Bats – Method Statement template to support a …...WML-A13.2 (03/14) 3 Important Advice: to accompany this Method Statement also include Figure. B2.1 for a Master plan overview

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 1

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)

Bats – Method Statement template to support a licence application The Method Statement will be used to determine the impact of the proposal on the favourable conservation status (FCS) of the species concerned (Regulation 53(9)(b)). You are strongly advised to refer to the Bat Mitigation Guidelines. Please use recent photographs to support your application.

Customer Services Wildlife Licensing Natural England First Floor Temple Quay House 2 The Square

Bristol, BS1 6EB. T. 0845 601 4523 F. 0845 601 3438

Important advice:

The format below must be used. Please enter text below each heading keeping information as concise as possible.

All maps/figures that will become part of any annexed licence granted must be submitted as separate documents (with the site name and date included on the map/figure. See section I for list – all others may be included within the Method Statement document (e.g. survey maps/figures) if preferred).

A separate work schedule must also be submitted on form WML-A13a-E5a&b to accompany the Method Statement.

A Executive summary

Provide an overview (no more than 1 side of A4) of what works are proposed and how the impacts identified will be addressed in order to ensure no detriment to the maintenance of the population at a favourable conservation status.

The following bat method statement has been prepared as a draft only. The site is subject to a planning application for the development of a crematorium, funeral chapel and associated car parking facilities, granted in October 2015 (3/2015/0024). However due to changes to the proposed site layout an application for variation of a condition is being sought (3/2017/0095). This does not bring any additional impacts bat roosting habitat, however will result in the loss of a larger area of foraging habitat (broadleaved woodland). An area of woodland and disused cemetery at the Ribble Remembrance Park, off Mitton Road, Whalley, Lancashire has been previously granted planning permission (3/2015/0024) for the development of a crematorium, funeral chapel and associated car parking facilities. Two disused chapel buildings on site have confirmed day roosts of a small number of male or non-breeding female common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) bats. One of the chapel buildings also has a confirmed maternity roost of brown long-eared bats (Plecotus auritus). Provided renewed planning permission is granted, a European Protected Species licence for bats will be obtained from Natural England prior to works involving the proposed renovation and conversion of the chapel buildings. This licence covers works that will result in the destruction of common pipistrelle day roosts, and modification of the brown-long eared maternity roost. During the works, if unmitigated, there is potential for accidental killing or injury to bats and disturbance caused by machinery and site lighting. Works to convert to chapel buildings will be undertaken between 1

st October and 1

st May. Any necessary

removal of potential roosting features used by common pipistrelle and brown long-eared bats will be carried out manually, under the supervision of a licensed bat ecologist. Capture by hand will be employed as a precaution by bat workers with gloved hands and immunised against rabies. Mitigation for the potential loss of common pipistrelle roosts will comprise nine bat boxes; six clustered around two suitable mature trees within woodland close to the buildings (three Schwegler 2F, two Schwegler 2F DFP and one timber hibernation box); and a further three fixed to external walls of the buildings (two Schwegler 2FE wall-mounted bat shelters and one Schwegler 1FQ bat roost). Bat boxes in the woodland will be erected prior to works commencing and will be used to receive any bats (of both species) found during the works. The bat boxes will be monitored by a visual check in the two years following completion of the works and any breakages

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 2

replaced. The brown long-eared maternity roost will be modified by creating a loft void above the converted space, accessed via bat slates on the western side of the roof. The conversion of both buildings will include the proposed mitigation measures, with the aim of providing roosting opportunities for brown long-eared bats in both buildings. Monitoring by visual inspection and bat surveys will take place over the two years following works completion.

B Introduction

B1 Background to activity/development:

Include a brief summary of:

• Why the activity and a licence are necessary (e.g. bridge structure repairs are required and will affect a known maternity roost of Daubenton’s bats, which will be temporarily lost whilst works are being undertaken; renovation works to an office building will result in the permanent loss of three day roosts of common pipistrelle bats; demolition of an existing hospital to be replaced with flats will result in the loss of a brown-long eared bat maternity roost).

Renovation works to two chapel buildings will result in the loss of three common pipistrelle day roosts and the modification of a brown long-eared maternity roost.

• Include the site/project name and provide an OS grid reference to 8 figures (e.g. format AB 12345678). Whalley Crematorium (NGR: SD 7280 3759). The proposed development site is situated at the Ribble Remembrance Park, Mitton Road, Whalley, Lancashire.

• Include current status of planning permission (if applicable) e.g. full planning permission with all relevant wildlife conditions discharged; permitted development; demolition with prior notification of demolition issues resolved. If the proposal is for demolition only of a structure supporting a bat roost/s, please confirm whether there are plans to develop the site in the future and if so when.

Revised planning permission is being sought following changes to the site layout, comprising the widening of an existing access track and the creation of two new access tracks, enabling emergency services to access the site.

B2 Relationship with other nearby development and cumulative impacts

B2.1 Is the current application part of a larger development project? For example, is it part of a phased or multi-plot housing development that will require more than one bat licence? Enter Yes, No or N/A in the text box below. If yes, note a separate master plan document will be required.

No

Important Advice: If yes to the above, please note that sections in this Method Statement on impact assessment and mitigation measures must explicitly relate only to impacts from the works currently proposed.

A project-wide master plan must detail the overall impact assessment and mitigation and explain where, and why, each of the bat licences will be required. The master plan must be included as a separate document to this application: see http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/WML-G11_tcm6-9930.pdf for details that are to be included in this separate document. The separate master plan is expected to take due regard of the overall project to ensure that in-combination effects are considered, and mitigation and compensation measures are both sufficient and coherent.

If the current development is part of a larger development project, summarise very briefly here how the current application relates to the larger project and how the in-combination effects are considered and mitigation/compensation is sufficient.

N/a

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 3

Important Advice: to accompany this Method Statement also include Figure. B2.1 for a Master plan overview - and see section I "Map checklist" at the end of this document.

B2.2 Apart from any mention in B2.1, please inform us of any past or future development or other projects (in the last 5 years or next 5 years) in the vicinity which may have significantly impacted or are likely to significantly impact on the same population/s of bats as this application (e.g. loss of maternity or hibernation roosts). You must make reasonable efforts to establish this, including discussions with your client and the Local Planning Authority – stating below what you undertook. A brief summary of the project/s should be provided including the site name and location, dates and if known the licence reference number(s). Please note we are not expecting details of every licence/planning permission issued within the vicinity of the site – we are only concerned with projects that have the potential to significantly impact or have impacted on same population of bats (maternity and hibernation roosts). Note: Natural England is aiming to make available licensing records from the last 5 years publically available.

A European Protected Species licence (EPSM2011-3043) was granted for a project approximately 0.9 km east of the site at SD 736 377, with the licence starting in 2011 and ending in 2013. This licence covered the damage/destruction of a common pipistrelle resting site.

Important Advice: locations of other bat mitigation sites in relation to this proposal must be shown on Figure B2.2.

C Survey and site assessment (also see section 5 of the Bat Mitigation Guidelines)

C1 Pre-existing information on the bat species at the survey site:

Please undertake a historical data search within a 2km search radius and provide a summary of the results of this search. For example, records from local environmental records centres, local bat groups and previous survey work undertaken at the site is all relevant.

