Calverhay Farm, Blythe Bridge

Calverhay Farm, Blythe Bridge

Bat and Bird Presence/Absence Survey Report

12th April and 2nd and 24th May 2016

“Providing Common-sense Solutions for Sustainable Development”

Paul Keeling, Park Hall Farm, Brookhouse Road, Cheadle, Staffordshire, ST10 2NJ, M: 07838 377 612, E: [email protected], www.evolutionecology.co.uk

mailto:[email protected]

Calverhay Farm, Blythe Bridge Evolution Ecology Ltd Bat and Bird Presence/Absence Survey

2

Bat and Bird Presence/Absence Survey

at

Calverhay Farm,

Uttoxeter Road,

Blythe Bridge,

Stoke-on-Trent,

Staffordshire

ST11 9JG

for

Mr. Les Elkin (Proprietor)


3

0 Executive Summary

0.1 Report rationale

This report has been prepared at the request of Mr. Les Elkin (Proprietor), in relation to the identification and location of protected bat and bird species at Calverhay Farm, Uttoxeter Road, Blythe Bridge, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, ST11 9JG (OS Grid Reference: SJ 94837 41584). One scoping survey was undertaken on 12th April 2016, with two dusk activity surveys conducted on 2nd and 24th May 2016 by Evolution Ecology Ltd.

0.2 Background

Under the current proposals, the site alterations are to include:

The demolition of all buildings located on site.

The development of four new properties on the site with the inclusion of associated driveways and gardens.

Due to the proposed demolition works and the likelihood of the buildings being occupied by bats and/or birds, the impact upon these species would need to be assessed before any redevelopment.

0.3 Ecological Impact Assessment

Bat presence/absence The predicted impact on local colonies of bat species is deemed as being

‘low’ as no bat roost was identified within the structures, but the bats are using the area for commuting/foraging purposes.

Roost ecology of species onsite

From the dusk activity surveys it is thought that no bat roost is located within any of the structures on site. It is thought that a common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) roost is situated to the south-east of the proposed development site in a Victorian-style structure. Ecological value of building units

The buildings on site do not support any bat roosts and therefore impacts on these species is ‘low’. However, wren and swallow are actively using the buildings for nesting purposes (with particular reference to B2 and B3).


4

Therefore, the impact upon birds is deemed as ‘moderate’ due to the low numbers residing within the structures.

0.4 Recommendations Please see section ‘5 – Recommendations’ for details of the proposed measures which should be incorporated in the re-development of Calverhay Farm, Blythe Bridge.


5

Contents 0 Executive summary 2 1 Introduction 6

1.1 Site Description 1.2 Proposed Works 1.3 Aims of survey

2 Survey Methodology 9

2.1 Summary of survey methods 2.2 Pre-survey data search 2.3 Surveyors information 2.4 Field surveys

2.4.1 Habitat surveys 2.4.2 Roost survey – weather conditions and timing 2.4.3 Roost and activity surveys

3 Results 15

3.1 Pre-survey data search 3.1.1 Designated sites 3.1.2 Protected species

3.2 Field surveys 3.2.1 Habitat description 3.2.2 Roost survey 3.2.3 Activity surveys

4 Impact Assessment 29

4.1 Constraints on survey information 4.2 Constraints on equipment used 4.3 Potential impacts of development

4.3.1 Designated sites 4.3.2 Roosts 4.3.3 Foraging and commuting habitat

4.4 Legislation and policy guidance 5 Recommendations 25 6 Summary 32

6.1 Bat presence/absence 6.2 Roost ecology of species onsite

6.3 Ecological value of building units 6.4 Recommendations

7 References 35

8 Appendices 36

9 LIMITING CONDITIONS / DISCLAIMERS 47


6

1 INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared at the request of Mr. Les Elkin (Proprietor), in relation to the identification and location of protected bat and bird species at Calverhay Farm, Uttoxeter Road, Blythe Bridge, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, ST11 9JG (OS Grid Reference: SJ 94837 41584). One scoping survey was undertaken on 12th April 2016, with two dusk activity surveys conducted on 2nd and 24th May 2016 by Evolution Ecology Ltd.

1.1 Site description Calverhay Farm is located on Uttoxeter Road, Blythe Bridge adjacent to residential dwellings. The site itself occupies an area of approximately 2787.26m², of which the buildings collectively occupy 722.47m2. The surrounding habitat is typical of a semi-urban environment, as residential/retail properties and hard standing areas are evident, adjacent to agricultural pasture land. In addition to these habitats, hedgerows, tree lines and a railway line are all situated within the nearby vicinity. All of the habitats above are likely to provide potential foraging, commuting and roosting opportunities for both bats and birds. Figure 1: This aerial photograph shows the approximate boundary of the proposed works at Calverhay Farm (outlined in red). The five buildings surveyed are outlined in blue.


7

1.2 Proposed works

Under the current proposals, the site alterations are to include:



Due to the proposed demolition works and the likelihood of the buildings being occupied by bats and/or birds, the impact upon these species would need to be assessed before any redevelopment.

1.3 Aims of survey

The actions of the surveyors on site and during the production of the report were conducted in accordance with Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines (3rd edition). The aim of the survey was to undertake an appraisal of the building/s and surrounding area to establish the following:

1.3.1 Survey protocol considered any protected bat species on site.

Bats

To determine the probability of bats and their roost sites being present at the site of interest.

