Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SITE NAME:
RCHT
West Cornwall Hospital St Clare Street
Penzance Cornwall TR18 2PF
TITLE:
Ecological Impact Assessment Report
FOR:
Kier Construction Limited
October 2021
Colmer Ecology ltd
The Senate – 3rd Floor Southernhay Gardens
Exeter Devon
EX1 1UG
T: 01392 758 325
W: www.colmer-ecology.co.uk
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 RCHT – EcIA Report
CONTENTS Page
Summary 1
1.0 Introduction 3
2.0 Methodology 6
3.0 Results 13
4.0 Evaluation 21
5.0 Recommendations and Constraints, Mitigation and Enhancements 28
6.0 Biodiversity Offsetting Calculations (Biodiversity Net Gain) 34
7.0 Conclusion 36
References 38
Tables
Table 1: Ecological features including designated sites, habitats on Site as well as protected or
noteworthy species and their associated ecological importance (within text).
Table 2: Summary of residual effects (within text).
Table 3: Biodiversity Offset Calculations (Small Sites Metric JP040, based on Site area of 2,098 sq m) (within text).
Figures
Figure 1: Habitat plan
Figure 2: Annotated photographs – internal and external (18th May 2021)
Figure 3: Evidence of bats and birds noted internally and externally
Figure 4: Emergence survey – 1st July 2021
Figure 5: Emergence survey – 1st August 2021
Figure 6: Emergence survey – 19th August 2021
Figure 7: Mitigation, compensation and enhancements – bat and swift
Appendices
Appendix 1: Indicative Latin names
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 RCHT – EcIA Report
© The content and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Colmer Ecology ltd. This report may not be copied
or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. This report was
prepared by Colmer Ecology ltd at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. This report
is not to be used by any third part without the written agreement of Colmer Ecology ltd. We disclaim any responsibility to
the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. We accept no responsibility of whatsoever
nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their
own risk.
Reference: RCHT, West Cornwall Hospital – EcIA Report Report Prepared by: Mr J. Hawksley BSc (Hons)
PhD ACIEEM
Position: Assistant Ecologist
Mr H. Colmer BSc (Hons)
Dip MCIEEM FLS
Position: Director/Associate Ecologist
Report Reviewed by: Mr H. Colmer BSc (Hons)
Dip MCIEEM FLS
Position: Director/Associate Ecologist
Dr J. Rabineau BSc (Hons)
PhD ACIEEM
Position: Senior Ecologist
Date 23/09/2021 Report Issue No: 1 – DRAFT
Date 19/10/2021 Report Issue No: 2 - FINAL
File Reference: 2021-46_R_RCHT, West Cornwall Hospital – EcIA
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 1 RCHT – EcIA Report
Summary
An ecological impact assessment (EcIA) was undertaken of land and buildings at RCHT, West
Cornwall Hospital, Penzance, Cornwall. The proposals were for the redevelopment of the
hospital to include demolition of the existing cottages and construction of new outpatient
facilities. In addition, re-arrangement of the existing car park, the creation of a two-storey link
from the new outpatient facilities to the current hospital building, as well as impact to habitats
for potential services routing from the boiler rooms/plant space.
The EcIA comprised two main elements. Stage 1 was a preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA)
including a biological desk study, a phase 1 habitat survey with a protected species habitat
assessment, a preliminary ground level bat tree roost assessment and a protected species
building assessment. Stage 2 comprised a bat roost characterisation survey undertaken due to
the evidence of, and potential for, protected species noted during the Stage 1 PEA. In addition,
a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) calculation was completed, following the DEFRA Small Sites
Metric (SSM) (JP040).
Located approximately 900 m north-west of Penzance town centre, the land and buildings
were approximately 0.3 ha in size and surrounded by residential properties with Penalverne
Drive forming the eastern boundary, with St Clare Street to the north, Parc Wartha Avenue to
the west and Parc Wartha Crescent to the south. The wider landscape comprised Penzance and
residential properties with pastoral fields connected by woodland and mature hedgerows
further to the west and north.
All habitat types were mapped, with the dominant habitats being hardstanding and buildings,
with the addition of amenity grassland, introduced shrub, intact species poor hedge and
scattered trees.
As a result of a single bat observed roosting in situ within the cottages during the Stage 1 PEA,
and further bat roost potential, a Stage 2 bat roost characterisation survey was conducted
between July and August 2021. No bats were recorded emerging/re-entering during the Stage
2 survey.
Due to the numbers of bats, the amount of evidence recorded during Stage 1 and subsequent
Stage 2 bat survey results, the cottages were considered to be an infrequent day, non-breeding
roost for single/low numbers of common pipistrelle bats.
The development works will result in the destruction (demolition) of the roost, with the
potential to kill/injure and disturb bats during some of the works, as well as disturbance, and
therefore, a European protected species licence was considered necessary.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 2 RCHT – EcIA Report
Mitigation and compensation measures for the loss/alteration of the bat roost was proposed,
which, if followed, would ensure that the favourable conservation status is maintained for this
bat species with the continued ecological functionality of its roost.
Evidence of breeding birds was noted during the Stage 1 PEA, and therefore, suitable mitigation
and enhancements measures have been recommended and will be adopted during the
development/demolition works.
In the absence of mitigation measures, the proposed development was considered likely to
have, at worst, long-term, adverse effect at the ‘Site’ level. However, by following the proposed
mitigation and precautionary measure, the development was not considered to have any
significant residual effect to important ecological features within or adjacent to the land and
buildings at RCHT. Provided the proposed mitigation, compensation and enhancement
measures are followed, the development was considered to be consistent to relevant
conservation legislation, National Planning Policy Framework (2021) and local policies. In
addition, an increase above 10 % biodiversity net gain was calculated.
This report is valid for a period of 12 months from the date of the last survey.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 3 RCHT – EcIA Report
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Colmer Ecology was commissioned by Kier Construction Limited to undertake an
ecological impact assessment (EcIA) of land and buildings at RCHT, West Cornwall Hospital,
Penzance, Cornwall, hereinafter referred to as the Site. The EcIA comprised two main
elements. Stage 1 was a preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA) including a biological desk
study, a phase 1 habitat survey with protected species habitat assessment, a preliminary
ground level bat tree roost assessment and a protected species building assessment (PSBA).
Stage 2 comprised a bat roost characterisation survey undertaken due to the evidence of,
and potential for, protected species noted during the Stage 1 PEA. In addition, a Biodiversity
Net Gain (BNG) calculation was completed, following the DEFRA Small Sites Metric (SSM)
(JP040).
1.2 It is understood that proposals for the redevelopment of the hospital include the demolition
of the existing cottages and construction of new outpatient facilities. In addition, re-
arrangement of the existing car park, the creation of a two-storey link from the new
outpatient facilities to the current hospital building, as well as impact to habitats for
potential services routing from the boiler rooms/plant space.
Site Description
1.3 The Site was approximately 0.3 ha in size and located at National Grid Reference (NGR) SW
46878 30625, approximately 900 m north-west of Penzance town centre. The Site was
surrounded by residential properties with Penalverne Drive forming the eastern boundary,
with St Clare Street to the north, Parc Wartha Avenue to the west and Parc Wartha Crescent
to the south. The wider landscape comprised Penzance and residential properties with
pastoral fields connected by woodland and mature hedgerows further to the west and
north.
Scope of Surveys
1.4 The objectives were to:
Stage 1
• Carry out a biological desk study within 1 km of the Site;
• Carry out a phase 1 habitat survey and map all habitat types within the Site and
where possible, described those immediately adjacent;
• Carry out a protected species habitat assessment;
• Carry out a preliminary ground level bat tree roost assessment; and
• Carry out an internal and external protected species building assessment,
specifically for bats and birds.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 4 RCHT – EcIA Report
Stage 2
• Carry out a bat roost characterisation survey in the form of three evening
emergence surveys;
• Propose suitable mitigation where necessary and advise on the need for any
European protected species licences or translocation; and
• Complete a BNG calculation following the DEFRA SSM (JP040).
Scope of Evaluation/Assessment of Ecological Features
1.5 The following were considered regarding the findings from the baseline ecological survey,
and the evaluation and assessment of impacts:
Evaluation
• Evaluate the significance of ecological features using criteria set out by the
Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, 2018)
based on a geographical scale of importance from Negligible to International and
European (i.e. high importance).
Impact Assessment
• Assess whether important ecological features will be subject to impacts, to
characterise these impacts and their effects.
Mitigation, Compensation, Enhancement and Monitoring Measures
• Propose suitable mitigation/compensation/enhancements where necessary and
advise on the need for any European protected species licences; and
• Set out the requirements for post-construction monitoring.
Residual Effects
• To provide an assessment of the significance of any residual effects following
development.
Legislation and Planning Context
1.6 Although it was not the purpose of this report to present legislation and planning context in
relation to the proposal, their applicability was explained where appropriate.