• Should no historical records be found from your search please state this – and specify what searches you undertook.

• Note that you must not include records from National Biodiversity Network (NBN) without first obtaining written permission from the relevant Data Provider.

Records provided by Lancashire Ecological Records Network (LERN) in 2015 are as follows (no information available on type of record e.g. sighting, roost etc): Soprano pipistrelle: SD723373 2010 - 0.4 km south-west of the site. Pipistrelle species (undetermined) SD738378 2009 – 0.9 km north-east of the site Daubenton’s bat: Historical record (1988) SD715389 – 1.7 km north-west of the site Bat species (undetermined):

SD736369 2009– 0.9 km south-east of the site

C2 Status of the bat species: Detail conservation status at the local, county and regional levels. Please

complete the following table, justifying your assessment, and add additional lines where necessary. If the status is unknown then please enter ‘unknown’.

Species Conservation status assessment

Local County Regional

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 4

Common pipistrelle Common, widespread Common, widespread Common and widespread. Population estimate UK 2,430,000.

Brown long-eared Common, widespread Common, widespread Common and widespread. Population estimate UK 245,000.

Notes Population estimates according to UK Mammals, Species Status and Population Trends, 2005).

* *Please note that you can add more rows to the table: right click in any cell outside the grey box area. Choose Insert > Insert rows below.

C3 Objectives of the survey to inform this proposal: Please complete the following table, entering ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or N/A’ to indicate the objective of your survey and provide comments/explanation where necessary:

Survey objective Yes / No / N-A Comments

Determine presence / absence of bats

Yes

Determine bat usage of site (e.g. maternity, hibernation, night roosts in various structures (specify)).

Yes All structures on site were subject to bat emergence/re-entry surveys.

Identify foraging, commuting or swarming sites (explain)

Yes In addition to recording emergence/re-entry, surveyors noted foraging and commuting bats using the site. A static detector was also deployed for nine nights, recording bat activity.

Other (explain) Select

C4 Site/habitat description: Please provide:

• Brief descriptions of the site, including total size of the development site (ha) (most often within the red line planning boundary) and areas of the site with potential value to bats (ha).

The site (total area within the planning boundary: 1.47 ha) comprises an area of mature broadleaved woodland (0.6 ha) and an area of unmanaged semi-improved grassland (0.87 ha). The two chapel buildings (B1 and B2) are located within the centre of the site, at the boundary between the woodland and grassland. A lych gate (B3) also stands between the two buildings. The site is bordered by Mitton Road and residential properties to the east and fields to the north and west. A section (approximately 90 m) of the southern site boundary adjoins further mature woodland, part of the Calderstones Woodland hospital/railway line Biological Heritage Site (BHS).

• Brief descriptions of the structures on site, differentiating between those surveyed and not surveyed, with an explanation why. Ensure structures are referenced and consistently indicated on relevant figures and tables.

The two chapel buildings and lych gate structure were subject to an external inspection to check for field signs of bats and features which may support roosting bats. The chapel buildings were also inspected internally, searching for further evidence of roosting bats. Following on from this, all structures were subject to emergence surveys. The location of buildings is indicated on Figure C5b. The building descriptions are as follows:

No. Building Description Potential bat roost features

B1 A small (6.5 m by 4.7 m), single storey disused chapel building of red brick construction with a pitched slate roof and a small flat roofed annex on the southern elevation. Timber barge boards, soffits and fascias are in poor condition with many gaps. All the windows are boarded over, whilst

• The exterior of the building offers many potential roosting features in the form of: - Loose roof tiles. - Rotted soffits and fascias leading to a

boxed void. - Ventilation bricks. - Gaps beneath lead flashing.

• Additional access to the interior of the

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 5

the doors to the flat roofed portion of the building are open (there are no doors leading through to the main area of the building). Internally, the building lacks an enclosed roof void, and features exposed timber rafters, purlins and an arch braced truss supporting the roof.

building may be achieved via: - A cavity behind a steal support beam

running the length of the flat roofed addition along the adjoining wall.

- A broken ridge tile (daylight seen entering from within building).

B2 Building 2 is the same size as B1 and features the same materials and design, with the exception that the adjoining flat roofed store is located to the north of the main room, is covered by roofing felt and has doorways through to the main area. Also unlike B1, there are no open doors leading into the building. Externally, all the windows are boarded over but not all are well sealed. Internally, B2 also comprises a single space with an exposed roof structure. The remains of a plasterboard partition wall and ceiling are also present.

• The exterior of the building offers many potential roosting features in the form of: - Loose roof tiles. - Rotted soffits and fascias leading to a

boxed void. - Ventilation bricks. - Small areas of loose mortar between

bricks. - Gaps beneath loose boarding over

windows on the northern elevation.

• Additional access to the interior of the building may be achieved via: - A hole in the barge board/timber farming

on the south facing gable end, however no daylight could be seen within the building.

Lych gate The lych gate is an open structure on timber supports, with a pitched slate roof.

• Potential gaps under loose roof tiles.

• A description of adjacent areas/offsite habitats, specifying any relevance to bats, including descriptions of habitat/s relevant to bat commuting/foraging behaviour.

The site lies immediately east of Mitton Road, to the north-east of the A59 and Whalley town centre. South-west of the site, residential developments and the Calderstones Hospital border Mitton Road; however, the majority of land surrounding the site comprises open fields with scattered buildings. Occasional areas of semi-natural habitats are also present, including areas of woodland and grassland, many of which are designated BHS status. In total, there are 13 BHSs within 2 km of the application site, which provide potential high quality foraging resources for bats. Of particular note is the Calderstones Hospital and Railway BHS, comprising a large area of woodland which extends east along the former railway line, running immediately south of woodland bordering the southern site boundary. In addition to the disused railway line, linear features within the wider landscape include a network of hedgerows and scattered trees dividing fields, Barrow Brook BHS to the north of the site (c. 0.32 km north) and the live railway running north-south (c. 0.17 km east) (see aerial image in Figure C5a). Further to the south-west, west and north-west, sections of the River Ribble and River Calder are present within 2 km of the site.

• Please also include annotated (cross reference the structures) and dated photographs (showing both internal and external survey areas) as these are very useful as an assessment aid. These can be inserted below or submitted as a separate (referenced) document.

Please see ‘Full Building Inspection Results’ document.

C5 Field survey(s): Please complete the following tables and add additional lines where necessary (right click in any cell outside the grey box area. Choose Insert > Insert rows below). Please enter ‘N/A’ if the table is not applicable to your survey:

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 6

Visual inspection

Date of each survey visit (e.g. format 01/06/13)

Structure reference / location

Equipment used (e.g binoculars, endoscope)

Weather – (Include temps, precipitation, Beaufort wind scale etc)

09/04/15 B1, B2, B3 (all buildings/ structures on site)

Binoculars, high powered torches

Clear, sunny (Beaufort 1), 18°C.

Comments (to include # of surveyors used for each visit): Two surveyors

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Please provide surveyors names (including Class Licence registration number if applicable) and ensure the above table states the number of surveyors used for each survey visit undertaken.