To assess the roost status.

To assess suitable food resources and habitat requirements.

If a roost site is found, to provide an impact assessment.

1.3.2 Survey protocol also considered any protected bird species on site:

Barn Owls

To establish if barn owls were using the site.

To locate nest sites, if present.

To assess what types of activities were shown within the site of interest.


To provide an impact assessment, if barn owls are present.

Birds

To establish if birds were using the site.


8

To locate nest sites, if present.

To assess what types of activities were shown within the site of interest.


To provide an impact assessment, if nests are found.

1.3.3 The information was subsequently used in conjunction with the knowledge of the proposed works at the site to determine:

What impacts the works are likely to have on any protected species found at the site.

The need for any Natural England development licence application to be made in respect of activities concerning protected species.

Recommendations for any mitigation measures that would be required.


9

2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

2.1 Summary of survey methods

The objective of this report is to provide an ecological evaluation of the site in relation to its suitability for bat and bird utilization. The survey considered the potential for roosting bats and gathered any anecdotal evidence (i.e. bats, bat droppings, feeding remains, urine stains and grease marks) that may support their presence within the building unit(s).

2.1.1 Walkover survey

A walkover survey of the site and a visual inspection of the building and any trees were undertaken, to determine the availability of the required resources for the protected species in the immediate area. This would allow us to determine:

Presence or absence of bats are onsite (i.e. roosting).

Evidence and/or potential of bat roosts onsite (i.e. summer roosts).

Whether additional surveys are required. 2.1.2 External Inspection of the Building Elevations

The buildings on the site were inspected both externally and internally for signs of bat and bird activity. Notes were made in the following by the guidelines published by the BCT for the scoping and surveying of building/s and built structures:

The objective of this survey was to locate suitable ingress and egress points that protected species (bats and birds) could use to fly into the building and also to identify any areas within the building in which these species may be able to roost and/or nest. The survey method used to inspect the external walls and roof of the building was a visual assessment in full daylight using (i.e. endoscope, ladders and high powered binoculars).

This allowed us to determine the following information:

Type and age of the building. Type of construction. The presence of potential roost features (e.g. missing roof tiles, raised

tiles, roof voids). The presence of suitable entry and exit points (e.g. broken windows,

missing windows and doors/ridges and the apex of the buildings). The amount and location of evidence of bats such as the presence of live

or dead bats, droppings, grease marks, urine stains and/or characteristic smell of bats.


10

To locate bird nests.

2.1.3 Internal Inspection of the Building Elevations and Rooms

The object of this survey was to locate and focus on areas which provide appropriate environmental conditions for bats (also including barn owls and other birds). To do this, we must:

Look for warm dark areas, joints, crevices, beams and cavities for possible bat roost sites and nest sites.

Locate roost/nest sites.

Listen for bats and birds.

Examine floors, walls and structural elements for droppings, corpses, skeletons and dead insects.

2.1.4 Building Rating

In the absence of any evidence, structures have been assigned a rating of suitability from negligible to high potential for supporting bats. The rating is based on the location of the structure in the surrounding landscape, the number and type of features suitable for use by bats and the surveyor’s experience. For example; a structure with a high level of regular disturbance with few opportunities for access by bats, that is in a highly urbanised area with few or no mature trees, parkland, woodland or wetland would equate to having negligible potential. Conversely, a pre 20th century or early 20th-century building with many features suitable for use by bats close to good foraging habitat would have high potential.

2.1.5 Roost Categories

Any structures with evidence of bats will be further evaluated to assess which of the following roost categories may be present onsite (if any):

Maternity or Nursery Roost – used by breeding bats, where pups are born and raised to independence (anecdotal evidence may support this prospect).

Hibernation Site – where bats may be found during the winter (this is assessed within the context of this report).

Daytime Summer Roost – used by males and/or non-breeding females.

Night Roost – where bats rest between feeding bouts during the night but are rarely present during the day.


11

Feeding Roost – where bats temporarily hang up to eat an item of prey.

Transitional (or Swarming) Site – where bats may be present during the spring or autumn (this cannot be assessed within the context of this report).

2.1.6 Bat Detector Survey (Emergence and Re-entry Surveys) The object of these surveys is to detect active bats leaving/re-entering possible roost sites identified in the external and internal surveys. This was achieved by: Being at the site one hour before sunset in the case of dusk

surveys and two hours before sunrise in the event of dawn surveys. Listening for social calls at potential roost sites. Standing at different transect points around the buildings, using the

bat detector to hear the bats plus trying to see the first bats emerge. Standing at different transect points at foraging areas. Carrying out these surveys up to two hours after the first bats

emerge (during dusk surveys) and up to one hour after the first bats return (during dawn surveys). Conducting the surveys in this manner will cover the full emergence and re-entry period for most bat spaces.

2.1.7 Evidence will be used to determine whether a European Protected

Species (EPS) licence will be required to ensure legal compliance during development. This will also include identifying which mitigation measures [if any] would be most appropriate.

2.2 Pre-survey data search

2.2.1 An ecological data search supplied by Staffordshire Ecological Record

(SER) was commissioned, to establish whether any bat or bird species have been recorded within a 2km radius of the site of interest.