1.7 The following wildlife legislation and policy was considered:
• The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (as amended) 2017
amended by The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU exit)
Regulations 2019;
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 5 RCHT – EcIA Report
• The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) (as amended);
• The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW);
• The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC);
• National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (NPPF); and
• Any Cornwall Biodiversity Action Plan(s) (BAP).
1.8 This report was written following the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental
Management (CIEEM) guidelines for ecological report writing (2017a). Relevant Site plans
and landscape plans were provided where necessary for review.
Caveat
1.9 It should be noted that a phase 1 habitat survey does not aim to identify all botanical species
within a site, or constitute a full contaminated land/invasive species assessment. In addition,
protected species can be highly mobile and can be found in buildings/structures or habitats
at any time of year. Although Colmer Ecology is confident in the survey results, we cannot
ensure that protected species will/will not be present on Site at any other time. Descriptions
of Site conditions and photographs are based on the Stage 1 PEA survey undertaken in May
2021 with updates during Stage 2 survey. In addition, assessments of ecological impacts
were based on the information supplied by Kier Construction Limited and/or the associated
design team.
Nomenclature
1.10 For ease, common names were used throughout this report, however, where no common
name existed or it was not possible to identify to species level, genus/family names were
used. Details of indicative Latin names were provided in Appendix 1.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 6 RCHT – EcIA Report
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Stage 1
Biological Desk Study
2.1.1 Following guidance produced by the CIEEM (2017b), records of statutory and non-statutory
designated sites, ‘Priority Habitat Inventory’ areas, ancient woodland and granted European
protected species licence (EPSL) applications were reviewed from the government-based
website MagicMap within a 1 km desk study area based on the central grid reference SW
46878 30625. Colmer Ecology’s own biological records, protected species licences and
knowledge of local ecological designations were also reviewed. In addition, records of
statutory and non-statutory designated habitats and protected or noteworthy species were
sought from the Environmental Records Centre for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (ERCCIS)
within a 1 km desk study area.
Phase 1 Habitat Survey
2.1.2 The Site was subject to a phase 1 habitat survey on 18th May 2021 by Mr H. Colmer BSc
(Hons) Dip MCIEEM1 FLS2 a Natural England licensed3 associate ecologist. Each habitat
present within, and where possible, surrounding the Site was mapped in accordance with
the, ‘Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a Technique for Environmental Audit’ (Joint
Nature Conservation Committee, 2010 [Revised in 2016 with minor corrections]). Habitats
and features of interest were described, with botanical species recorded. In addition, a
colour coded habitat map (Figure 1) and annotated photographs of the Site were produced.
Non-native invasive species were also identified (where possible) and mapped where
appropriate.
Protected Species Habitat Assessment
2.1.3 The Stage 1 PEA also included an assessment of the potential for the Site to support
protected species due to the habitat types present. This was based on professional
experience, but also reviewing industry standard habitat assessment methodologies,
however, the Stage 1 PEA did not include any specific survey methods designed to
demonstrate presence/likely absence of protected species themselves.
Preliminary Ground Level Bat Tree Roost Assessment
2.1.4 Any tree likely to be impacted by the proposed works was subject to a preliminary ground
level bat tree roost assessment by Dr J. Rabineau BSc (Hons) PhD ACIEEM4 (bat class 2 survey
licence and registered bat mitigation class [low impact] licence consultant Annex B and D)
following methodology described in Bat Conservation Trust (BCT), Bat Surveys for
1 Full Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM) 2 Fellow of the Linnaean Society (FLS) 3 Great crested newt licence. Barn owl licence. Dormouse licence. Accredited agent under bat licence. 4 Associate Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (ACIEEM)
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 7 RCHT – EcIA Report
Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition (Collins, 2016) as well as the
Bat Tree Habitat Key (Andrews et al., 2016). Each tree within the likely zone of impact was
searched for any potential roosting features (PRF) for bats including cracks (from
catastrophic fractures or tears), extending holes, partially detached ivy (> 50 mm), cankers
with cavities, and splits or flaking bark that may be suitable for roosting bats. Other field
signs searched for included dark streaking below holes and cracks, droppings and staining,
as well as bat themselves.
2.1.5 Any PRF was assessed and inspected where possible using high powered LED torches and
close focussing binoculars only at this stage. Where a suitable PRF was present, a general
description, height above ground, orientation and location with respect to the stem (Collins,
2016) was recorded.
2.1.6 The potential of each tree to support roosting bats was decided based on the presence,
number and suitability of each PRF. Trees of ‘Low’ potential were considered to be, ‘a tree
of sufficient size and age to contain PRF but with none seen from the ground’ (Collins, 2016).
Trees of ‘Moderate’ potential were defined as, ‘trees with one or more potential roost sites
that could be used by bats…but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status’
(Collins, 2016). Finally, trees with ‘High’ potential were defined as, ‘trees with one or more
potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for usage by large numbers of bats…’ (Collins,
2016). Where bats or evidence of bats were found, for example bat droppings or a roosting
bat, the tree was considered to be a confirmed roost. Where no suitable features were noted
for roosting bats, the tree was considered to offer ‘No/Negligible’ potential (Collins, 2016).
Protected Species Building Assessment – Bats
2.1.7 An external and internal daylight PSBA of several unoccupied cottages within the Site was
carried out on 18th May 2021 by Dr J. Rabineau with assistance from Mr H. Colmer.
Inspections were made of the outer aspects of the Site looking for signs of potential bat
roosting opportunities, such as raised ridge tiles, hanging or roof slates/tiles, raised timber
frames/bargeboards/cladding, lintels, loose masonry and any internal access points. Where
possible, ledges and windowpanes were also searched for any signs of bat droppings.
Internally, the survey concentrated on looking for potential bat entry points, a search for
bat droppings, staining and individual bats themselves. In addition, other signs searched for
included discarded insect remains, which are a feature indicative of night roosts and/or
feeding perch. Finally, a distinctive smell is sometimes present in large, confined roosts and
chattering emitted by bats may also be heard. Inspections were aided by the use of both
small and large handheld Cree LED torches, ladders, adjustable mirrors, a Ridgid CA-330
endoscope, close focusing binoculars and a Hikvision handheld thermal imagining camera.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 8 RCHT – EcIA Report
Survey methodology followed that suggested within Bat Conservation Trust (BCT), Bat
Surveys for Professional Ecologists – Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition (Collins, 2016).
2.1.8 The potential of the Site to support roosting bats was based on the presence, number and
suitability of potential roost features (PRF). Structures of ‘Low’ potential were considered to
be, ‘a structure with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by individual bats
opportunistically…unlikely to be suitable for maternity or hibernation’ (Collins, 2016).
Structures of ‘Moderate’ potential were defined as, ‘a structure with one or more potential
roost sites that could be used by bats…but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation
status’ (Collins, 2016). Finally, structures of ‘High’ potential were defined as, ‘structures with
one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for usage by large numbers of
bats…’ (Collins, 2016). Where bats or evidence of bats were found, for example bat
droppings or a roosting bat, the Site was considered to be a confirmed roost. Where no
suitable features were noted for roosting bats, the Site was considered to offer
‘No/Negligible’ potential (Collins, 2016).
Protected Species Building Assessment – Birds
2.1.9 In combination with the survey for bats, the Site was assessed for its suitability to support
roosting and breeding birds. This involved specifically looking for evidence of house
sparrow, starling, swift and hirundine species.
2.2 Stage 2
Bat Roost Characterisation Survey
2.2.1 Due to the confirmed evidence of a roosting common pipistrelle bat within the Site during
the Stage 1 PEA, and potential for additional roosting bat species, a Stage 2 bat roost
characterisation survey was conducted and comprising three emergence surveys (Collins,
2016). The Stage 2 survey was carried out between July and August 2021, within the optimal
survey season for bats (Table 7.1 – Collins, 2016) in order to confirm the status of the bat
roost, determine access points and to assess the level of bat activity within/surrounding the
Site. The surveys were undertaken a minimum of two weeks apart following methodology
described in Collins (2016).
2.2.2 Due to the orientation of the Site and proposed area of works, three surveyors were
positioned to cover all relevant aspects sufficiently. Each surveyor was equipped with either
a Wildlife Acoustics Echo Meter 3 (EM3), EM3+, EM Touch Pro, or Elekon Batlogger M bat
detectors. These detectors are capable of recording bat calls to portable memory cards
using real time expansion (as well as heterodyne) and provide high quality sonograms
suitable for later analysis and bat call identification.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 9 RCHT – EcIA Report
2.2.3 The emergence survey started 15 minutes prior to sunset and continued for 1 h 30 minutes
after sunset, as specified in Collins (2016). Weather parameters were recorded using a JDC
Skywatch Atmos or Extech 45170 hand-held weather station.
2.2.4 Each surveyor recorded the time of each individual bat pass as well as species (where
possible) and any characteristic behaviour, namely emerging/re-entering bat, foraging, fly
pass and direction, heard not seen, feeding and social calling. Groups of bats seen were also
counted where possible.