Sarah Birtley MBiolSci (Hons), ACIEEM and Mark Breaks BSc (Hons)

Dusk survey

Date of each survey visit (e.g. format 01/06/13)

Start and end times and time of sunset


Equipment used (include make of bat detectors and logging equipment)

Weather – (Include start and end temps, precipitation, Beaufort wind scale etc)

09/06/15 21.20 – 23.20 Sunset: 21.38

All buildings EM Touch, Batbox XD, Batbox duet.

Overcast with frequent light showers. Start temp: 12°C

End temp: 6.4°C

Beaufort: 0 Comments (to include # of surveyors used for each visit): Three surveyors

12/08/15 20.25 – 22.20 Sunset: 20.45

All buildings EM3, Batbox XD, Batbox duet, Anabat express, Anabat SD2. Video recorder: SONY Handycam DCR-SR52 (used with an infra-red lighting rig)

Clear and calm. Start temp: 18°C

End temp: 16°C

Beaufort: 0

Comments: Three surveyors

Comments:

Comments: Please provide surveyors names (including Class Licence registration number if applicable) and ensure the above table states the number of surveyors used for each survey visit undertaken.

Sarah Birtley MBiolSci (Hons), ACIEEM Claire Wilson MSc, BSc (Hons), MCIEEM Jeremy James MSc, BSc (Hons), MCIEEM, CEcol, CEnv Louise Redgrave MA (Oxon), MSc, MCIEEM, CEcol, CEnv David Fisher BEd. Natural England Class Licence Number: CLS03502

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 7

Dawn survey

Date of each survey visit (e.g. format 01/06/13).

Start and end time and time of sunrise




17/07/15 03.40 – 05.00 Sunrise: 05.00

All buildings Echo meter touch, Petterson D230, Batbox XD, Anabat express.

Fine and mild, light drizzle at start of survey. Start temp: 15.5°C

End temp: 16°C

Beaufort: 3 Comments (to include # of surveyors used for each visit): Two surveyors

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:


Sarah Birtley MBiolSci (Hons), ACIEEM Mark Breaks BSc (Hons)

‘Other’ survey (please specify e.g. hibernation, remote, etc)

Date of each survey visit (e.g. format 01/06/13).

Start and end times Structure reference / location



09/06/15 – 17/06/15 One hour before sunset until one hour after sunrise

Rear entrance of Building 1

Anabat Express static detector

Temperature range: 7.75 – 19.75°C

Precipitation: Mostly clear, occasional rain showers on 3 nights. Beaufort range: 0 - 5

Comments (to include # of surveyors used for each visit): Automated survey

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:


Please explain any constraints on the survey/s undertaken (time of year, cold weather, refused access,

safety issues preventing access etc – justify as necessary and include evidence where required). If access was refused please provide evidence (letter/email) to demonstrate this.

No constraints

Also complete the following:

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 8

• If DNA analysis of droppings has been undertaken, please indicate below (Yes, No, N/A) and ensure that Figure C5b (if applicable – see below) details the locations where the samples were taken.

No

• Please confirm (Yes, No, N/A) that a walk over survey/check has been carried out within 3 months prior to application submission to ensure that conditions have not changed since the most recent survey was undertaken. Provide details of any changes to conditions and habitats and/or structures on site since the surveys were undertaken. If no walk-over survey/check has been undertaken please explain why.

No C6 Survey results: Summarise your findings in the tables below and cross reference to Figure C6 (which

must also include flight lines, access points, dimensions of existing roosts, locations of surveyors etc). If you did not undertake a specific survey type please add N/A to the relevant table/s. Raw data is to be appended to the Method Statement (including sonograms, DNA analysis results etc).

Roost types to be referenced as: Day, Night, Feeding Perch, Transitional, Satellite, Maternity, Hibernation, Foraging Area, Commuting Route, Swarming Site, Other. See end of document for “Definitions” of these roosts. When completing “Notes/observations” include reference to direct observations, extent and age of droppings, presence of field signs, emergence or re-entry, echolocation analysis. Also include DNA results if applicable and include nil results)

Visual inspection results

Date (e.g. format 01/06/13)

Species Roost type (to be consistent with the above listed types)

Structure reference (consistent with relevant figures and other text)

Roost location

Access points (include # of them)

Dimensions of existing roosts or explanation of where the roost is (as appropriate)

09/04/15 No direct observations of bats. Feeding remains (butterfly wings) suggest brown long-eared bats.

An abundance of feeding remains and the absence of bats suggested a feeding perch/night roost.

Building 1 Interior of the building

One access point identified, comprising a cavity above a steel support beam, leading into the main room of the building.

Dispersed droppings and feeding remains suggest bats do not cluster in one location in the building.

Notes/observations: No direct observations of bats were made during the initial building inspection; however, field signs included abundant droppings (present on the wall leading up to the access point and throughout the interior of the building on the floor). Feeding remains in the form of discarded butterfly wings were also observed throughout the building’s interior.

09/04/15 N/a No roosts identified

Building 2 N/a N/a N/a

Notes/observations: No direct observations of bats and no field signs identified during the visual inspection.

09/04/15 N/a No roosts identified

Building 3 (Lych gate)

N/a N/a N/a

Notes/observations: No direct observations of bats and no field signs identified during the visual inspection.

Provide further (brief) comments/explanation if required:

Dusk survey results


Start and end times

Species Roost type (to be consistent with the

Structure reference (consistent with

Roost location


Dimensions of existing roosts or

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 9

above listed types)

relevant figures and other text)

explanation of where the roost is (as appropriate)

09/06/15 Start: 21.20 End: 23.20

Brown long-eared

Feeding/ night

Building 1 Main room inside building

One Inside building

Notes/observations: Single brown long-eared bat observed flying in and out of the open doorway at 22.09. One unidentified bat (not echolocating but considered likely to be brown- long-eared) emergence at 22.19 from the access point behind the steel beam.

09/06/15 Start: 21.20 End: 23.20

Common pipistrelle

Day roost Building 2 Within roof Two Gable end of roof

Notes/observations: Two common pipistrelles were observed emerging from the southern gable end at 22.01 and 22.07. A further two possible (low light conditions hindered view) emergences of common pipistrelle from the southern gable end occurred at 22.20. 09/06/15 Start: 21.20

End: 23.20 N/a Non Building 3

(Lych gate) N/a None N/a

Notes/observations:

12/08/15 Start: 20.25 End: 22.20

Brown long-eared

Maternity roost


One (BLE)

Inside building

Common pipistrelle

Day roost Building 1 Within roof One Gable end of roof

Notes/observations: Six confirmed emergences and two possible emergences of brown long-eared bats were directly observed between 21.13 and 21.30. Video recordings of the survey indicated that a total of 16 brown long-eared bats emerged from the building between 21.12 and 21.34. A single common pipistrelle bat emerged from the north-facing gable end of the building at 21.02.

12/08/15 Start: 20.25 End: 22.20

Common pipistrelle

Feeding/ night

Building 2 Under eaves

One Under eaves

Notes/observations: At 21.30 a common pipistrelle bat flew towards the building and was seen to briefly hang up under the eaves prior to taking flight again.