2.2.2 A desktop study of the area using online resources was undertaken

independently to corroborate the current overview of the site and its importance in the landscape. Websites used for this study include www.magic.gov.uk, www.naturalengland.org.uk, Google Earth and www.ordinancesurvey.co.uk.

http://www.magic.gov.uk/

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/

http://www.ordinancesurvey.co.uk/


12

2.3 Surveyors Information 2.3.1 The survey was undertaken by licensed bat ecologist/s and members of the Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management (CIEEM):

Mr. Paul Keeling BSc (Hons) MCIEEM Ecologist, Natural England Bat Survey Licence Number: WMLCL18 Bat Survey Level 2. Mr. Richard Millington BSc (Hons) – Assistant Ecologist.

2.4 Field surveys 2.4.1 Habitat Surveys

Evolution Ecology Limited were made aware of one previous survey undertaken on the site by Ecological Conscience Ltd. This survey identified no bat roosts on site, nor any active birds’ nests. However, this survey was undertaken in July 2014, and during the intervening time these species may have taken up residence within the structures on site.

2.4.2 Roost Surveys - weather conditions and timing

The buildings of interest were externally and internally inspected for the presence of bats and birds on 12th April 2016 in full daylight. As roost surveys can be conducted all year round (as they only assess a building's potential to house protected species), there were no constraints with regards to the time of the year at which the scoping survey was conducted.


13

Table 1: Roost Scoping Survey, Environmental Variables

Environmental variables Roost Scoping Survey of Building(s) – 12th April 2016

Temp Start 14.8°C

Temp Finish 15.2°C

Humidity Start 84%

Humidity Finish 84%

Cloud Cover Start 100%

Cloud Cover Finish 100%

Wind Speed Average Low

Precipitation None

Table 2: Dusk Activity Survey 1, Environmental Variables

Environmental variables Dusk Activity Survey of Building(s) – 2nd May 2015

Temp Start 6°C

Temp Finish 5°C

Humidity Start 88%

Humidity Finish 88%




Precipitation None


14

Table 3: Dusk Activity Survey 2, Environmental Variables

Environmental variables Dusk Activity Survey of Building(s) – 24th May 2015

Temp Start 10°C

Temp Finish 10°C

Humidity Start 54%

Humidity Finish 54%




Precipitation None

2.4.3 Roost and Activity Surveys

The roost/scoping survey was completed on 12th April 2016, with two subsequent dusk activity surveys were undertaken on the 2nd and the 24th May 2016 (please see tables 1, 2 and 3 for the environmental variables from these surveys). As the buildings on site were overall thought to harbour bat potential, both dusk and dawn surveys were required. During these surveys, the types of equipment used included the Batbox Duet and SSF Bat2 heterodyne and frequency division bat detectors along with the EcoObs batcorder.

Batcorder

The EcoObs batcorder is the first worldwide data recorder that distinguishes bat calls from other sound sources in real-time (online signal analysis). Calls are recorded digitally as call sequences. The batcorder is used alongside Batbox Duet and SSF Bat2 heterodyne and Frequency Division bat detectors, and provides an unbiased statistical analysis of bat species recorded during survey on site. Recorded bat sound is subsequently analyzed using bcAdmin, batIdent and bcAnalyze software which calculates a confidence interval of accuracy (CI=%) and is used in conjunction with visual and audible data recorded during survey, to ascertain a holistic view of bat species present.


15

3 RESULTS 3.1 Pre-survey data search

Staffordshire Ecological Record (SER) was commissioned to carry out an ecological data search of all protected species and designated sites recorded within a 2km radius of Calverhay Farm re-development site. The search uncovered records of numerous protected species, but none of which have been recorded on the site itself. There have been records of four bat species within the search area, with these being; the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus), noctule (Nyctalus noctula) and Brandt’s/whiskered (Myotis brandtii/mystacinus), as well as a few unidentified bats and unidentified pipistrelle’s (Pipistrellus sp.). Only two of these records fall within 500m of the proposed redevelopment site, with these being of one unidentified bat in flight approximately 346m to the south-west (1992) and of two Brandt’s/Whiskered bats in flight, approximately 316m to the south-west (1994). All UK bat species are protected under both UK and European law, so the presence/absence of these species within an area must be determined before any works which are likely to negatively impact them are to begin. With regards to birds, a number of protected species have been identified within the 2km search radius. All UK birds can be split into three categories of conservation importance (red, amber and green – see RSPB for more information). The data set obtained includes red-listed species such as; fieldfare (Turdus pilaris), merlin (Falco columbarius), redwing (Turdus iliacus) and whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), as well as amber-listed species such as; green sandpiper (Tringa ochropus), kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) and short-eared owl (Asio flammeus). In addition to these bird species, 26 barn owl (Tyto alba) records have been identified within the 2km search radius, the closest of which was of two specimens located roughly 666m to the south of the site. A map and corresponding tables showing the locations of some of the bird records can be found in Appendix B.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/discoverandenjoynature/discoverandlearn/birdguide/status_explained.aspx


16

3.1.1 Designated sites Statutory Nature Conservation Designations

Due to the nature of the site and the proposed re-development, it was not necessary to gather information regarding Statutory Nature Conservation Designations, as the proposed works will not alter any of the wider surrounding landscape.