Bat Sound Data Analysis
2.2.5 Where necessary, bat call data was extracted from raw sound files using Kaleidoscope Pro
(v. 5.4.3), with bat sonograms analysed using Kaleidoscope Pro, BatSound v 3.31, AnalookW
0.3.9.6, BatExplorer 2.1 and/or Audacity 2.0.5. The sonograms were examined using a variety
of identification parameters such as those described in Russ (2012), Middleton et al. (2014),
the Bat Conservation Trust (2006), Barataud (2012) and personal experience as well as
reference library calls. It should be noted that calls are not always identifiable to species
level due to either poor sound quality or similarities of calls between different bat species,
preventing confidence in identification. Where identification was not possible, suggestions
of likely bat species have been provided to at least genus or family.
2.2.6 The Myotis group are generally the hardest to separate to species level due to overlapping
call characteristics between the different species. This group of species was simply referred
to as Myotis.
Biodiversity Net Gain
2.2.7 In order to assess biodiversity offsetting, the Small Sites Metric (SSM) (JP040) (DEFRA 2021)
was used in this instance as the Site met both (highlighted in bold) of the following SSM
criteria:
‘1. Development sites where;
For residential developments the number of dwellings to be provided is between one and
nine inclusive on a site having an area of less than one hectare;
Where the number of dwellings to be provided is not known the site area is less than 0.5
hectares:
For all other development types where the site area is less than 0.5 hectares or less than
5000 metres squared.
2. Where there is no priority habitat present within the development area (excluding
hedgerows and arable margins).
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 10 RCHT – EcIA Report
2.3 Evaluation/Assessment of Ecological Features
2.3.1 Following CIEEM (2018), each ecological feature (i.e. designated sites, habitats on and off
Site and protected/noteworthy species) was evaluated using the following geographical
scale:
• International value (internationally designated sites or those meeting criteria for
international designations);
• National (such as Site of Special Scientific Interest [SSSI] or those meeting criteria
for national designations – sites with significant Priority Habitat or sustaining Red
Data Book species);
• Regional (regional designation – sites with significant regional Biodiversity Action
Plan [BAP] habitats or sustaining regional BAP species);
• County (county designation – sites with significant county Biodiversity Action Plan
[BAP] habitats or sustaining county BAP species or rarities species, County Wildlife
Sites [CWS]);
• District (district level designation);
• Local/Parish (local/parish/neighbourhood level designation);
• Site (interest at the site level only); and
• Negligible.
2.3.2 In addition, schedules and annexes under the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations (as amended) 2017, amended by the Conservation of Habitats and Species
(Amendment) (EU exit) Regulations 2019, WCA 1981 (as amended), any local designation or
conservation lists were also utilised/reviewed.
Assessment of Effects
2.3.3 Following CIEEM (2018), an assessment of effects without mitigation of each ecological
feature (i.e. designated sites, habitats on and off Site and protected/noteworthy species) was
undertaken using the following timescale:
• Acute (immediate and discrete);
• Short term (0 – 3 years);
• Medium term (3 – 10 years); and
• Long term (> 10 years).
2.3.4 Following the description of suitable mitigation measures, compensation and enhancement
measures, the residual effects were also established, as suggested by CIEEM (2018).
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 11 RCHT – EcIA Report
2.4 Survey Constraints
Stage 1 – Biological Desk Study
2.4.1 It should be noted that an absence of desk study records for particular species does not
necessarily convey an absence of such species in that area, but is often a facet of under-
recording. Because the desk study was designed to give an overview of the species already
recorded in the local area, and used as indicative data prior to more detailed surveys, it was
not considered to be a significant constraint.
Stage 1 – Phase 1 Habitat Survey
2.4.2 The Stage 1 PEA was undertaken at a suitable time of year and under good weather
conditions with methodology proposed following industry standards and recommended
guidelines. No constraints were encountered during the survey with all parts of the Site
accessible and with good visibility.
Stage 1 – Preliminary Ground Level Bat Tree Roost Assessment
2.4.3 The preliminary ground level bat tree roost assessment was undertaken at the sub-optimal
time of the year although visibility of the tree features based on location, foliage and
condition was good. Although a preliminary ground level bat tree roost assessment aims to
evaluate each tree present, it can sometimes be difficult to locate roosts within trees
(Collins, 2016). This is largely due to the behaviour of bats using tree roosts (for example
switching between roosts, limited echolocation or varying emergence and re-entry
patterns), as well as lack of persistent bat evidence. This assessment does not include an
evaluation of tree condition, or any arboricultural survey.
Stage 1 – Protected Species Building Assessment
2.4.4 The Site consisted of the main hospital with terraced cottages (numbers 35 – 38). No
constraints were encountered during the survey with all parts of the Site accessible and with
good visibility.
Stage 2 – Bat Surveys
2.4.5 The roost characterisation surveys were undertaken at a suitable time of year and under
good weather conditions with methodology proposed following industry standards and
recommended guidelines. No constraints were encountered during the survey with all parts
of the Site accessible and with good visibility. The only deviation from the guidelines was in
the form of three emergence surveys instead of two emergence surveys and one pre-dawn.
Although pre-dawn re-entry surveys can be valuable to pinpoint exact access points for
complex sites with discreet species, they have also been shown to potentially miss the
return of bats depending on season and species. Andrews and Pearsons (2017) undertook a
review of available data for bats in the UK with widely varying return times, particularly for
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 12 RCHT – EcIA Report
long-eared species Plecotus sp., Daubenton's, barbastelle and common pipistrelle, which
could likely have returned to roost long before the start of any pre-dawn re-entry survey, or
certainly early enough to be in complete darkness. Finally, the resulting changing sleep
patterns between undertaking late night emergence surveys and early pre-dawns were
considered sufficiently detrimental to ecologists health and were avoided where necessary.
Colmer Ecology considered the Health and Safety of its staff as a matter of priority, with the
use and support from technology such as infra-red and thermal cameras to obtain quality
survey data, paramount.
2.4.6 Bat surveys undertaken using bat detectors are inherently biased. Bats with louder calls
(such as the Nyctalus species) will be recorded at a greater distance (and therefore each bat
will be recorded more frequently) than species that use quiet calls such as Plecotus sp. This
affects the results of all surveys undertaken for each species type recorded. In order to limit
these impacts, Colmer Ecology’s recording equipment was serviced weekly using the
Wildlife Acoustics Ultrasonic Calibrator to limit technical/microphone deficiency.
2.4.7 Species identification by sonogram is limited (to a certain extent) by similarities in call
structure. In addition all bats can modulate their calls according to the habitats they are
navigating, their behaviour and the information they require at the time. This imposes
limitations on reliable analysis particularly between species of the same genus in the genera
Plecotus sp., Myotis sp. and Nyctalus sp.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 13 RCHT – EcIA Report
3.0 Results
3.1 Stage 1
Biological Desk Study
Statutory Designated Sites
3.1.1 According to data held on MagicMap and ERCCIS, the Site was not within any designated
sites, although within the impact risk zones of several Sites of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI) including Chyenhal Moor SSSI and Marazion Marsh SSSI, as well as 3.5 km south-east
of Marazion Marsh Special Protection Area (SPA). Chyenhal Moor SSSI was designated for its
diverse range of habitats and flora including rare species, and their associated fauna (in
particular dragonfly species). Marazion Marsh SSSI and SPA was designated primarily for its
flora including rare species, and important feeding ground for passage waders as well as
breeding passerines. The marshes are also important for wintering passage birds and high
number of dragonfly species. According to ERCCIS, the Site was not within an Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Other Designated Sites/Information
3.1.2 Several Priority Habitats were provided by ERCCIS within the 1 km desk study area, including
coastal vegetated shingle. In addition, while reviewing MagicMap, additional areas of habitat
on the Priority Habitat Inventory included wood pasture and parkland, as well as deciduous
woodland (the closest being along the eastern boundary).
3.1.3 Reviewing the data from ERCCIS, the Site was not a CWS, with only a single County
Geological Site (CGS) (Mounts Bay Fossil Forest CGS), recorded within the 1 km desk study
area. A single unnamed ancient and semi-natural woodland (ASNW) was located within the
desk study area, located approximately 1 km west of the Site. ERCCIS also provided data for
two ‘monuments’ and five tree preservation orders within 1 km of the Site.
European Protected Species Licence Applications
3.1.4 When reviewing the most recent (2019) Natural England licence update on MagicMap, a
single granted EPSL application was noted within the desk study area. This licence was for
common pipistrelle and brown long-eared between 2010 to 2012, and approximately 290
m north-west of the Site.
Fauna and Flora Data
3.1.5 In total, 31,020 records were provided by ERCCIS within the desk study area. Records
spanned a date range from 1960 to 2021. Of these, none were located within the Site
although the majority of the records were provided at the four figure grid reference only,
with 1 km precision. Marine records were excluded from the desk study review in this
instance.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 14 RCHT – EcIA Report
3.1.6 Amphibians: In total, ERCCIS provided 20 records of amphibians between 1960 and 2017,
none within or in close proximity to the Site. These included 11 common frog, five common
toad, one unidentified newt, and three palmate newt records.
