floor at the eastern side of the main chimney stack in the

centre of the east-west section; a number of droppings was also noted adhered to the

brickwork of the chimney itself (Figure 6). A further cluster of c.30 mixed long-eared and

pipistrelle-type droppings was noted on the floor at the westernmost hip end of the main

east-west section (Figure 7). Although the majority of the droppings were dry and

discoloured, suggesting they were not recently deposited, a sample of these droppings

were dark and sticky, indicating that they were of recent origin.

Given the number and location of bat droppings noted within the roof void, it is considered

likely that bats are accessing/egressing the void via tears within the bitumen felt lining,

possibly around the edges of the chimney brickwork.

Figure 6 (left) Bat Droppings Adhered to Chimney Brickwork

Figure 7 Bat Droppings on Floor at Western Hip End

Overall, due to the presence of fresh bat droppings within the roof void, and ample

access, egress and roosting opportunities on the building’s exterior, the building is

assessed as Bats Present. The evidence noted within the roof void indicates that small

numbers of a long-eared and a pipistrelle species are utilising the building; there is no

evidence that a maternity roost is present.

3.2.2 Bats – Tree Assessment The site grounds comprise an extensive, well-tended lawn with associated ornamental

herbaceous plantings and ornamental trees and shrubs (Figure 8). None of the trees

within the site are of particular age and exhibit no features with the potential to support

roosting bats. The site is therefore considered to offer negligible potential for supporting

tree-roosting bats.

numbering 100’s of bats and is associated with wetland habitat. Nathusius’ pipistrelle is a rare and localised bat, its distribution and habitat preferences are not fully known.

8


Figure 8 Site Grounds, Showing Managed Lawns and Ornamental Plantings

3.2.3 Foraging and Commuting Habitat

The site is situated in a semi-rural location characterised predominantly by extensive

areas of woodland, with frequent open paddocks, large detached dwellings and

associated gardens. Given the mix of habitats present within the wider landscape, it is

considered the site is likely to offer high potential for supporting foraging and commuting

bats. It is noted however that the site itself is not optimal bat foraging habitat and that in

the context of the wider landscape the site is unexceptional.

3.3 Additional Protected Species During the Phase 1 bat survey, a number of badger Meles meles faeces were noted

within the site grounds (Figure 9), indicating that badgers are present within the

immediate surrounds. The site contains no setts or other signs of badger occupancy, and

it is therefore concluded that animals are moving through the site or using it as a foraging

resource.

Figure 9 Badger Dung within Grass Lawn

9


4.0 EVALUATION, IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Introduction This section presents the conclusions of the Phase 1 bat survey and provides an

assessment of the likely ecological constraints to the proposed development and

recommendations for any further ecological works considered necessary. An outline of

protected species legislation relevant to the findings of this report is provided in

Appendix 1.

4.2 Bats

4.2.1 Evaluation

The site has been shown to support roosting bats. The main residential building supports

both a pipistrelle bat species and a long-eared bat species, with evidence of both, in the

form of fresh droppings, recorded within the roof void. The exterior of the dwelling exhibits

a range of gaps and crevice features considered to offer bat access, egress and roosting

opportunities.

The number of droppings recorded is indicative of small, low-status roosts of pipistrelle

and long-eared bats being present within the building. Such small roosts, of common and

widespread bat species, are considered to be of low ecological value.

4.2.2 Potential Impacts of Proposed Development

Given the proposals for the site, which entail the demolition of the existing residential

dwelling, the proposed development will result in the permanent loss of the recorded bat

roosts. Unmitigated, the proposed demolition works would result in direct harm to roosting

bats within the building.

However, due to the phasing of the proposed works, the existing residential dwelling will

remain in situ for the duration of construction works on the replacement dwelling.

Therefore, the impact on bats from the construction of the new dwelling, situated some

distance from the existing house, will be negligible and can proceed without any risk of

harm or disturbance to bats roosting within the existing dwelling.

4.2.3 Recommendations

Given the phasing of the proposed works, it is considered that the initial construction

works on the replacement dwelling can commence with no impact upon bats, thereby

allowing sufficient time for Phase 2 bat survey works to commence in spring 2012. As

bats have been confirmed as roosting within the site it is recommended that further Phase

10


2 bat survey works are undertaken in 2012 in order to assess the species, number and

status of roosting bats at the site. The information gathered during the Phase 2 survey will

be required by the Local Planning Authority before any planning application can be

assessed. Phase 2 bat surveys should be undertaken during the recommended peak

survey season which extends from May to September inclusive.

The Phase 2 survey should entail a minimum of three survey visits (two dusk surveys and

one dawn survey) to assess the status of bats roosting within the building. Each survey

should be undertaken by three surveyors in order to adequately cover all elevations of the

building. Surveyors will observe bats as they emerge from/enter roosting locations within

the building. The information gathered will be used to inform a detailed, site-specific

mitigation strategy which will aim to ensure that bats are maintained at the site at a

favourable conservation status, as required by planning legislation.

Any works likely to result in disturbance to bats or their roosting locations will require that

a European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) license is obtained from Natural

England. The EPSM will necessitate that appropriate mitigation and compensation

measures are provided in order that any bat population at the site is maintained at a

favourable conservation status.

Detailed mitigation measures will be dependent upon the results of the Phase 2 bat

survey; although at this stage the following broad recommendations can be made:

• All works with potential to disturb bats carried out under EPSM licence at an

appropriate time of year i.e. spring or autumn;

• Works to potential bat roosting habitat should be undertaken by/in the presence

of a licensed bat worker;

• Bat boxes to be installed on suitable tall trees within/adjacent to site to provide

interim roosting habitat during works;

• Provision of bat roosting habitat within new dwelling, to include dedicated roost

void and modified roof tiles for crevice-dwelling bats.