12/08/15 Start: 20.25 End: 22.20

N/a Non Building 3 (Lych gate)

N/a None N/a

Notes/observations:


Dawn Survey results


Start and end times



Roost location



17/07/15 Start: 03.40 End: 05.00

Brown long-eared

Feeding /night


One Inside building

Notes/observations: Between 03.49 and 04.31 three brown long-eared bats were observed flying into the building via the open door and a total of four were seen emerging from the building.

17/07/15 Start: 03.40 End: 05.00

N/a Non Building 2 N/a None N/a

Notes/observations:

17/07/15 Start: 03.40 End: 05.00

N/a Non Building 3 (Lych gate)

N/a None N/a

Notes/observations:

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 10


‘Other’ results – please specify.




Roost location



09/06/15 – 17/06/15 AUTOMATED STATIC DETECTOR SURVEY

Common pipistrelle; noctule; brown long-eared; Myotis; soprano pipistrelle

N/a Building 1 N/a N/a N/a

Notes/observations: Over the total period the most frequently recorded species was common pipistrelle (n = 706; 87.9% of all recorded bat passes), followed by noctule (n = 68; 8.5%), brown long-eared (n = 16, 2%), Myotis (n = 8, 1%) and soprano pipistrelle (n = 5; 0.62%).


C7 Interpretation/evaluation of survey results (also see the Bat Mitigation Guidelines section 5.8 and

Figure 4 for conservation significance of roost type): Please complete the following table:

Structure reference (ensure consistency with other text and Figures)

Species Count / estimate of number of individuals

Site status assessment (e.g. hibernation, maternity, feeding roost, swarming site etc)

Conservation significance of roost

Use and importance of the site throughout the year (e.g. used by

different species at different times, hibernation potential,

etc)

Building 1 Brown long-eared

Max count: 16 brown long-eared bats emerged (12/08/15)

Survey evidence suggests that the nature of the brown long-eared roost changes throughout the season. Initial findings during the building inspection (scattered droppings, feeding remains) and the first dusk and dawn surveys (small numbers of bats flying in and out of the building) indicate that the building is used as a feeding roost or day roost by individual bats. The second dusk survey in August resulted in a much higher count of emerging bats (16), as would be expected for a maternity roost.

Assuming that brown-long eared bats are using the building as a maternity roost during the summer months, the conservation significance of the roost is medium, falling under the ‘maternity sites of common species’ category.

In addition to the presence of a brown long-eared maternity roost during the summer months, the building is likely to be used by small numbers or individual bats of both species throughout the active season. Not considered to have hibernation potential.

Common Single bat Day roost Low conservation

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 11

pipistrelle significance

Building 2 Common pipistrelle

Max count: four bats emerged

Day roost Low conservation significance

Likely to be used by small numbers or individual bats throughout the active period. Not considered to have hibernation potential.

Building 3 (Lych gate)

None None N/a N/a N/a

Provide further (brief) comments / explanation if required:

Important Advice:

Survey maps that must be included in this section of the Method Statement, or as separate documents if preferred, are listed in section I "Map checklist" at the end of this document.

Insert survey figures, photographs etc below here if not submitting them as separate documents:

D Impact assessment in absence of mitigation or compensation for each species / roost type (also see section 6 of the Bat Mitigation Guidelines). Where appropriate you must take into consideration cumulative impacts of your proposals on the bat species and populations identified in your survey in each section.

D1 Initial impacts: The impact/s of activities undertaken on site pre-development and during works must be

considered and explained. Consider disturbance (such as human presence, noise, vibration, dust, lighting, access obstruction due to scaffolding and plastic sheeting etc), temporary damage and temporary loss of roosts and injuring/killing. E.g. Unsupervised contractor removing roof tiles has the potential to crush 3 common pipistrelle bats using the roof tiles as day roosts. Major negative impact at a site level; Demolition of an extension to a building will take place adjacent to a maternity roost of common pipistrelle bats situated under the soffit board of the retained building. Potential for significant disturbance if demolition works are undertaken during the maternity period through vibration, noise and dust. Medium negative impact on a local level.

Works to the roof of Building 2, such as stripping roof tiles and replacing timber barge boards has potential to cause direct injury or kill common pipistrelle bats using the buildings as a day roost. The killing or injury of brown long-eared bats may be caused by works to the roof structure of Building 1 and bats may be trapped inside the building where the access point is sealed. Works to other areas of the buildings will cause disturbance to both roosting individuals of both species, through vibration, dust and noise. Temporary site lighting also has potential to disrupt bat flight lines, including discouraging bats from exiting a roost to feed. These activities would have a major negative impact at a site level.

D2 Long-term impacts: Consider and explain the impacts of the proposed works on the different species

populations at a site, local, regional, and national level.

D2.1. Roost modification: e.g. changes to roosts/access points, new entrances (including human access e.g. for servicing/maintenance etc), change in size of roost space, changes in air flow, temperature and humidity, light etc. Please detail the access points into each roost and the type/s of roosts which will be modified. E.g. Non-mitigated changes to the roof structure, which requires replacing, will lead to the modification of 3 access points into a common pipistrelle maternity roost which will result in bats being unable to enter or exit the roost. Moderate negative impact on a local level.

Converting and re-sealing Building 1 will reduce the roosting space available for brown long-eared bats and block the single roost access point, preventing bats from entering or exiting the roost. The roost will also be modified by changes in air flow, humidity and temperature, related to the building’s altered use. These changes are expected to have a moderate negative impact at a local level.

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 12

D2.2. Roost loss: Loss or deterioration of roosting sites, access points, habitat, etc must be considered. Please detail the access points into each roost and types of roost/s which will be lost. E.g. Demolition of building reference X in June will lead to the loss of a night roost in the porch used by 1 lesser horseshoe bat and the loss of a maternity brown-long eared bat roost in the loft space. This will lead to the death and/or injury of bats including dependent young and permanent destruction (loss) of both roosts. Moderate negative impact at a site level for lesser horseshoe bats and moderate negative impact at a local level for brown-long eared bats.

The renovation and re-sealing of the old chapel buildings will result in the loss of three (two emergence points on the southern gable end of Building 2 and one emergence point on the northern gable end of Building 1) small common pipistrelle day roosts. The permanent loss of roosts used by a small number of common pipistrelles represents a moderate negative impact at a local level for this species.

D2.3. Fragmentation and isolation: Will the proposed works results in these impacts? E.g. loss of linear features such as hedges, tree lines, increased lighting, severance of flight lines by roads/rail lines, separation of breeding/hibernation sites from feeding grounds, etc. E.g. In addition to the removal of common pipistrelle day roosts in trees along the proposed road, removal of hedgerows, shown on Figure D, and the construction of the new road will fragment a significant commuting and foraging route for a lesser horseshoe maternity roost. This may cause a reduction in the long term success of the breeding colony of lesser horseshoes by restricting existing foraging range or killing bats on the road. Potentially major negative impact at a site and local level.