3.1.7 Bats: A total of 136 records between 1972 and 2018 were provided by ERCCIS and for 11
confirmed species, two genera and unknown bat species/families. Of these, 90 were old
records from the ‘Cornwall bat hospital’, Penzance, between 1990 and 1991 (with the same
co-ordinates in Penzance town centre). None of the records were from within the Site
boundary. The closest records of roosts were that of a long-eared roost (three bats) at York
House, St Clare and a single greater horseshoe in the boiler room at Penwith, both
approximately 150 m west of the Site at its closest.
3.1.8 Birds: In total, ERCCIS provided 12,386 records from 1960 to 2021, none of which were
within the Site boundary. It should be noted, the majority of the bird records originated from
Penzance beach and harbour, Battery Rocks and Mounts Bay.
3.1.9 Dormice: No records were provided by ERCCIS within the 1 km desk data search.
3.1.10 Flora records: A total of 4,322 records including conifers, fern, flowering plants, ginkgo,
horsetail, lichen, liverwort, and moss were provided between 1960 and 2019 within the desk
study area, none of which were within the Site boundary. Of these records, only 86 had
Priority designation, being Nationally Scarce.
3.1.11 Fungi: A total of 255 records were provided between 1963 and 2019, none of which were
within the Site boundary. None of these species had associated designations.
3.1.12 Invertebrates (not including marine): A total of 13,528 records were provided by ERCCIS
between 1960 to 2020, for acarines, annelids, centipedes, harvestmen, insects, molluscs,
spiders and springtails, with none within the Site boundary. Of these records, 1,150 had
Priority designation under NERC Section 41 and BAP 2007, Nationally Scarce or as Nationally
Notable B species. An additional species (monarch butterfly) were protected under the
Convention on Migratory Species (CMS).
3.1.13 Reptiles: A total of five reptile records were provided by ERCCIS from 1963 to 2018, although
none were located within the Site boundary.
3.1.14 Terrestrial mammals (excluding bats): In total, 124 records of terrestrial mammal were
provided by ERCCIS including 47 of European hedgehog, 41 grey squirrel, seven Eurasian
badger, six otter, six brown rat, five red fox, four common shrew, three European rabbit, two
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 15 RCHT – EcIA Report
wood mouse, two Eurasian red squirrel, and a single record of American mink. Of these,
none were located within the Site boundary.
Phase 1 Habitat Survey
3.1.15 The habitats present within and where possible, immediately adjacent to the Site were
identified and described below. A colour coded habitat plan (Figure 1) with associated target
notes (TN) and annotated photographs were also provided.
3.1.16 Scattered trees: Scattered trees were noted throughout the Site boundary with species
dominated by immature cherries with other species including silver birch and semi-mature
ash. Trees were further assessed for their bat roosting potential in Section 3.1.32.
3.1.17 Amenity grassland: Short amenity grassland with a poor botanical composition was noted
throughout the Site, with grasses dominated by perennial rye-grass, annual meadow grass,
creeping bent and false oat-grass. Additional botanical species included dandelion,
buttercup species, common daisy, thistle species, hawkbit, dock species, red clover,
germander speedwell, yarrow, chickweed, ribwort plantain and rare occurrences of birds-
foot trefoil, Spanish bluebell, catmint and three-cornered leek. Although likely outside the
Site boundary, a small section of amenity grassland was noted by the entrance of the
hospital with grasses including perennial rye-grass, annual meadow grass and creeping
bent, with other botanical species comprising dandelion, common daisy, dock species,
buttercup, clover species and saplings of hazel, ash and hawthorn. This grassland was being
cut at the time of the survey.
3.1.18 Ephemeral with bare ground: Although likely outside the Site boundary, a small section of
ephemeral with bare ground was recorded adjacent to a building with cut vegetation, laurel,
red valerian, ivy, thistle species and Hydrangea noted.
3.1.19 Introduced shrub: Several areas of introduced species mixed with dense shrubs were noted
throughout the Site. Botanical species included Hydrangea, holm oak, Vibernum sp.,
ornamental honeysuckle, sumac, fuchsia, red and white valerian, three-cornered leek,
Spanish bluebell and other unidentified ornamental planting. In addition, ash saplings,
laurel, pendulum sedge, bindweed, thistle, chickweed, ivy, dandelion, herb-robert, cleavers,
thistle species, common nettle and lesser burdock were also present in places.
3.1.20 Intact species-poor hedge: Along part of the eastern boundary was a small section of intact
species poor hedge, with botanical composition including sycamore, cleavers, ivy, bramble,
thistle species, red valerian, ash saplings, false-oat grass and other unidentified ornamental
species. A second section of intact species poor hedge was evident at the southern part of
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 16 RCHT – EcIA Report
the Site, with botanical species including holly, bramble, sycamore, ivy and other
unidentified ornamental species. A ground layer was present comprising three-cornered
lee, red valerian, dandelion, ash saplings and herb-robert.
3.1.21 Fence: Fences were present within the Site, largely of wooden palisade affording no
ecological interest.
3.1.22 Buildings: The Site was dominated by buildings, some of which were further assessed in
Section 3.1.33.
3.1.23 Other habitat: The dominant habitat within the Site was hardstanding (parking and paths)
of no ecological value.
Protected Species Habitat Assessment
3.1.24 Badgers: The Site and surrounding habitats (where possible) were searched for signs of
badgers but none were found. In addition, no records of badgers were provided by ERCCIS
within the Site boundary.
3.1.25 Bats (foraging habitat): The Site was assessed for its suitability to support bats following
methodology described in Collins (2016) and also using professional judgement. The
habitats within the Site were dominated by buildings, hardstanding and amenity grassland,
of limited potential for foraging bats although the presence of synanthropic species (such
as pipistrelle) was considered likely. In addition, no records of bats were provided by ERCCIS
within the Site boundary, although some were noted in proximity.
3.1.26 Bats (roosting potential): The trees and buildings were assessed separately for their bat
roosting potential (see Section 3.1.32 and 3.1.33 respectively).
3.1.27 Breeding birds (excluding buildings): Areas of scattered trees, hedges and shrub provided
suitable breeding bird habitat. Although no records of birds were provided by ERCCIS within
the Site boundary, a large number was noted within the 1 km desk study.
3.1.28 Dormice: No suitable dormouse habitat was present within or surrounding the Site with no
records of dormice provided by ERCCIS.
3.1.29 Great crested newts: No suitable great crested newt habitat was present within or
surrounding the Site, with no records provided by ERCCIS.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 17 RCHT – EcIA Report
3.1.30 Invertebrates: While suitable terrestrial habitats were present within the Site which could
potentially support a varied assemblage of invertebrates, these were likely to support
common and widespread species, as noted from the ERCCIS 1 km data search results.
3.1.31 Reptiles: No suitable reptile habitat occurred within the Site with no records provided by
ERCCIS within the boundary or in close proximity.
Preliminary Ground Level Bat Tree Roost Assessment
3.1.32 All the scattered trees were subject to a preliminary ground level bat tree assessment and
considered to provide ‘No/Negligible’ potential (Collins, 2016) for roosting bats.
Protected Species Building Assessment – Bats
3.1.33 The Site consisted of the main hospital with terraced cottages (numbers 35 – 38),
immediately to the south. Due to the demolition of the cottages and proposed tie into the
main hospital by the new outpatient facility, both were surveyed individually and described
below.
3.1.34 Cottages – external: The cottages were of a render finish throughout, which was generally
tight. Windows and doors were of wooden construction, with no exposed lintels. Although
some of the windowpanes were broken, the majority were boarded up (all the ground floor
windows as well as some on the first floor). Soffit and fascia boards were present, generally
tight although gaps were evident at the south-western and south-eastern corners. The roof
was covered in slate, raised throughout with some missing in places, providing internal
access. The ridge tiles were raised in places, providing potential access and/or cavities for
bats. A total of two chimneystacks were present, with the lead finish generally tight. Of note,
two gables were evident at the southern elevation, where access was present between the
bargeboards and roof slates. Small porch extensions were to the rear of the cottages, with
the gables generally tight with intact verges. All the soffit and fascia boards were tight,
providing no potential for roosting bats. The porch roofs were covered with slate, some
raised in places although fixed with external cement mix. The ridge tiles were generally tight.
Dividing walls were noted between each cottage, capped and providing no potential for
roosting bats. A thorough inspection of all walls and windows/boards revealed no evidence
of bat use externally.