Non-statutory Nature Conservation Designations

Due to the nature of the site and the proposed re-development, it was not necessary to gather information regarding non-statutory Nature Conservation Designations, as the proposed works will not alter any of the wider surrounding landscape. .

3.1.2 Protected species

Seven British bat species are currently given UK BAP (2007) Priority Species Status (Table 4). Of these, two UK BAP species were recorded within a 2km radius of the proposed application area (highlighted in grey):

Table 4: UK BAP (2007) Priority bat species status

UK BAP Common name Species County records within 2km

Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus

Barbastelle bat Barbastella barbastellus

Bechstein's bat Myotis bechsteinii

Noctule Nyctalus noctula

Greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum

Lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros

Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus

Two further bat species that are not currently given UK BAP consideration were recorded within a 2km radius of the proposed application site (Table 5).


17

Table 5: Non-UK BAP (2007) protected bat species found within the 2km search radius.

UKBAP Common name Species Recorded within 2km of site

Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus

Whiskered/Brandt’s Myotis mystacinus/brandtii

3.2 Field surveys 3.2.1 Habitat description

Calverhay Farm is located on Uttoxeter Road and comprises of buildings and hard-standing habitat with boundary fences and hedgerows. The surrounding habitat is typical of a semi-urban environment, as residential/retail properties and hard standing areas are evident, adjacent to agricultural pasture land. In addition to these habitats, hedgerows, tree lines and a railway line are all situated within the nearby vicinity. All of the habitats above are likely to provide potential foraging, commuting and roosting opportunities for both bats and birds.

Figure 3: An aerial photograph is illustrating the unit numbers which have been assigned to each of the buildings onsite, for ease of reference throughout this section of the report.


18

3.2.2 Bat roost and birds nest (including barn owl) survey

Table 6: A description of the building features and the potential for housing roosting bats and nesting birds.

Table 6.

Unit / Value

General description + Potential roost/nests features

Evidence of bats/birds (incl. barn

owls)

Potential for bats/birds

B1

External: From the external inspection it was revealed that B1 (old cottage/farmhouse) is a two-storey structure, with multiple shed lean-tos on the northern and eastern elevations. The roof comprised of Staffordshire blue tiles, with the main building roof being a pitch construction and the lean-tos of shed style construction. The walls are constructed of solid brick with no cavity. There are numerous potential ingress/egress points around the structure, through missing glass panes and open windows/doors. It is also evident that the roof has copious amounts of dislodged tiles that are either cracked, slipped or missing. It was noted from the external survey that a streetlight is situated beside the property on the northern side which could affect bat presence (light pollution). However, some species are

Internal:

From the internal inspection it became apparent that the building had been unoccupied for some time. The main structure consisted of two floors, with the ground floor containing two rooms. The first floor contained two additional rooms.

On the ground floor, there were cobwebs and spiders apparent with no visible evidence of birds’ nesting or bat presence. There was a lack of suitable roosting features on this floor.

On the first floor, it became clear that felt and plasterboard obscured the pitched roof and it could not be established whether bats were roosting here. The felt looked in good condition but some of the plasterboards had begun to break away. Bats can roost underneath the roofing felt in small gaps, and this structure could be vital for crevice dwelling species such as the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus). No evidence of birds’ nests was

Bats No

Bats

High

Birds Yes

Birds

High


19

more tolerant to artificial light levels than others. With regards to the ecological value of the building unit, it is deemed to be high, as a multitude of potential ingress/egress points for both bats and birds were identified externally. These were in the form of missing, slipped and cracked roof tiles, as well as open and missing windows and doors.

identified from the scoping survey.

The lean-to on the eastern side of the main building could be inspected, with access through a wooden door on the eastern elevation. The tiles here were visible, with gaps evident. There was, however, no evidence of roosting bats. An inactive swallow (Hirundo rustica) nest was visible.

From the external and internal inspections, it has been determined that B1 has high potential for supporting protected species.

B2

External: This building is a single-structured rectangular building and is again constructed out of solid brick walls with a pitched Staffordshire blue tile roof. The northern portion of the roof has been damaged and is missing. To the south of the building, the roof is still intact with slipped/missing/dislodged tiles and open windows/doorways

Internal:

The internal section found that B2 was separated into three distinct sections.

The northern part of the roof had disappeared and left this section open to the elements. There was no evidence of bat or bird presence, nor any activity within this portion of the building.

The remaining two sections had the roof intact, with felt

Bats No

Bats

High


20

providing potential ingress/egress points. From the external inspection, it is anticipated that the building once again has a high potential for supporting roosting bats and/or nesting birds, due to the numerous ingress/egress points. These were in the form of missing, slipped and cracked roof tiles, as well as open and missing windows and doors

evident. This means that a gap is present between the felt and the tiles allowing gaps for roosting bats, with particular reference to crevice dwelling species such as the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus). This gap could not be inspected due to the quality of the roofing felt.

There was no other evidence of bat presence within the sections, but the southern section contained three swallow (Hirundo rustica) nests.

From the external and internal inspection, it is necessary to undertake subsequent dusk/dawn activity surveys to ascertain whether bats are utilizing the building for roosting purposes. Therefore, B2 can be classed as having high potential for supporting protected species.