The proposed development does not involve the loss of any linear habitat features. However, the widening and creation of new access roads within the woodland west of the building and the loss of rough grassland east of the buildings may disrupt bat flight lines. Furthermore, external lighting installed around the buildings may disrupt foraging behaviour or discourage bats from leaving a roost. These layout changes are considered to have a moderate negative ecological impact at site level and local level.

D3 Post-development interference impacts: e.g. extra street lighting or other external lighting, use of loft

space as storage, increased noise. Please also consider other direct or indirect post development impacts which may include disturbance/ injuring/killing.

E.g. Security lighting being installed will shine on the brown-long eared bat maternity roost access points which may affect emergence patterns and lead to a reduction in foraging times. This may cause a reduction in the long term success of the breeding colony or cause the roost to be abandoned. Moderate to high negative impact at a site and local level.

Post-development, the buildings and site will be subject to a greater level of human presence and external lighting will be permanently installed around the buildings. Unmitigated for, the greater noise levels during the day and lighting at night may lead to the brown-long eared maternity roost being abandoned. This would result in a moderate to high negative impact at site and local levels.

D4 Predicted scale of impact of this development/activity on species status (also see section 6.5 of the

Bat Mitigation Guidelines and the BCT’s Bat Survey Good Practice Guidelines): Please complete the following table to explain what this is likely to be at the site, local/county and regional levels for each roost type and species. Add additional lines when necessary

Roost types to be referenced as: Day, Night, Feeding Perch, Transitional, Satellite, Maternity, Hibernation,

Foraging Area, Commuting Route, Swarming Site, Other.

Species & #s (which will be affected at the time works will be undertaken)

Roost type Predicted scale of impact (place X in relevant column)

Notes (include impact on roost – damage / destruction /modification etc)

Site County Regional

Brown long-eared (B1)

Maternity roost

X Roost modification, potentially leading to roost abandonment

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 13

Common pipistrelle (B1)

Day roost X Roost loss

Common pipistrelle (B2)

Day roost X Roost loss

* *Please note that you can add more rows to the table: right click in any cell outside the grey box area. Choose Insert > Insert rows below.

Provide further comments/explanation as required (this helps understand how the impacts will be

mitigated or compensated for when assessing section E):

Important Advice: Please ensure that a separate ‘Impact map’ is provided (Figure D) which must show all structures or habitats (clearly referenced) that will be disturbed, damaged or destroyed, detailing where the roosts and access points are etc. Also see section I "Map checklist" at the end of this document.

E Mitigation and Compensation (please also see section 7 and 8 of the Bat Mitigation

Guidelines)

E1 The mitigation solution being proposed in the method statement should be the one that delivers the ‘need’ with the least impact on the bat population.

Please explain why this design was chosen over other potential solutions - set out what other designs were considered and why they were not feasible (e.g. if the proposal is to construct a new stand-alone roost, explain why it is not possible to retain the roost in the existing structure etc).

The development proposals for the site comprise the construction of a crematorium, funeral chapel, associated parking and the widening and creation of access roads. Whilst the two small buildings with confirmed bat roosts are to be retained, they are redundant in their current dilapidated state. Furthermore, the buildings have suffered vandalism and are likely to become unsafe if action to renovate them is not taken. Converting the buildings justifies their retention in line with the development proposals and also offers the opportunity to undertake on-site mitigation, retaining and improving the existing brown long-eared roost. In addition to roost modification, additional roosts will also be created. The conversion of Building 2 (in addition to Building 1) will also involve the creation of a separate roof void and associated access points for roosting bats. A total of nine bat boxes will be erected on the external walls of the buildings and within the woodland on site. The bat boxes will offer replacement roosts for common pipistrelles using the buildings in addition to roosting opportunities on nearby trees.

E2 Capture and exclusion (If not applicable to your proposals please state ‘N/A’ in the relevant text boxes): Include details on:

• The methods proposed - to include timings, effort, methods (please clearly state what will be used, e.g. use of endoscopes, one way excluders, capture by hand (and state in which referenced structures), disturbance by noise or light, destructive search by soft demolition etc) and equipment to be employed.

Prior to works commencing on site, there will be a toolbox talk for all contractors. An information poster on the characteristics of bats will be displayed in the site cabin. Works to convert Buildings 1 and 2 will be undertaken between 1

st October and 1

st May (in accordance with table

8.1 of Bat Mitigation Guidelines, 2004) such that only small numbers of bats are likely to be present (if any). The removal of any potential roosting features on the buildings will be completed by hand/with hand tools. Capture by hand will be employed as a precaution if required during renovation works. Handling will be with gloved hands only and by bat workers who have been immunised against rabies.

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 14

• Should your proposals include capture (taking) please specify numbers of each species that will be affected at the time the works are to be undertaken. Note: this may be different in many cases to the number of bats using the roost at its optimum time as timings for works will be at a time when bats are least likely to be present.

Bats are unlikely to be encountered during the works as they will be timed appropriately and therefore a maximum of four common pipistrelles and a maximum of four brown long-eared bats are anticipated.

• Weather conditions during which licensed activities will be carried out, release sites, care of bats, unexpected discovery of bats, what would be done with any injured bats found etc.

If the temperature drops below 5°C, over an extended period of time (i.e. more than one week), works to the buildings will be put on hold until milder conditions return. Any bats captured will be dealt with according to the following table:

Bat encounter Scenario

Bat active Bat in torpor Bat injured

By ecologist during supervised works

Bat handled by: Ecologist wearing gloves, with experience of bat handling and fully immunised against rabies.

Bat transported by: Cloth bag and or/small secure box/ tub with air holes and piece of fabric.

Further action: Bat released into bat box at the site by experienced bat handler, after checking for condition and injury.

Bat handled by: Ecologist wearing gloves, with experience of bat handling and fully immunised against rabies. Bat transported by: Cloth bag and or/small secure box/ tub with air holes and piece of fabric. Further action: Relocated into the hibernation box by experienced bat handler (only if uninjured and in good condition).

Bat handled by: Ecologist wearing gloves, with experience of bat handling and fully immunised against rabies.

Bat transported by: Cloth bag and or/small secure box tub with air holes and piece of fabric. Water will be provided on all journeys.

Further action: Bat handed to experienced bat carer (if different from supervising ecologist) who will assess injury, rehabilitate if possible and release back to site when appropriate (i.e. good body weight, good condition and able to fly for sustained period).

By contractor at other times

Bat handled by: If bats exposed to harm, a container will be used to scoop them up. Bats will not be handled by contractors unless bat in imminent danger and only then with gloved hands.

Bat transported by: Kept in a secure container with air holes in a dark, quiet place until experienced bat worker arrives at site.

Further action: Bat released into bat box at the site by experienced bat handler, after checking for condition and injury.

Bat handled by: If bats exposed to harm, a container will be used to scoop them up. Bats will not be handled by contractors unless in imminent danger and only then with gloved hands.

Bat transported by: Kept in a secure container with air holes in a dark, quiet place until experienced bat worker arrives at site.

Further action: Relocated into the hibernation box by experienced bat handler (only if uninjured and in good condition).

Bat handled by: If bats in exposed to harm, a container will be used to scoop them up. Bats will not be handled by contractors unless in imminent danger and only then with gloved hands.