3.1.35 Cottages – internal: Internally, all cottages were of a similar construction and derelict. Each
loft included a simple truss of exposed purlin and rafter construction. The floor of each loft
was covered in old fiberglass insulation throughout. The gables were of block construction,
with a ridge board present. Slates were exposed with no underfelt lining, with cement
mortar evident throughout, some of which was crumbling or missing in places, creating
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 18 RCHT – EcIA Report
potential cavities for bats. The lofts were generally dusty with detritus present and mouse
and rat droppings scattered throughout. No evidence of bat use was noted in any of the
lofts. All the lofts were partially connected via small gaps in the internal gable wall divides,
noted at the internal chimneys between number 38 and 37, as well as between number 36
and 35. In some of the lofts, areas of slates were missing creating a draughty and light
environment as well as exposure to rain crating patches of rotten floor/trusses, especially in
numbers 36 and 37. Some of the lofts also contained water tanks, covered or dry, with no
evidence of drowned bats. A thorough inspection of all loft walls, floor area, water tanks
and discarded stored belonging revealed no evidence of bat use.
3.1.36 In addition to the loft inspection, each room was visually assessed, with special attention to
the cavities created between the boarded-up windows, which is a common place used by
roosting crack and crevices bats. In number 38, a single common pipistrelle was found
roosting in the cavity between the board and window on the first floor.
3.1.37 Main hospital tie-in: The new two-storey link from the proposed new outpatient facility will
tie into the current hospital building. The area to be impacted contained walls of very tight
render finish with PVCu windows throughout providing no potential for roosting bats. The
soffit was very tight throughout, with no access with all vents intact. The small porch area
at the front entrance contained hanging tiles, but very tight with lead finish and intact verge
finish. No evidence or potential bat roosting features were noted or bat(s) recorded in situ.
Protected Species Building Assessment – Birds
3.1.38 At the time of the survey, evidence of breeding birds was noted at the cottages in the form
of an active herring gull nest by the chimneypot between numbers 35 and 36. In addition,
house sparrows were noted re-entering a hole in the soffit at the south-western corner of
the cottages, likely feeding young. In addition, a total of 10 – 14 swifts were noted flying
above the Site during the July Stage 2 survey.
3.2 Stage 2
Bat Roost Characterisation Survey
Visit 1: Emergence Survey – 1st July 2021
3.2.1 Sunset was 21:35 h with temperature at the start of the survey 19.9 ˚C with no precipitation,
wind or cloud cover, and 63.5 % relative humidity. Temperature fell to 13.7 ˚C at the end of
the survey with no precipitation, wind or cloud cover, and 87.0 % relative humidity.
Conditions were considered suitable for the detection of bats.
3.2.2 No bats were observed emerging from the Site.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 19 RCHT – EcIA Report
3.2.3 The first bat recorded flying over the Site was a common pipistrelle seen by the surveyor at
the northern elevation of the Site at 22:19 h, flying in a north-easterly direction in front of
the main hospital. Subsequent activity was minimal and entirely dominated by common
pipistrelle bats.
Visit 2: Emergence Survey – 1st August 2021
3.2.4 Sunset was 21:06 h with temperature at the start of the survey 16.2 ˚C with no precipitation,
0.0 – 3.0 mph wind, 95 % cloud cover and 82.0 % relative humidity. Temperature fell to 14.4
˚C at the end of the survey with no precipitation or cloud cover, 0.0 – 3.0 mph wind, and
88.0 % relative humidity. Conditions were considered suitable for the detection of bats
3.2.5 No bats were observed emerging from the Site.
3.2.6 The first bat recorded flying over the Site was a common pipistrelle, heard not seen by the
surveyor at the south-western elevation of the Site at 21:44 h. Subsequent activity was
minimal and entirely dominated by common pipistrelle.
Visit 3: Emergence Survey – 19th August 2021
3.2.7 Sunset was 20:34 h with temperature at the start of the survey 20.8 ˚C with no precipitation,
0.0 – 2.4 mph wind, 100 % cloud cover, and 76.0 % relative humidity. Temperature fell to
18.2 ˚C at the end of the survey with no precipitation, 0.0 – 0.9 mph wind, 80 % cloud cover
and 80.8 % relative humidity. Conditions were considered suitable for the detection of bats.
3.2.8 No bats were observed emerging from the Site.
3.2.9 The first bat recorded flying over the Site was a common pipistrelle heard not seen by the
surveyor at the north-eastern elevation of the Site at 20:53 h. Subsequent activity was
minimal and entirely dominated by common pipistrelle.
Biodiversity Net Gain
3.2.10 For ease and clarity, the results of the DEFRA SSM for the Site are presented in Section 6.0.
3.3 Evaluation/Assessment of Ecological Features
3.3.1 The importance of all ecological features including designated sites, habitats on and off Site,
as well as protected or noteworthy species were summarised in Table 1.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 20 RCHT – EcIA Report
Table 1: Ecological features including designated sites, habitats on and off Site as well as protected
or noteworthy species and their associated ecological importance.
Ecological Features Ecological Importance
Explanation
Designated Sites SPA International As per designation status SSSI National As per designation status Habitats on Site Scattered trees Site Common and widespread habitat of some ecological interest at the
site level Amenity grassland Negligible Common and widespread habitat of limited ecological interest at the
site level Introduced shrub Site Common and widespread habitat of some ecological interest at the
site level Intact species-poor hedge
Site Common and widespread habitat of some ecological interest at the site level
Fences Negligible No ecological interest Building Site Ecological interest in relation to the bat roost and breeding birds
only Other habitat Negligible No ecological interest Habitats off Site Ephemeral with bare ground
Negligible Common and widespread habitat of limited ecological interest at the site level
Protected and Noteworthy Species on Site Badgers Negligible No evidence of badger or potential Bats (Foraging/Commuting)
Site Potential for foraging by synanthropic species
Bats (Roosting) Site Single common pipistrelle found roosting during Stage 1 survey with low activity levels during Stage 2 survey
Birds Site Breeding birds found during Stage 1 survey within building, as well as potential within habitat for common species
Dormice Negligible No suitable habitat within Site Great crested newt Negligible No ponds or suitable terrestrial habitat within the Site Invertebrates Site Limited potential for common and widespread species Reptiles Negligible No potential within the Site
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 21 RCHT – EcIA Report
4.0 Evaluation and Recommendations
4.1 Summary
4.1.1 The current proposals for the redevelopment of the hospital include the demolition of the
existing cottages and construction of new outpatient facilities. In addition, re-arrangement
of the existing car park, the creation of a two-storey link from the new outpatient facilities
to the current hospital building, as well as impact to habitats for potential services routing
from the boiler rooms/plant space. Stage 1 and Stage 2 ecological assessments were carried
out in order to evaluate impacts on biodiversity and protected species from the proposed
works. The location, proposed development and likely level of works have been reviewed
(where possible) against current standing advice and legislation. In addition, professional
judgment has also been used.
4.2 Biological Desk Study
4.2.1 The Site was within the impact risk zones of several SSSI and within 10 km of a SPA. These
designated sites were classified for their habitats, geology and associated flora and fauna
and any development in close proximity to these sites may have a detrimental impact on
their ecological functionalities. This may result from the development activities themselves,
or increased visitors and subsequent pressure on ecological resources of species linked to
the designated sites.
4.2.2 The Local Planning Authority (LPA) or ‘competent authority’ will need to review the
proposed development against each citation and/or impact risk zone criteria to ascertain
whether the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on these
designations. The LPA will be required to consider the development alone, but also in
conjunction with other proposals or local plans. In determining impacts on these
designations, the location, nature of the proposal and plans for the Site will all be assessed.
If the proposed development was considered likely to have significant impact on the SAC
SPA and Ramsar, the LPA/competent authority will be required to conduct a formal
assessment of the ecological implications of the proposed works. Generally termed a
Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA), the proposed works may require a formal screening
to the LPA for any likely significant effects (alone or in combination with other projects).
4.2.3 Natural England suggests, ‘Where these effects cannot be excluded, assessing them in more
detail through an appropriate assessment (AA) is required to ascertain whether an adverse
effect on the integrity of the site can be ruled out. Where such an adverse effect on the site
cannot be ruled out, and no alternative solutions can be identified, then the project can only
then proceed if there are imperative reasons of over-riding public interest and if the
necessary compensatory measures can be secured’. (Natural England).
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 22 RCHT – EcIA Report
4.3 Phase 1 Habitat Survey
4.3.1 The dominant habitats within the Site were hardstanding and buildings, with the addition of
amenity grassland, introduced shrub, intact species poor hedge and scattered trees. At the
time of the survey, no rare or nationally scarce botanical species were identified, however,
it should be noted that a Stage 1 PEA does not aim to identify all botanical species. This
report does not constitute a full contaminated land or invasive species survey.
4.3.2 Based on the impacts of the development being restricted to a relatively small working
footprint with a large proportion of the associated engineering works undertaken on
concrete hardstanding, ecological impacts were considered low in this instance with no
additional habitat survey considered necessary.