Birds Yes

Birds

High

B3 External:

This structure was the original barn and was constructed of a two-storey solid brick exterior, with a pitched Staffordshire blue tile roof, with associated lean-tos with shed style roofs. From the external inspection, it is evident that there are numerous ingress/egress points for both bats and birds to utilize. These came in the

Internal:

The internal inspection revealed that the building consisted of three rooms (two ground floor and one first floor).

The ground floor lean-to room, located to the west of the main barn, was constructed of a shed style roof constructed of tiles. There was evidence of one active wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) nest.

Bats No

Bats

High


21

form of open air vents within the brick structure on the northern and southern elevations. It was also clear that gaps in the windows and doorways are present to allow access for bats and birds into the structure. In addition to this, a few tiles were slipped or dislodged which could serve as potential roosting space for crevice dwelling bat species such as the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus). Furthermore, there were three spotlights situated on the building, which if used could deter bat presence within the structure. This factor, however, could not be ascertained from the scoping survey alone. Additionally, two house sparrows (Passer domesticus) were spotted on the roof, along with a carrion crow (Corvus corone), although neither were seen to enter the structure itself. It is, however, conceivable that the building does play host to birds’ nests. From the external inspection, it was anticipated that the building had high potential value for bats and birds (due to the numerous ingress/egress points).

The ground floor room within the main barn was considered to have limited potential for roosting bats. There was no evidence of bat use within this area. A few old swallow (Hirundo rustica) nests were identified on the hanging beams and ceiling joists.

The first floor of the barn was a king-post and rafter structure, which had been modified more recently with relatively new laths and felting visible. The felting creates a void between the tiles and felt, which could be utilized by some bat species for roosting purposes, with particular reference to crevice dwelling species such as the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus). No direct evidence (i.e. bat droppings or bats visible from the roof beams) was identified during the scoping survey. However, scattered throughout the floor were small tortoiseshell (Aglais urticae) butterfly wings.

Additionally, bird droppings and one swallow (Hirundo rustica) nest were identified on this level. From the evidence, it would appear that the butterfly wings were from swallow feeding, but it is not inconceivable that the barn could be used by some species (such as the brown long-eared bat – Plecotus auritus) as a feeding perch.

Birds Yes

Birds

High


22

Overall, it has been established that B3 has high potential for roosting bats (due to the numerous potential ingress/egress points) and high value for nesting birds (due to the presence of active nests).

B4 External:

The fourth building inspected (B4) was adjoined immediately to the north of B3. It was a pre-fabricated, single-storey structure made of breeze block with a pitched corrugated steel sheeted roof. Wooden doors were intact on the eastern elevation, although access into the building for bats and birds was evident. This structure is considered to be of low value for roosting bats due to the unsuitable features for roosting (i.e. a lack of roof beams and cold steel roof). Overall, it has been determined from the scoping survey that B4 has relatively low potential for supporting bat species and moderate potential for housing bird species.

Internal:

The internal inspection of B4 identified that the building was currently being used for agricultural machinery storage. It was evident that the building harboured low potential for bats due to the construction of the roof. No anecdotal evidence of bats (i.e. droppings, urine stains, bats hanging from the roof beams) was identified during the scoping survey.

With regards to birds, two nests were noticed on the eastern elevation, perched beside the air vents. These were identified as being of an unidentified garden bird (such as blackbird – Turdus merula). It can be ascertained from the scoping survey that this building is of negligible use for roosting bats, and therefore their absence can be assumed without the necessity of dusk/dawn bat activity surveys.

Bats No

Bats

Low

Birds Yes

Birds

High


23

B5

External:

The fifth surveyed building (B5) adjoined B4 to the north. It was once again a pre-fabricated construction with breeze block (lower half) and wooden/corrugated steel sheeted (upper half) walls, with a pitched corrugated steel roof with an adjoining shed lean-to on the southern elevation of similar construction.

This building was relatively open-planned with numerous potential entrances into the building for both bats and birds. The sheeting was warped (where wooden), damaged or missing. In addition to this, the wooden gate on the eastern elevation had gaps either side, which, once again, provides potential access into the structure.

This structure is considered to be of low value for roosting bats due to the unsuitable features (i.e. a lack of roof beams and cold steel roof). On the north-eastern corner of the structure, a grey

Internal:

The structure labelled B5 was an open-plan single-storey unit. It was evident from the scoping survey that this area would be too open to the elements, with significant gaps to the environmental conditions outside. This could therefore lead to the temperature regime not applicable for bats to roost. Additionally, the building harboured low potential for bats due to the construction of the roof. No anecdotal evidence of bats (i.e. droppings, urine stains, bats hanging from the roof beams) was identified during the scoping survey.

No signs of bird or any other species utilization was identified during the survey.

From the external and internal inspections, it has been determined that B1 has a low potential for supporting protected species and will not require any further activity dusk/dawn surveys.

Bats No

Bats

Low

Birds No

Birds

Low


24

wagtail (Motacilla cinerea) was identified but did not enter the structure itself. It is, however, conceivable that the building does play host to birds’ nests. Overall, it has been determined from the scoping survey that B4 has relatively low potential for supporting bat species and moderate potential for housing bird species.