Bat transported by: Cloth bag and or/small secure box tub with air holes and piece of fabric. Water will be provided on all journeys.

Further action: Bat handed to experienced bat carer (if different from supervising ecologist) who will assess injury, rehabilitate if possible and release back to site when

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 15

appropriate (i.e. good body weight, good condition and able to fly for sustained period).

E3 Bat roost and access point retention, modification and creation: Please detail how all impacts to each species (as identified in sections C and D) will be mitigated. If not applicable to your proposals please state ‘N/A’ in the relevant text boxes.

E3.1 Retention of existing roost(s) – Works may include, for example, maintenance works that result in

no material changes to the roost but may cause disturbance or temporary damage e.g. temporary exclusion of a roost to allow investigative and repair works to a bridge. Provide details of all works including:

• Number and description of roosts to be retained, with an explanation of how they will be retained. N/A

• Number of access/entrance points to be retained and how this will be achieved. If enhancements to the roosts will be provided, such as through crevice provision, please detail.

N/A

• Mitigation for any other impacts e.g. new lighting at the site.

N/A

E3.2 Modification of existing roost(s) - Works may include, for example, reduction in roof void height, change of tiles and roof lining (stating the type of membrane that will be used), alteration of access point through replacement of soffits etc.

Provide the following:

• Dimension details of modified roosts or access points ensuring that it is clear what the original dimensions were and what the dimensions of the modified roost will be.

The brown long-eared maternity roost located within Building 1 will be modified by installing a ceiling to create a loft void, designed to be used by roosting bats. Dividing the space inside the building will reduce the total volume available to bats (dimensions are to be confirmed; the minimum space available to bats will be 1.5m in height). The volume of the loft void will be maximised and kept unobstructed (using a traditional purlin and rafter design with no trussed rafters), in order to provide sufficient space for brown long-eared bats to fly within the roost. Rough timber surfaces and F1 bitumastic underfelt roof lining will be provided to ensure roosting bats have suitable surfaces to cling to. Modifications to the roost will result in the loss of the access point. During the surveys brown long-eared bats were observed exiting and entering Building 1 via a single access point, comprising a vertical cavity behind a steel support beam in the open flat roofed addition to the building. The entrance to the cavity measures 1.5 m across, and is 12 cm wide (it is unknown how far the cavity extends upwards). Bats are able to reach the access point due to an open doorway. Works to make the building weather tight will seal this access point. Alternative access points will be provided by the use of two bat access tiles, positioned over openings in the underfelt, allowing bats to crawl into the roof space.

• Details of any other modifications to be made to roosts.

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 16

N/a

• Mitigation for any impacts of lighting on the modified roost/s if appropriate.

Site lighting during the works, including security lighting and lights associated with temporary facility buildings will be kept to a minimum and not illuminate known roost access points. All temporary lights, including those operating under a motion sensor, will be switched off at dusk in order to minimise effects on commuting or foraging bats. Any permanent post-development external lighting will comprise high pressure sodium lights which emit a small UV component and can be easily directed. Light spillage will be minimised by using short lighting column, only using lights where necessary and shielding lamps to point downwards, lighting the intended area only. No permanent lights will illuminate the western elevation of the buildings.

• Scale drawings of the modified roost and bat access points, orientation, location (including an 8-figure grid reference for the modified roost) – to be submitted as a Figure E2 – see below.

E3.3 New roost creation (including bat houses, cotes and bat boxes etc). Note – creation of compensation for high impact cases (e.g. loss of a maternity roost) must be protected in the long term. Any bat boxes or roost structures part of a licence proposal which do not show signs of bats must be retained for a minimum of 5 years from date of completion of the development/works. Typically this will be around 5 years for low conservation status roost compensation (e.g. bat boxes) and longer for other significant roosts (e.g. bat houses, lofts etc). The exact time period will be specified in any licence issued. For high conservation status roost loss, the compensation roost/s must still be protected in the long term by another means (such as a s106 agreement), which is particularly important if the structure is likely to change ownership. Provide the following:

• New roost dimension details or features (to include bat tiles/boxes as applicable).

• Access points and size of access points.

• Location details (including an 8-figure grid reference for bat houses or bat lofts relating to the structure. 8-figure grid references are not required for positions of individual boxes, tiles etc).

• Aspect. Explain how the internal conditions of the roost will be created.

• Details of the materials to be used e.g. timber, sarking, felt etc.

• Justification for any variation from the original roost and/or deviations from recommendations in the Bat Mitigation Guidelines. (Diagrams of widely available standard bat box designs are not required; just refer to bat box name and reference number, e.g. Schwegler 1FF).

• Mitigation for any impacts of lighting if appropriate.

• Structures for access for monitoring / maintenance purposes (if applicable)

New bat roosts will be created by installing bat boxes, both on the buildings and clustered around trees along the perimeter of the woodland on site (SD 7273 3764 and SD 7273 3756). The Bat Mitigation Guidelines states that bat boxes may provide appropriate mitigation for roosts of low conservation significance (Pages 46-47). A total of nine bat boxes will be erected; three fixed to the western elevations of the buildings; and a further two groups of three positioned around suitable trees located along the site perimeter (Figure E3). One of the tree boxes will be a hibernation box, suitable for receiving torpid bats if any are encountered during the works. All boxes fixed to trees will be installed prior to renovation works beginning on the buildings and will remain in place permanently. Bat boxes fixed to buildings will be erected after conversion works have been completed. The purchase and installation of bat boxes will be organised and funded by the applicant. The Bat Mitigation Guidelines suggest that pipistrelle bats will use crevice type boxes for summer/maternity roosts, crevice or hollow boxes for summer/non-maternity roosts and crevice boxes for hibernation. This has been taken into account in the selection of boxes as follows: 2 x Schwegler 2FE wall-mounted bat shelter – mounted on western elevation of Buildings 1 and 2 1 x Schwegler 1FQ bat roost for external walls – mounted on southern elevation of Building 1 3 x Schwegler 2F (general purpose) – mounted on mature tree in woodland 2 x Schwegler 2F (double fronted panel) – mounted on mature tree in woodland 1 x timber hibernation box (50mm thick timber walls creating a small but secure hibernation chamber for bats) -

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 17

http://www.wildcareshop.com/timber-hibernation-box.html. – mounted on mature tree in woodland The bat boxes will be;

• Installed in groups of three on mature trees,

• Installed at least 3m above the ground.

• Installed on different orientations to provide a range of climatic conditions, but with at least one facing south-west to south-east (hibernation boxes will face north).

• Untreated (specifically relating to the timber hibernation boxes).

• Fixed with aluminium nails, using hangers where appropriate.

• Numbered (for monitoring purposes).

E3.4 Other habitat re-instatement or creation (e.g. retention of existing flight lines, retention or creation

of appropriate vegetation around roost entrances where applicable) – please include details of:

• Habitat replacement (following works resulting in temporary impacts) or creation not covered by sections E2 to E3 such as hedgerow/woodland planting or enhancement. State the length of hedgerow planting and areas (ha) of other planting to be provided such as woodland and anticipated establishment period etc.