4.3.3 All the habitats proposed for removal on Site were of limited ecological value and qualified
as ‘Site’ or ‘Negligible’ ecological importance. Without mitigation, the impact would lead, at
worst, to an adverse effect in the long-term, at the ‘Site’ level. Mitigation measures and
additional planting was proposed in Sections 5.0 and 6.0 to assess overall net gain in habitat
value.
4.3.4 Some of the introduced shrub and intact species poor hedges within the Site will be
retained. However, accidental damage could occur during construction, with root
compaction, particularly from vehicular access, removal of materials and digging activities
as well as damage from contaminant run-off. Without mitigation, the impact would lead to
an adverse effect in the long-term, at the ‘Site’ level. Therefore, suitable precautionary
measures were proposed in Section 5.0.
4.3.5 In addition, dust created from the proposed works and removal of materials, may be
deposited on adjacent trees or vegetation, which would lead to an adverse, short-term
effect at the ‘Site’ level for the habitats adjacent to the Site. Therefore, suitable precautionary
measures were proposed in Section 5.0.
4.4 Protected Species Habitat Assessment
4.4.1 The habitats and features within the Site were assessed for their potential to support
protected species with the following evaluation.
4.4.2 Badgers: In England, badgers are listed under Appendix III of the Bern Convention, and
protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which makes it an offence to
intentionally kill, injure or capture a badger, damage, destroy or block access to their setts,
disturb badgers when occupying their sett, as well as treat them cruelly, deliberately send
or intentionally allow a dog into a set, and bait or dig for them. At the time of the survey no
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 23 RCHT – EcIA Report
evidence of badgers was found within the Site with limited potential for this species.
Therefore, based on current proposals, no further badger surveys were considered
necessary at the present time, however, suitable precautionary measures were proposed in
Section 5.0.
4.4.3 Bats: In England, all bat species are fully protected and listed under Schedule 2 of The
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (as amended) 2017, amended by The
Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU exit) Regulations 2019, Schedule 5
of the WCA (as amended) 1981, and listed under Section 41 (S41) of the NERC Act (2006) as
well as included in the CRoW (2000). All UK bat species are also listed under Appendix II of
the Bern Convention (with the exception of common pipistrelle, which is on Appendix III)
and Appendix II of the Bonn Convention. In addition, greater and lesser horseshoes,
Bechstein’s, noctule, soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared and barbastelle bats are also
listed as UKBAP.
4.4.4 The protection afforded to bats is such that the animals and their roosts (used for rest or
shelter) are legally protected. It is a criminal offence to deliberately take, injure, or kill a bat,
intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats,
damage or destroy a place used by bats for breeding or resting (even if bats are not present),
possess or advertise/sell/exchange a bat of a species found in the wild (dead or alive), whole
or any part of a bat, as well as intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a bat roost.
Important populations of greater and lesser horseshoes, Bechstein’s and barbastelle require
the designation of SAC.
4.4.5 Therefore, unlicensed works that may cause disturbance, killing, injury or blocking access
to a place of rest and shelter has the potential to cause an offence. Following the withdrawal
of Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9): Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, the NPPF
was published as its replacement in 2012. Although Circular ODPM 06/2005: Biodiversity
and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their impact within the Planning
System, was a guidance document that accompanied PPS9, it is still valid in its interpretation
by local planning authorities on the impact a development may have on protected species.
Circular 06/2005 stated that the presence of a protected species is a, ‘material consideration
when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would
be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat’ (ODPM 06/2005). Furthermore,
habitats within the Site were assessed for their potential to support foraging and community
bats and whether the proposed development could impact bats.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 24 RCHT – EcIA Report
Bat Foraging
4.4.6 Based on ‘professional judgement’ (Collins, 2016), the dominant hardstanding, building and
amenity grassland habitats within the Site were not considered significantly diverse to
support a large assemblage of bats. Importantly, no significant changes to the connectivity
of the adjacent habitats or those in the wider landscape were likely. Based on the proposed
works, no further bat activity (transect for example) surveys to assess foraging or
commuting activity were considered necessary in this instance. Further information was
provided in Section 5.0, with a recommendation for preventing impacts associated with
lighting during works also proposed.
Bat Roosts
4.4.7 The buildings on Site were subject to a thorough internal and external Stage 1 survey to
search for evidence of bats, with a single common pipistrelle observed roosting in situ at
number 38. Therefore, a further Stage 2 bat roost characterisation survey was subsequently
undertaken to confirm the status of the bat roost, as outlined in Collins (2016). The survey
was undertaken at the optimal time of year and under suitable conditions, with no evidence
of bats emerging from the Site.
4.4.8 Based on the sound ecological survey undertaken and following best practice for ecological
assessment of bat roosts, Site was considered to be a day, non-breeding infrequent roost
for low numbers/singleton common pipistrelle.
4.4.9 In order to evaluate impacts on bats, the location, the proposed development and likely
level of works have been reviewed (where possible) against current standing advice,
legislation and importantly, professional ecological experience. Current proposals include
the complete demolition of the existing terrace cottages. It was therefore considered that
the proposals were likely to cause, ‘disturbance, killing or injury, blocking access or
destruction of a bat roost’ and that offences under the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations (as amended) 2017, amended by the Conservation of Habitats and Species
(Amendment) (EU exit) Regulations 2019 and WCA (as amended) 1981 would be committed
without appropriate licensing. As a result, a European protected species licence (EPSL)
from Natural England will be required prior to any works commencing in areas where
bats were roosting. Appropriate mitigation/compensation shall be incorporated within the
design proposal to compensate for the loss of the roosts and maintain the bats’ favourable
conservation status with a working method adhered to. Specific details of
mitigation/compensation would be provided in any Method Statement and Reasoned
Statement (if requested) applied to Natural England once planning permission has been
granted, with suggested bat mitigation outlined in Section 5.0.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 25 RCHT – EcIA Report
4.4.10 When considering a planning (or other consent) application and impacts on European
protected species, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) are under the obligation to consider
the three European protected species licensing tests. This was further emphasised by a High
Court judgement, which determined that the Habitats Regulations placed LPAs under the
obligation to consider protected species. The three licensing tests, which Natural England
also apply when considering granting an EPSL, are:
(i) Whether there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for the planning
application;
(ii) Whether there are any satisfactory alternatives; and
(iii) Whether the species' favourable conservation status has been maintained.
4.4.11 With regard to ecology, provided recommendations outlined in Section 5.0 of this report
were implemented, it was considered that the third test might be met (species’ favourable
conservation status maintained). However, it is up to the LPA (as a statutory undertaker) to
decide whether this is applied or not and on the evidence (such as this ecology report)
provided. Tests one and two concern planning matters but for any EPSL to be applied for,
supporting information must be provided.
4.4.12 Assuming the development was granted planning permission, the following ecological
planning condition imposed on the development would be considered suitable:
‘Development to proceed with the bat mitigation scheme supplied with the application,
subject to any variation required by Natural England under any licence issued’.
4.4.13 Breeding birds: Under Section 1 of the WCA (as amended) 1981, wild birds (with exceptions)
are protected from being killed, injured or captured, while their nests and eggs are protected
from being damaged, destroyed or taken while in use. At the time of the survey evidence of
current breeding bird was recorded on Site, with additional breeding bird habitat identified
in scattered trees and thick, introduced shrub. Although no further breeding bird surveys
(for example walked transects) were considered necessary in this instance, suitable timing
restrictions and recommendations were provided in Section 5.0.
4.4.14 Dormice: In England, dormice are fully protected under Schedule 2 of The Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations (as amended) 2017, amended by The Conservation of
Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU exit) Regulations 2019, Schedule 5 of the WCA (as
amended) 1981, and listed under S41 of the NERC Act (2006) and CROW Act (2000). In
addition, dormice are also listed as UKBAP species.
4.4.15 The protection afforded to dormice is such that the animals and the places they use for rest
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 26 RCHT – EcIA Report
or shelter are legally protected. It is a criminal offence to deliberately or intentionally take,
injure, or kill a dormouse, damage or destroy a place used by dormice for breeding or
resting, deliberately or recklessly disturb a dormouse while in its structure or place of
shelter/protection, block access to structures or places of shelter/protection, possess or
sell, control or transport a dormouse (dead or alive, whole or in part).
4.4.16 Based on the surveyor’s experience5 in habitat assessments for this species, the habitats
within the Site provided no potential for this species. It was considered that a dormouse
survey following methodology proposed by Natural England (Bright et al., 2006) was not
necessary in this instance. In addition, no dormouse records were provided by ERCCIS
within the desk study area.
4.4.17 Great crested newt: In England, great crested newts are fully protected under Schedule 2 of
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (as amended) 2017, amended by The
Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU exit) Regulations 2019, Schedule 5
of the WCA (as amended) 1981, listed under S41 of the NERC Act (2006), and the CROW Act
(2000). In addition, great crested newts are also listed under Appendix II of the Bern
Convention and as a UKBAP species, with important populations of this species requiring
the designation of SAC.