25

Table 7: Features of buildings and built structure classification, which may indicate the potential for bats. The full guidance can be found in the Bat Conservation Trust Good Practice Survey Guidelines.

3.2.3 Activity surveys

The scoping survey was conducted on 12th April 2016, which is outside of the optimal survey period for detecting bat activity. Due to some of the buildings’ high potential for protected species usage (Table 6), further activity dusk surveys were necessary to ascertain what, if any, are using the buildings and where they are located.

Dusk survey one was undertaken on the 2nd May 2016. On this survey no bat emergence was identified from any buildings located on site. A peak count of one common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) was identified foraging between 43KHz and 48KHz to the west of the buildings and in the cowsheds directly north of the structures.


26

One sparrow (Passer sp.) was identified flying out of the first floor of the barn (B3) from the eastern elevation. The buildings were internally inspected at frequent intervals to ascertain if any bats were present, including the pre-emergent flying characteristics of brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus) bats. Nothing was identified during any of these inspections.

Dusk survey two was undertaken on the 24th May 2016. This survey produced similar results to the first dusk activity survey. Two bats appeared to approach the site from the south-east and forage around the fields to the north and the west of Calverhay farm. These species were also identified foraging within the cowsheds to the north of the site. The species identified by both the surveyors and the EcoObs Batcorder were common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus). Also identified during this second dusk survey was the presence of two active birds’ nests. A swallow’s (Hirundo rustica) nest was identified within the south of B2 and a wren’s (Troglodytes troglodytes) nest situated within B3 (as previously identified from the original scoping survey).

In conclusion, no bat roost was situated within any of the buildings located on site. However, due to the activity, it is suspected that a roost (of unknown classification) is situated within a white Victorian-style building on the opposite side of Uttoxeter Road, to the south-east of the proposed development site (figure 6).


27

Figure 4: An aerial photograph is illustrating the locations of the surveyors (yellow) and their survey areas (yellow arrows) during the activity surveys, and the approximate flight paths of the bats identified onsite during dusk 1 and 2 (blue) activity surveys. The red star indicates the building with the potential bat roost.


28

Figure 5: A sonogram from the EcoObs Batcorder obtained during the second dusk activity survey. The species identified was the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) with a 100% confidence level.

Figure 6: A photograph, captured from the proposed development site during the second dusk survey, where the suspected roost of common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) bats is situated – Black and White building, Uttoxeter Road to the south-east.


29

4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4.1 Constraints on survey information

The roost/scoping survey was carried out in April 2016, which is outside of the optimal survey period for detecting bat activity. However, as scoping surveys only assess a building’s potential to house bat species, the seasonal timings will not affect these results. Subsequent dusk/activity surveys were undertaken in May 2016, which is at the beginning of the optimal bat survey period (May-September). With this being the case, Evolution Ecology Ltd feels confident that the study results obtained produce an accurate representation of the buildings’ potential onsite for bats.

4.2 Constraints on equipment used

No constraints were present with regards to the equipment used during the survey (i.e. endoscope, ladders and high powered binoculars).

4.3 Potential impacts of the works Based upon the current planning proposal, whereby:



- The potential impacts have been identified as follows:

4.3.1 Designated sites

The presence of any designated sites nearby is not applicable to the proposed project, as the demolition and re-development works are to be conducted within the development site boundary. This therefore means that any building works would be of no detriment to the surrounding landscape.

4.3.2 Roosts Short-term impacts: Disturbance [None]

From the survey results, it is anticipated that a common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) roost is present in a Victorian-style structure located to the south-east of the proposed development site. No bats were


30

visually seen emerging from the structures proposed for demolition, with no further anecdotal evidence identified internally. With this being the case, the short-term impact of disturbance to bats is deemed as ‘none’, with no avoidance measures being required. Long-term impacts: Roost modification [None]

From the survey results, it is anticipated that a common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) roost is present in a Victorian-style structure located to the south-east of the proposed development site. No bats were visually seen emerging from the structures proposed for demolition, with no further anecdotal evidence identified internally. With this being the case, the long-term impact of disturbance to bats is deemed as ‘none’, with no avoidance measures being required.

Long-term impacts: Roost loss [None]

The impact of loss of roosts on bat populations is poorly understood and difficult to study. There is variation in the impacts depending on the particular species of bat with some being more sensitive to disturbance than others. Synanthropic species (those which benefit from conditions created or modified by human activity) such as pipistrelle bats for example are crevice roosters and are known to move between roost sites (such as maternity roosts). These bats may find it easier to locate suitable new roosts as their requirements are not as specific as other species. Once again, from the survey results, it is anticipated that a common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) roost is present in a Victorian-style structure located to the south-east of the proposed development site. No bats were visually seen emerging from the structures proposed for demolition, with no further anecdotal evidence identified internally. With this being the case, the long-term impact of roost loss to bats is deemed as ‘none’, with no avoidance measures being required.

4.3.3 Foraging and commuting habitat

It is considered that the proposed works would have a low effect on potential foraging and commuting habitat, as the building units proposed for development have little foraging or commuting value. However, the new structures could contain security lighting which could affect the currently preferred commuting and foraging routes to the fields to the north and west of the proposed development site. Therefore, lighting considerations need to be applied to the proposed designs, so as to not negatively affect the local populations of bat and bird species.