The development proposals are not anticipated to cause significant impacts on bat foraging habitat or commuting routes. Where trees must be removed (an estimated total of 9 individual mature trees) due to the widening of the central track, which splits to form two narrower roads through the woodland, replacement planting will be on a 2:1 basis, incorporating native species already present in the adjoining BHS.

• Creation of flight lines/routes of connectivity. Current soft landscaping proposals include the low growth planting around footpaths; a native species-rich hedgerow extending the full length of the northern and southern boundary (total length 260 m); formally single species hedgerow planting around the car park and heavy standard tree planting along the southern site boundary and surrounding a central track through the open section of the site. These will create new flight lines, foraging opportunities and serve to connect the group of mature trees within the eastern part of the site to the broadleaved woodland area.

Foraging area enhancements, etc

The plantings outlined above will provide new foraging areas. In addition, 1 m whips planted in the woodland will add structure and increase foraging potential along the central access track.

• Mitigation for any impacts of lighting if appropriate.

Permanent post-development external lighting will comprise high pressure sodium lights which emit a small UV component and can be easily directed. Light spillage will be minimised by using short lighting column, only using lights where necessary and shielding lamps to point downwards, lighting the intended area only. No permanent lights will illuminate the western elevation of the buildings.

E3.5 Wider biodiversity gains: Please indicate if enhancements, over and above what is necessary to mitigate the impact of the activity of the licence proposal, are being provided. Please indicate if enhancements are included to satisfy the requirement of a planning permission, and if so state the relevant planning condition, or other consents in your response below. Please also state if an applicant wishes to provide more than is typically required to mitigate for the impacts. Enter N/A if this is not applicable to your application. Note: Any licence granted will only cover mitigation and compensation required to fulfill licensing requirements, but

will acknowledge additional biodiversity enhancements.

The planting of a native hedgerow relates to condition number 12 required to satisfy the planning permission. The condition states that the recommendations and mitigation measures detailed in Section 5 of the existing

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 18

ecological assessment shall be carried out in their entirety.

Important Advice: Scaled maps/plans of mitigation/compensation must be provided as separate maps/figures (also see section I

"Map checklist" at the end of this document):

• Figure E2a to show the locations and structures where all capture and exclusion activities will be undertaken (ensure this is clearly labelled and consistent with other mandatory maps/figures).

• Figure E2b if non-standard capture and exclusion apparatus is proposed please include diagrams/photographs.

• Figure E3 to show specifications for mitigation / compensation to be provided and annotate where it will be provided. Should the scheme be large or complicated it may be necessary to submit more than one figure.

NOTE: It must be possible to compare these with the survey results plan (Figure C6) and ‘Impacts’ Figure (D).

E4 Post-development site safeguard: Further guidance and explanation on post-development monitoring requirements are included within our ‘How to get a licence’ document http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/wml-g12_tcm6-4116.pdf. Also see Section 8.7 of the Bat Mitigation Guidelines.

E4.1 Habitat/site management and maintenance: Is any specific post-development habitat management and site maintenance planned? If ‘No; state ‘N/A’. If ‘Yes’ include the following:

• The period (years and months) for which habitat management and maintenance will take place. Ensure that this is consistent with the post development works detailed in section E5b of the Work Schedule document, WML-A13-a-E5a&b.

New plantings will be maintained for five years, including the replacement of any trees and shrubs which die or become seriously damaged or diseased (in accordance with Condition 9). A method statement for the control of Himalayan balsam has been prepared for the site, which includes annual removal of Himalayan balsam (present within the woodland) for a minimum of three years.

• Details of what will be undertaken in terms of site maintenance required to ensure long-term security of the affected population (e.g. maintain, repair or reinstate access points; maintain and repair heaters and /or data loggers; maintain, repair or restore bat feature / bat loft in good condition; repair or replace inspection hatches; management and maintenance of lighting regime, or bat boxes etc).

Bat boxes will be checked after two years and any breakages will be replaced. The condition of the bat lofts and associated access slates will be checked after two years, and any required maintenance completed.

• Details of what will be undertaken in terms of habitat management (e.g. planting cover around roost structure, hedgerow management regime, checking establishment of habitat creation; reduction of shade around roosts, woodland management to maintain species and structural diversity etc). Ensure this relates to the relevant map.

Following planting, the native hedgerow will be managed to ensure successive establishment, including watering during dry periods and applying mulch to prevent weed growth during the first 2-3 years. Following establishment, the hedgerow will be maintained by trimming every two years.

Note – for phased or multi-plot developments a separate habitat management and maintenance plan is required, which must be submitted with the master plan: see guidance on phased developments.

Important Advice: Please include Figure E4 as a separate figure to show which structures and habitats will be managed, maintained

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 19

and monitored post development as part of your proposal – also see section I "Map checklist" at the end of this document).

E4.2 Population monitoring, roost usage etc: This should be in line with the monitoring requirements

detailed in the Bat Mitigation Guidelines section 8.7 and Figure 4, and, where required, should include details of:

• Timing – state the years and months post development monitoring or other will be undertaken. Ensure that is consistent with the post development works detailed in section E5b of the Work Schedule document WML-A13-a-E5a&b.

Post-development monitoring of the modified brown long-eared roost in Building 1 and the created bat loft in Building 2 will be undertaken for two years following completion of the works on site (during 2018 and 2019). The bat boxes on trees and external walls will be checked by a licensed bat worker two years after the works have taken place.

• The type of monitoring which will be undertaken – include survey methods and equipment to be used. If it is expected any bats are to be taken or disturbed during this period please state anticipated numbers per species against each licensable activity.

The bat lofts will be inspected for signs of bats in April and three emergence/re-entry surveys will be undertaken from June to August, with three surveyors using both frequency division detectors and recording equipment. Inspection of the lofts may lead to the disturbance of a small number (1-10) of brown long-eared bats, if present. Results will be sent to Natural England through licence returns. Monitoring of the bat boxes installed on mature trees and exterior walls will comprise a visual check using ladders, torches, endoscope and binoculars. Any bats present will be disturbed, when opening the boxes and hand taking bats for identification purposes. Checking of the bat boxes will not take place from June to August, when bats will be giving birth and lactating. A maximum of 20 bats (common and soprano pipistrelle) are anticipated. If the monitoring visit reveals any damage then bat boxes will be replaced, to be organised and funded by the applicant.

• Specify which compensation/mitigation measures will be subject to monitoring (as referenced on Figure E4).

All mitigation bat boxes and both bat lofts will be checked.

Please include a commitment to undertake remedial action in your Method Statement should monitoring identify that further management/maintenance is required of any compensation/mitigation provided, to ensure that mitigation/compensation measures are working effectively and are fit for purpose.

Important advice: Please always consider whether any post development monitoring effort should be staggered over alternate years in cases where use of the compensation measures may not occur in the same year of provision.

E4.3 Mechanism for ensuring safeguard of mitigation/compensation and post-development

management, maintenance and monitoring works: Please explain what mechanism is in place to ensure safeguard of mitigation/compensation provisions (e.g. Restrictive Covenant, clause to relinquish future development rights in S106 agreement, NERC Act agreement, explicit recognition of site in local planning documents, designation as County Wildlife Site or similar.) The need for this, and the type of mechanism, will vary with the scheme and impact. For substantial impact schemes (e.g. destruction of a significant maternity roost, or important hibernation site), some mechanism is always required. If you offer no specific mechanism, explain how you believe the population will be free of threats as far as can be reasonably determined (the expectation of the granting of a licence should not be used for this purpose).