4.4.18 The protection afforded to great crested newt is such that the animals and the places they
use for rest or shelter are legally protected. It is a criminal offence to deliberately or
intentionally take, injure, disturb or kill a great crested newt, damage or destroy their
breeding or resting places, deliberately or recklessly block access to structures or places of
shelter/protection, possess or sell, control or transport a great crested newt (dead or alive,
whole or in part) or take their eggs.
4.4.19 No ponds were recorded within the Site, and based on the surveyor’s experience6 in habitat
assessments for this species and reviewing Natural England’s standing advice, the habitat
within the Site provided negligible potential and no further surveys were considered
necessary. In addition, this species is considered absent from this part of Cornwall with no
records provided by ERCCIS within the desk study area.
4.4.20 Invertebrates: Habitats within the Site were not considered suitably diverse to support a
large or varied assemblage of invertebrates, and therefore, in this instance no further
surveys were considered necessary.
5 Mr H. Colmer BSc (Hons) Dip MCIEEM FLS – Dormouse licence. 6 Mr H. Colmer BSc (Hons) Dip MCIEEM FLS – Great crested newt licence.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 27 RCHT – EcIA Report
4.4.21 Reptiles: In England, the four widespread species of reptiles (common lizard, slow-worm,
adder and grass snakes) are listed under S41 of the NERC Act (2006) and protected under
Schedule 5 of The WCA (as amended) 1981. In addition, these four species are also listed as
UKBAP.
4.4.22 The protection afforded to slow-worms, common lizards, adders and grass snakes is such
that the animals are protected from intentional killing or injuring, as well as being sold,
offered for sale or held or transported for sale (dead or alive, whole or in part) as well as
protected from being published or advertised as being for sale.
4.4.23 No suitable reptile habitat was present and therefore no further reptile surveys were
considered necessary.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 28 RCHT – EcIA Report
5.0 Recommendations and Constraints, Mitigation and Enhancements
5.1 Detailed Bat Mitigation, Compensation and Enhancements
5.1.1 The Bat Mitigation Guidelines (Mitchell-Jones, 2004) suggests that for, ‘Individual bats or
small numbers of common species (common pipistrelle) not a maternity site: flexibility over
the provision of bat boxes or access to new building for mitigation and compensation. No
condition about timing or monitoring’. It should be noted that nationally, common
pipistrelles are considered common species (Wray et al., 2010). In order to compensate for
the loss of the common pipistrelle roost on Site, bat roosting features will be incorporated
within the Site and on an immediately adjacent existing building.
5.1.2 To mitigate/compensate for the loss of roosting opportunities for common pipistrelles, the
bat mitigation and compensation outlined below were suggested (and subject to
confirmation via an EPSL application to NE). This is based on current understanding and
proposals for the development and the habitat characteristics of crevice bat species, as well
as professional experience of working with these species. The ecological
mitigation/compensation were based on the Stage 2 surveys conducted and proposed in
order to maintain the favourable conservation status of protected species on Site. �
5.1.3 As common pipistrelles are crevice dwellers, the bat box system was considered to be
suitable in this instance. Therefore, mitigation and compensation were proposed with the
following details:
1. An external bat box (erected at the south-eastern wall of the existing hospital building)
will be fitted at height, and to provide a suitable alternative roosting provision for the
species identified. Any external box to be of durable, insulating block/woodcrete
construction (e.g. Schwegler 1FQ), which provide a long lasting and internal roosting
space for a vast number of UK bat species. Following the bat mitigation guidelines
(Mitchell-Jones, 2004), the replacement roost suggested was, ‘situated as close as
possible to the roost to be lost’ and was, ‘chosen to maximise the chances of the bats
finding and adopting it....close to existing flight lines and entrance close to appropriate
habitat’ (Mitchell-Jones, 2004). It should be noted that it is not possible to provide
compensation into the proposed new outpatients building due to the cladding design
(Pers. comm. Stride Treglown to Colmer Ecology, 24th September 2021). Figure 7
highlights the proposed location and compensation suggested;
2. The soft demolition/stripping of all key bat features of the cottages (fascia and barge
boards, ridge tiles, and boarded-up windows), or the blocking of any access points will
require supervision by a licenced bat ecologist and need to be carried out in a slow
and careful removal process under a granted EPSL. Once all bat features or areas of
high risk to bats have been cleared, works can continue uninterrupted;
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 29 RCHT – EcIA Report
3. Contractors will be made aware of the new bat roosting location (bat box) during soft
demolition/stripping and how it will need to be fitted (with the aid of photography and
mapping) before and during the toolbox talk required as part of the EPSL for the Site.
Installation of the bat box must be overseen by an ecologist, to comply with the licence
requirements; and
4. If external lighting was required, this will be kept to a minimum and should consist of
LED luminaries, ideally of a warm white spectrum (< 2,700 Kelvin), upward light ratio of
0 % and with good optical control, with any external security lighting to be set on
motion-sensors and short (1 minute) timers (Institution of Lighting Professionals and Bat
Conservation Trust, 2018). No additional lighting to be fitted in close proximity
(adjacent, immediately above and/or below) to the bat box fitted at the south-eastern
wall of the existing hospital building (downward lighting proposed at basement level
only). New internal lighting to be recessed, where possible, to avoid additional glare and
light spill particularly along the boundary habitats. Refer to Guidance Note 08/18 on
Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK for further details (Institution of Lighting
Professionals and Bat Conservation Trust, 2018). A lighting study or lighting plan may be
required and conditioned by the LPA.
5.2 Recommendations and Constraints – Other Protected Species
5.2.1 In reviewing development proposals, the following were also recommended:
1. Land mammals: During construction, any open dug trenches must be covered overnight
to prevent any mammals (such as foxes, hedgehogs or domestic pets) from being
trapped. If this was not possible, suitable mammal ladders, in the form of simple wooden
planks with a maximum gradient of 1:2 must be provided. In addition, any piping with
the potential to entrap badgers or other mammals will be capped at the end of each
working day. The contractor shall implement an auditing system, documenting mammal
ladder installation or the capping of pipes. Details should be made available to an
ecologist on request, although monitoring during or post construction was not
proposed; and
2. Birds: Should any suitable breeding bird habitat require removal during the bird breeding
season of 1st March – 31st August inclusive, a suitably qualified individual would need to
undertake an inspection for breeding birds within 48 hours prior to any clearance. This
must involve a survey of each loft, but also a survey of any flat roof area (chimneystack
for example) to identify nesting gulls. If breeding birds were identified, these must
remain in place until breeding has ceased and dependent young have fledged, with a
suitable exclusion zone implemented where necessary. The advising ecologist will
periodically monitor any occupied nest, until young have fledged. No inspection or
supervised clearance would be required for removal of breeding birds habitat between
1st September – 28th February (or 29th in any leap year).
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 30 RCHT – EcIA Report
5.3 General Site Mitigation Measures
5.3.1 In order to avoid any adverse impacts to habitats on and in the vicinity of the Site, the
following ecological avoidance measures/mitigation were made at the Site level:
1. Contractors must work in accordance with the Environment Agency pollution
prevention for businesses guidance (Defra and Environment Agency, 2016) and follow
guidelines for preventing adverse dust levels, minimising run off and using bunded
storage, for example when refuelling vehicles and storing oil and fuel. Contractors shall
be made aware of the potential that pollution incidents may occur, with spills kits to
remain on Site for the duration of the development and where necessary, tool box talks
to be given. It is the responsibility of the applicant and their contractors to supply
appropriate information and monitoring for the LPA to review; and
2. In order to prevent any ground works exposing tree roots of retained trees/hedgerows,
where required, a tree root protection zone will be implemented in accordance with
BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction. The tree root
protection zone(s) will be monitored throughout the construction phase and with
appropriate signage in place. In addition, any trees that require pruning to facilitate the
delivery of materials should be carried out following good silvicultural practices,
following consultation with a qualified arboriculturist where appropriate and only where
the lack of any Tree Preservation Order has been confirmed.
5.4 Ecological Enhancements
5.4.1 In accordance with the NPPF (revised 2021), consideration should be sought to creating
new habitats or features of biodiversity gain within a sustainable development, or managing
existing features for ecological and biodiversity gain. Although this may be restricted with
the small-scale development proposal, one of the following enhancements were proposed
for swift:
1. Swifts (external OR retrofitted boxes): As it is not possible to integrate swift boxes into
the new outpatients building (Pers. comm. Stride Treglown to Colmer Ecology, 24th
September 2021), four external OR retrofitted swift boxes will be fitted at the south-
eastern wall of the existing hospital building (Figure 7). External boxes to be installed at
eaves height, at least 5 m high, away from windows in an uncluttered environment and
in clusters (1 m apart) due to the colonial nesting of this species. Swift box installation
must be overseen and signed off by an ecologist with a ‘tool-box’ talk to contractors
(Day et al., 2019). External or retro fitted swift boxes will comprise either:
External
• John Stimpson external swift box model 30 with internal nest chamber; or
• John Stimpson external swift box model 31 with internal nest chamber; or
• WoodStone swift nest box.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2021-46 31 RCHT – EcIA Report
Retrofitted
• Ibstock Eco-habitat for swift brick; or
• Habibat 003 or Habibat swift box; or
• Manthorpe swift nesting ‘brick’.