31

4.4 Legislation and Policy Guidance Biodiversity 2020: Sets out to halt overall biodiversity loss, support healthy well-functioning ecosystems and establish coherent ecological networks, with more and better places for nature for the benefit of wildlife and people. The government’s policy is aimed at individuals, communities, local authorities, charities, business and government, which all have a role to play in delivering Biodiversity 2020. National Planning Policy Framework, Section 11: The recently published framework in 2012, replaces the previous Planning Policy Statement 9. Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment, reaffirms the government’s commitment to maintaining green belt protections and preventing urban sprawl, retains the protection of designated sites and preserves wildlife, aims to improve the quality of the natural environment and halt declines in species and habitats, protects and enhances biodiversity and promotes wildlife corridors. Article 10 of the EC Habitats Directive: The published article requires government to develop features such as ‘stepping stones’ on the landscape, such as clusters of ponds, tracts of rough grassland or scrubland and vegetated railway line embankments.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: All species of bat are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the European Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994, and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This legislation makes it illegal to possess or control any live or dead specimens, to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter, protection or breeding, and to intentionally disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose. Most resident nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which protects birds, nests, eggs and nestlings. Some rarer species, such as barn owls are afforded extra protection.

Please note that if bat species are present at the site, the purpose of this report will only summarise the potential requirements for a bat mitigation package or project. A separate mitigation report or project will be required, which will include the necessary compensation measures to maintain the conservation status of a European Protected Species (EPS).


32

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

The buildings currently situated on the site do not support any roosting bats and therefore no further recommendations are prevalent for roosting habitat. Despite this, there needs to be consideration for post-development lighting considerations. Any lighting introduced to the areas after the buildings have been constructed should not increase the current light levels that breach onto the site itself. This will ensure that the nearby bat roost will not be affected by the redevelopment and the species can continue to forage and commute over the site to the appropriate habitat (hedgerows, semi-mature trees and mature trees) within the wider landscape to the north and west of the site. Please see the following link for further information - http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_lighting.html With regards to hibernating bats, it is anticipated that the structures will not contain the preferred microclimate (cool and humid) to sustain the species over these months (October/November till February). With regards to birds, there is evidence of active swallow and wren nests. Therefore, any works on the site should be postponed until after the bird breeding season (March-July). This is required due to the legal protection afforded to breeding birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WACA) 1981. After the development has been concluded, it is recommended that two artificial wren nests are situated around the site (further details for these can be found below). Should the works be delayed until after March 2017, a further bird breeding survey would be necessary. If the demolition works are due to take place after May 2017, one update bat activity survey would be necessary to establish if any specimens had begun to use the structures in the intervening time.


33

An example of a suitable wren nest box: 1ZA Schwegler Wren Roundhouse

The nest box is designed to encourage Wrens as they like to nest near the ground, in undergrowth. They are not particularly good flyers, preferring to hop about in the undergrowth. They like shady places - in hedges, thickets, heavily overgrown areas and bushes as well as balconies.

The Wren Roundhouse is available in ivy green and autumn light red. Hang the nest box in undergrowth, in a shady place. It can also be placed upon a pile of brushwood or garden clippings, for example. If hung in a totally unobstructed place it will also attract other types of birds that nest in holes and cavities, including Blue-, Coal- and Great Tits, as well as Tree and House Sparrows. These Woodcrete nest boxes are famous for their durability - lasting for at least 20-25 years. Woodcrete is a blend of wood, concrete and clay which will not rot, leak, crack or warp. They are backed by leading ornithologists, nature conservation organisations, government agencies and forestry experts. Schwegler boxes have the highest occupation rates of all nest boxes and are carefully designed to mimic natural nest sites and provide a stable environment for chick rearing and winter roosting. Diameter of the sphere: 18.5cm. Entrance hole: 30mm x 27mm. Complete with hanging cable (galvanized steel) of 20cm.

This box is available from the NHBS website at a price of £34.96

(including VAT). More information can be found on the NHBS

website.

http://www.nhbs.com/title/158612/1za-schwegler-wren-roundhouse


34

6 SUMMARY

6.1 Bat presence/absence The predicted impact on local colonies of bat species is deemed as being

‘low’ as no bat roost was identified within the structures, but the bats are using the area for commuting/foraging purposes.

6.2 Roost ecology of species onsite

From the dusk activity surveys it is thought that no bat roost is located within any of the structures on site. It is thought that a common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) roost is situated to the south-east of the proposed development site in a Victorian-style structure.

6.3 Ecological value of building units

The buildings on site do not support any bat roosts and therefore impacts on these species is ‘low’. However, wren and swallow are actively using the buildings for nesting purposes (with particular reference to B2 and B3). Therefore, the impact upon birds is deemed as ‘moderate’ due to the low numbers residing within the structures.

6.4 Recommendations Please see section ‘5 – Recommendations’ for details of the proposed measures which should be incorporated in the re-development of Calverhay Farm, Blythe Bridge.


35

7 REFERENCES

Bat Conservation Trust (2012). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust: London.

Berthinussen, A. & Altringham, J.D. (2012). The effect of a major road on bat diversity. Journal of Applied Ecology 49: p.p. 82–89.