11


4.3 Badgers

4.3.1 Evaluation

Evidence of badger activity was noted within the site, with three dung piles recorded

within the centre of the site, both on managed lawns and within boundary vegetation. No

evidence of badger residency was recorded and it is therefore considered that badgers

are occasionally foraging within or moving through the site. Given the proximity of

extensive areas of woodland, it is highly likely that a sett is present within the immediate

surrounds.

4.3.2 Potential Impacts of Proposed Development

Although the proposed works will not impact directly on a badger sett, there is some

potential for badgers to be present within the site during construction works and a

subsequent risk of badgers being harmed or trapped, particularly within any deep

excavations.

4.3.3 Recommendations

It is recommended that all reasonable precautions are taken to minimise any interaction

between badgers and development works. Any deep excavations should contain an

earthen ramp to allow badgers to exit any such holes should they fall in. It may be

necessary to install temporary fencing to deter badgers from entering any developed area

during construction works.

12


Map 1 Phase 1 Bat Survey Results

13

C

1 Becks Mews, 108 Stockbridge Rd, Winchester, Hampshire, SO22 6RN Tel: 01962 866113 email: [email protected]

www.ecosa.co.uk

Client: Adam Architecture

Date: October 2011 Status: Final

ECOSA Ltd 2009

RIDGE END, FINCHAMPSTEAD

Phase 1 Bat Survey

Map 1 - Phase 1 Bat Survey Results

Bat Droppings

c.30 long-eared and pipistrelle droppingsclose to western hip end within roof void

c.30 long-eared and pipistrelle droppingsclose to chimney at centre of roof void


Appendix 1 Protected Species Legislation European Protected Animals5 - In England, bats are fully protected under the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 through inclusion in Schedule 5. In addition, all bat species are

protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Taken together,

these legislative instruments make it illegal to carry out the following activities:

1. Deliberately or recklessly capture or kill any wild animal of a European protected

species;

2. Deliberately or recklessly disturb any such animal;

3. Deliberately or recklessly take or destroy eggs of any such wild animal;

4. Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such a wild animal; and

5. Keep, transport, sell or exchange, or offer for sale or exchange, any live or dead

wild animal of a European protected species, or any part of, or anything derived

from such a wild animal.

Any activity that would result in a contravention of the above legislation would require a

licence to avoid committing an offence. Natural England has powers to grant a licence for the

following purposes:

Preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding

public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial

consequences of primary importance for the environment; or

Preventing the spread of disease; or

Preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables,

fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations contain three "derogation tests" which

must be applied by Natural England when deciding whether to grant a licence to a person

carrying out an activity which would harm a European protected species. For development

activities this licence is obtained after Planning Permission has been obtained. The three

tests are that:

The activity to be licensed must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest

or for public health and safety;

5 Summarised from www.defra.gov.uk

14


There must be no satisfactory alternative; and

Favourable conservation status of the species must be maintained.

A recent court judgment6 makes it clear that, notwithstanding the licensing regime, the Local

Planning Authority must also address its mind to these three tests when deciding whether to

grant planning permission for a development which could harm a European protected

species. A Local Planning Authority failing to do so would be in breach of Regulation 3(4) of

the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 which requires all public bodies

to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in the exercise of their functions.

In order to determine whether an activity requires a licence, Natural England advises that the

guidance of a consultant ecologist is sought. However, Natural England offer the following

advice as a guide:

A licence is needed if the consultant ecologist, on the basis of survey information and

specialist knowledge of the species concerned, considers that on balance the

proposed activity is reasonably likely to result in an offence under Regulation 417 of

the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations; or

If the consultant ecologist, on the basis of survey information and specialist

knowledge of the species concerned, considers that on balance the proposed activity

is reasonably unlikely to result in an offence under Regulation 41 of the Conservation

of Habitats and Species Regulations then no licence is required. However, in these

circumstances Natural England would urge that reasonable precautions be taken to

minimise the effect on European protected species should they be found during the

6 Judgment handed down by His Honour Judge Waksman QC sitting as a judge of the High Court at the start of June 2009 in the case of R (on the application of Simon Woolley) v Cheshire East Borough Council. The judgment clarified for the first time the legal duty of a Local Planning Authority when determining a planning application for a development which may have an impact on European Protected Species ("EPS"), such as bats, great crested newts, dormice or otters. 7 Regulation 41 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 states:

41. (1) A person who: (a) deliberately captures, injures or kills any wild animal of a European protected species, (b) deliberately disturbs wild animals of any such species, (c) deliberately takes or destroys the eggs of such an animal, or (d) damages or destroys a breeding site or resting place of such an animal,

is guilty of an offence. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance

which is likely: (a) to impair their ability—

(i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young, or (ii) in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or

(b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong. (3) It is an offence for any person:

(a) to be in possession of, or to control, (b) to transport, (c) to sell or exchange, or (d) to offer for sale or exchange.

15


course of the activity. If they are found then work should cease and an application be

made to the Wildlife Licensing Unit at Natural England, Bristol.

16

Date post:	21-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamthuan
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

RIDGE END, FINCHAMPSTEAD, BERKSHIRE PHASE 1 BAT … · Ridge End, Finchampstead - Phase 1 Bat...

Documents