No specific mechanism is proposed. The applicant is committed to providing the mitigation in accordance with the licence to comply with legal compliance and ensure the Favourable Conservation Status of the species.

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 20

Explain how all post-development works (management, maintenance (including remedial action) and monitoring, as appropriate) will be ensured? Include a commitment that the monitoring, habitat management and maintenance work will be undertaken. Mechanism/s for ensuring delivery must be in place before applying for a licence (also see Section F).

The applicant is committed to the monitoring and maintenance works proposed in accordance with the licence to ensure legal compliance and maintenance of the Favourable Conservation Status of the species.

E5 Timetable of works: Please complete the work schedule document WML-A13-a-E5a&b found on the ‘bat’ application form web page and append to your application pack.

Important Advice: Please note that from end of March 2014 a separate work schedule is a mandatory requirement to support a new bat licence application when using this template.

F Declarations

If the mitigation/compensation area/s is/are not owned by the applicant, you must have consent from the relevant land owner(s). You must have also secured details of how any measures to maintain the population in the long term will be achieved (e.g. a legal agreement).

F1 Declaration Statement(s) – You must include the following declarations within your Method Statement and include the appropriate answer (Yes/No/Not applicable):

F1.1 Re: section E1 - I confirm that relevant landowner consent/s has/have been granted to

accept bats into roosts or access into roosts on land outside the applicant's ownership:

N/A

F2.2 Re: section E2 - I confirm that landownership consent/s has/have been granted to allow

the creation of the proposed compensation on land outside the applicant's ownership

N/A

F2.3 Re: section E3 - I confirm that consent/s has/have been granted by the relevant landowner/s for monitoring, management and maintenance purposes on land outside the applicant's ownership

N/A

Comments if applicable:

Mitigation land is owned by the applicant.

Important Advice:

Unsecured consents statement:

If you have been unable to secure consents for any of the three declarations please explain why and detail any plans you have in place to obtain the consent(s) or provide details of any right(s) or agreement(s) that will enable the lawful implementation of the proposed mitigation, compensation and monitoring. Failure to provide the appropriate landowner consents means that the Method Statement is unlikely to meet the requirements for the FCS test to be met. It is therefore in your interest to ensure that the appropriate consents have been secured before applying for a licence.

G References: List any references cited, and include credits for source information.

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 21

H Annexes (supporting documents please append to your application pack)

H1 Pre-existing survey reports;

H2 Raw survey data.

I Check list of figures to be submitted with each Bat Method Statement

With your Method Statement and supporting documents please submit the following maps/figures – see table below. Note that some can be included within the Method Statement itself (if preferred) and others must be submitted individually (i.e. separate documents). Maps/Figures must include the title, site name as referenced on your application form, date and figure reference. If a grid reference is more applicable (e.g. a bat house is being provided please included this). Include a scale bar (appropriate to the situation e.g. 100m on site maps, 1km on location maps) and direction of North etc.

Additional maps, photographs or diagrams should be included where necessary to adequately explain the scheme.

Figure reference

Mandatory as will be included in the annexed licence, if applicable

Mandatory for assessment purpose only, but will not be included in the annexed licence

What it must show (also see details above on site reference, dating and naming).

Figure B2.1 - Yes, if the application is part of a phased or multi-plot development

Master plan overview- note – this is not the same as a master plan document, for which you should follow the guidance as stated in section B2.1.

Figure B2.2 - Yes, if applicable Locations of other nearby bat licensed sites, or sites which will be impacted on by future development.

Figure C5a - Yes Location map at an appropriate scale for the application (often 1:50,000 or 1:25,000)

Figure C5b - Yes Survey area showing all buildings, structures and habitats that are within the survey area and distinguishing those that were surveyed and those that were not. Indicate where surveyors were located. Aerial photographs should be provided where possible (ensure you have permission to use copy righted maps). If automated detectors were used or transect routes, ensure that these are indicated as appropriate.

Figure C6 - Yes Survey results - provide clear, annotated and cross-referenced maps/plans/photographs to show the survey results (access points, location of roosts, flight lines, results of activity surveys where DNA samples were taken etc).Ensure Figure is at a suitable scale to show the results.

Figure D Yes - Impacts plan – map/figure to show impacts and where licensable works will take place: clearly indicate areas of structures and habitats to be impacted by the works (damage, destruction (to include habitat types if applicable), and temporary impacts, disturbance.

Figure E2a Yes - Locations and structures where all capture and exclusion activities will be undertaken (ensure this is clearly labelled and consistent with other mandatory maps/figures).

Figure E2b Yes – but only if applicable to the application

- Non-standard capture and exclusion apparatus. If these are proposed please include diagrams/photographs.

WML-A13.2 (03/14) 22

Figure E3 Yes - Specifications for mitigation / compensation (including all dimensions for bat lofts/houses/stand-alone structures and materials to be used etc and 8-figure grid reference). Mitigation / compensation (must show all habitat creation, restoration, boxes). It may be necessary to submit more than 1 figure if the proposal is large or complicated. Any temporary features to be used to relocate bats into during capture/exclusion must also be shown and annotated accordingly.

Figure E4 Yes – when monitoring and maintenance will be included in the licence

- Monitoring, management and maintenance map. Please indicate the specific structures and habitat that are to be managed, maintained and monitored as part of this licence proposal. Ensure that they are correctly referenced and are consistent with other parts of the Method Statement and figures.

Definitions of roost types to be included in the application (further detail can also be found in the Bat Mitigation Guidelines and the BCT’s “Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines”):

. a. Day roost: a place where individual bats, or small groups of males, rest or shelter in the day but

are rarely found by night in the summer.

b. Night roost: a place where bats rest or shelter in the night but are rarely found in the day. May be used by a single individual on occasion or it could be used regularly by the whole colony.

c. Feeding roost: a place where individual bats or a few individuals rest or feed during the night but are rarely present by day.

d. Transitional / occasional roost: used by a few individuals or occasionally small groups for generally short periods of time on waking from hibernation or in the period prior to hibernation.

e. Swarming site: where large numbers of males and females gather during late summer to autumn. Appear to be important mating sites

f. Mating sites: sites where mating takes place from later summer and can continue through winter.

g. Maternity roost: where female bats give birth and raise their young to independence.

h. Hibernation roost: where bats may be found individually or together during winter. They have a constant cool temperature and high humidity.

i. Satellite roost: an alternative roost found in close proximity to the main nursery colony used by a few individual breeding females to small groups of breeding females throughout the breeding season.

j. Other – please explain what the roost type is if not one of the above (we recognise that roost types are interchangable and not always easy to classify according to the nuances of certain species).

Documents

Bats – Method Statement template to support a …...WML-A13.2 (03/14) 3 Important Advice: to accompany this Method Statement also include Figure. B2.1 for a Master plan overview