Biodiversity Action Reporting System (2010). Biodiversity Action in Staffordshire. BARS. [Online]. Available at: http://ukbap-reporting.org.uk/plans/map_county.asp [accessed on 20th October 2010].

BSBI (2008). BSBI 2007 List. [Online]. Available at: http://www.bsbi.org.uk/html/database.html [accessed on 6TH January 2013].

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. SI 2010/490.

The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007. SI 2007/1843, London: HMSO.

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (c.37). London: HMSO.

Dietz, C., von Helversen, O. & Nill, D. (2009) Bats of Britain, Europe and Northwest Africa. London: A. C. Black

Hutson, A.M., Spitzenberger, F., Aulagnier, S., Coroiu, I., Karataş, A., Juste, J., Paunovic, M., Palmeirim, J. & Benda, P. (2008) Pipistrellus pipistrellus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1

RSPB (2002). The Population Status of Birds in the UK 2002-2007

Rydell J & Racey, P A (1993) Street lamps and the feeding ecology of insectivorous bats. Recent Advances in Bat Biology, Zool Soc Lond Symposium abstracts

UK Biodiversity Action Plan (2007). UK List of Priority Species. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/NewPriorityList.aspx [accessed on 20th October 2010].

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and amendments) (c.69). London: HMSO.

http://www.bsbi.org.uk/html/database.html


36

8 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Site Plan

Appendix B: Eco Data Map

Appendix C: Additional Photographic Records


37

Appendix A: A site plan (produced by the architect Mr. Malcolm Sales) which illustrates the proposed layout of the site post-development, whereby the buildings will be demolished and replaced with four new residential dwellings.


38

Appendix B: The eco data maps for bats and birds, provided by Staffordshire Ecological Record (SER). The approximate location of Calverhay Farm, Blythe Bridge is indicated by the yellow star.


39


40

Appendix C: Additional photographic records

A view of the building labelled B1, with open/missing windows, slipped/dislodge/missing tiles visible.

A closer view of the roof on B1 where tiles were slipped, dislodge or missing.


41

A view of the internal section of B1 where plasterboard and felting prevented the roof beams from being inspected.

An external image of the building labelled B3. In this photograph is potential ingress/egress points through the air vents, gaps around the wooden hay door and slipped/missing/dislodge tiles along the pitched roof.


42

An image of the wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) nest located within the ground floor of B3

A photograph of one of the swallow (Hirundo rustica) nest located on the ground floor of B3


43

A photograph on the first floor of B3, showing numerous potential ingress/egress points for protected species to use. Also visible is the king post and rafter construction.

A photograph illustrating the small tortoiseshell (Aglais urticae) butterfly wings located on the first floor which could be the result of swallow and/or bat feeding.


44

An image illustrating the building labelled B5 externally.


45

The Bat Year

The Bat Year

January Hibernating; using up fat reserves.

February Still hibernating; few fat reserves left.

March Some activity; occasional bat seen feeding.

April Awake and feeding at night.

May Females looking for nursery sites.


46

June Young born, usually only one.

July Young still suckling.

August Young start catching insects; females leave nursery to find males.

September Mating season begins; start building fat reserves for hibernation.

October Search for suitable hibernation site.

November Hibernation begins although still some activity in warm weather.

December Hibernating.


47

9 LIMITING CONDITIONS/DISCLAIMERS (Unless stated otherwise)

9.1 The Service

9.2 Evolution Ecology agrees to supply ecological consulting services of a

preliminary nature or a more thorough service as advised or as commissioned.

10 Fees 10.1 The client(s) will settle the agreed fee in full, within 30 days of receiving

the invoice. Reports will remain the property of Evolution Ecology until full payment has been received. No liability is accepted for the contents of a report that is not paid in full. Any queries should be notified to Evolution Ecology within 7 days of the invoice date.

10.2 If the client(s) fails to pay within the time specified in 2.1 then Evolution

Ecology shall charge the client(s) interest on the outstanding fee, both before and after any judgment, at the rate of 4% per annum above the HSBC Bank base rate, until payment is made in full (A part of a month being treated as a full month for the purposes of calculating interest).

10.3 In the event that it is necessary to recover any outstanding fees from the

client(s), the client(s) will fully reimburse any costs and expenses incurred during the recovery period, including court costs. Evolution Ecology reserves the right to make a charge for every letter sent and telephone/fax call made, in connection with the recovery.

11 The Report 11.1 If any part of the report is lost, or altered without the written consent of Evolution Ecology, then the entire report becomes invalid. 11.2 The general format of reports is a certified product and cannot be shown,

copied or distributed to third parties without the permission of Evolution Ecology. No liability is accepted for the contents of the report, other than to

that of the client(s). 11.3 The report will purport not to express any opinion or comment as to the

condition or structural integrity of any building and no reliance should be made on any such comments.


48

12.1 Insurance Cover 12.2 All work carried out by Evolution Ecology is covered by a £1,000,000 professional indemnity insurance. 13.1 Quality of Craftsmanship 13.2 When appointing an Ecologist, please use only suitably qualified and

experienced companies (The Local Authority and the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Managers may be able to provide a select list of such companies)

13.3 Evolution Ecology will not accept liability for any works undertaken by any other companies, or contractors.

Documents

Calverhay Farm, Blythe Bridge