5.5 Residual effects
5.5.1 The residual effects following implementation of mitigation and compensation were
summarised in Table 2 for each ecological feature following CIEEM (2018).
Co
lmer Eco
log
y ltd
20
21-46
32 R
CH
T –
EcIA R
epo
rt
Tab
le 2: Sum
mary o
f residu
al effects
Eco
log
ical Features
Imp
act Level
Mitig
ation
Measu
res C
om
pen
sation
/En
han
cemen
t Measu
res R
esidu
al E
ffects D
esignated Sites SPA
LP
A to
assess if H
RA
is requ
ired
Intern
ation
al -
- -
SSSI N
o im
pact
Natio
nal
Measu
res to in
clud
e site wid
e mitig
ation
-
- H
abitats on Site (B
ased on JN
CC
Phase 1 Habitat C
lassification)
Scattered trees R
emo
val Site
Co
ntracto
rs to w
ork in
accord
ance w
ith th
e p
ollu
tion
preven
tion
for b
usin
ess gu
idan
ce (D
EFRA
and
EA, 20
19)
Ad
ditio
nal n
ative tree plan
ting
(mo
re th
an p
rop
osed
to b
e remo
ved)
Po
sitive
Am
enity grassland R
emo
val N
eglig
ible
Co
ntracto
rs to w
ork in
accord
ance w
ith th
e p
ollu
tion
preven
tion
for b
usin
ess gu
idan
ce (D
EFRA
and
EA, 20
19)
Existing
amen
ity grasslan
d to
be rep
laced
with
a mix o
f flow
ering
lawn
with
w
ildflo
wer areas, n
ative hed
gero
w sh
rub
p
lantin
g an
d o
rnam
ental p
ollin
ator sh
rub
p
lantin
g
Po
sitive
Introduced shrub
Partial rem
oval
Site C
on
tractors to
wo
rk in acco
rdan
ce with
the
po
llutio
n p
reventio
n fo
r bu
siness g
uid
ance
(DEFR
A an
d EA
, 2019
) T
ree roo
t pro
tection
zon
e imp
lemen
ted in
acco
rdan
ce with
BS58
37:2012 T
rees in R
elation
to
Desig
n, D
emo
lition
and
Co
nstru
ction
New
area of o
rnam
ental p
ollin
ator sh
rub
p
lantin
g w
ith existin
g sh
rub
plan
ting
to
be retain
ed in
places
Neu
tral
Intact species poo
r hedge P
artial remo
val Site
Co
ntracto
rs to w
ork in
accord
ance w
ith th
e p
ollu
tion
preven
tion
for b
usin
ess gu
idan
ce (D
EFRA
and
EA, 20
19)
Tree ro
ot p
rotectio
n zo
ne im
plem
ented
in
accord
ance w
ith B
S5837:20
12 Trees in
Relatio
n
to D
esign
, Dem
olitio
n an
d C
on
structio
n
Som
e area to b
e lost to
the
develo
pm
ents w
ith n
ew n
ative hed
gero
w
shru
b p
lantin
g
Neu
tral
Fences R
emo
val N
eglig
ible
- -
Neu
tral B
uilding R
emo
val Site
See belo
w fo
r bats an
d b
irds
mitig
ation
/com
pen
sation
/enh
ancem
ents
- N
eutral
Other habitat
Partial rem
oval
Neg
ligib
le -
- N
eutral
Habitats o
ff Site (Based o
n JNC
C Phase 1 H
abitat Classificatio
n) Ephem
eral with bare
ground
No
imp
act Site
Co
ntracto
rs to w
ork in
accord
ance w
ith th
e p
ollu
tion
preven
tion
for b
usin
ess gu
idan
ce (D
EFRA
and
EA, 20
19)
- N
eutral
Protected and N
otew
orthy Species
Co
lmer Eco
log
y ltd
20
21-46
33 R
CH
T –
EcIA R
epo
rt
Eco
log
ical Features
Imp
act Level
Mitig
ation
Measu
res C
om
pen
sation
/En
han
cemen
t Measu
res R
esidu
al E
ffects B
adgers P
oten
tial to
beco
me en
trapp
ed
in excavatio
n/
pip
ing
du
ring
co
nstru
ction
p
eriod
Neg
ligib
le T
rench
es to b
e covered
at nig
ht o
r fitting
su
itable m
amm
al ladd
ers, as well as cap
pin
g
pip
es
- N
eutral
Bats
(Foraging/C
om
muting)
No
imp
act Site
No
add
ition
al ligh
ting
on
to ad
jacent h
abitats.
LED lu
min
aries, ideally o
f a warm
wh
ite sp
ectrum
(< 2,700
Kelvin
), up
ward
ligh
t ratio o
f 0
% an
d w
ith g
oo
d o
ptical co
ntro
l, with
any
external secu
rity ligh
ting
to b
e set on
mo
tion
-sen
sors an
d sh
ort (1 m
inu
te) timers.
Po
tential fo
r new
plan
ting
of eco
log
ical in
terest N
eutral
Bats (R
oo
sting) R
emo
val of
roo
sting
o
pp
ortu
nities
Site E
PSL req
uired
with
too
lbo
x talk and
soft
dem
olitio
n p
roced
ures u
nd
er ecolo
gical
sup
ervision
Pro
po
sed b
at bo
x installed
N
eutral
Birds
Rem
oval o
f nestin
g
op
po
rtun
ities Site
Tim
ing
restriction
with
insp
ection
with
in 4
8 h
of
start of an
y hab
itat clearance (w
here req
uired
) A
dd
ition
al plan
ting
in th
e form
of
scattered trees, n
ative hed
gero
w sh
rub
p
lantin
g an
d o
rnam
ental p
ollin
ator sh
rub
p
lantin
g
Pro
po
sed b
ird b
oxes fo
r swifts w
ithin
the
new
ou
tpatien
t facilities OR
on
existing
b
uild
ing
Po
sitive
Do
rmice
No
imp
act N
eglig
ible
No
imp
act -
Neu
tral G
reat crested newt
No
imp
act N
eglig
ible
No
great crested
new
t po
tential w
ithin
Site -
Neu
tral Invertebrates
Rem
oval o
f som
e h
abitat
Site -
New
areas of flo
werin
g law
n w
ith
wild
flow
er areas, native h
edg
erow
shru
b
plan
ting
and
orn
amen
tal po
llinato
r shru
b
plan
ting
Po
sitive
Reptiles
No
imp
act N
eglig
ible
No
reptile p
oten
tial with
in Site
- N
eutral
Colmer Ecology ltd
2019-21 34 RCHT, West Cornwall Hospital – EcIA Report
6.0 Biodiversity Offsetting Calculations (Biodiversity Net Gain)
6.1 In order to assess biodiversity offsetting, the Small Sites Metric (SSM) (JP040) (DEFRA 2021)
was used in this instance as the Site met both (highlighted in bold) of the following SSM
criteria:
‘1. Development sites where;
For residential developments the number of dwellings to be provided is between one and
nine inclusive on a site having an area of less than one hectare;
Where the number of dwellings to be provided is not known the site area is less than 0.5
hectares:
For all other development types where the site area is less than 0.5 hectares or less than
5000 metres squared.
2. Where there is no priority habitat present within the development area (excluding
hedgerows and arable margins).
6.2 The SSM is a simplified version of the Biodiversity Metric 3.0, and was reviewed to measure
and account for, biodiversity losses and gains resulting from development or land
management within the Site. The SSM encompasses habitat areas pre and post
development, and also linear features such as hedgerows, tree lines, rivers and
watercourses.
6.3 As highlighted by Natural England and DEFRA advice, it should be noted that the SSM is still
currently in BETA7 format and its use (until agreed) and subsequent calculations/results
should be used with caution. Furthermore, the Biodiversity Metric 3.0 and SSM use the UK
Habitat Classification8 system, as opposed to JNCC, 2010 (updated 2016) phase 1 habitat
survey habitat typologies. As the Site was surveyed following the phase 1 habitat survey
classification, the habitat typologies recorded were therefore converted to UK Habitat
Classification using the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric 3.0 conversion table within the
biodiversity metric ‘Technical Data’.
6.4 The DEFRA biodiversity metric calculations of habitats post development have been based
on the suggested an provided landscaping plans. In addition, the SSM appears to consider
proposed habitat enhancements where the targeted increase in units at baseline were zero.
Finally, the metric does not consider biodiversity enhancements such as bat or bird boxes
incorporated into/onto a development, or physical enhancements for other terrestrial
animals.
7 The ‘beta’ label means the first version of a new service or web page. The beta label is displayed on a new service to show it is being tested – DEFRA website, 2021. 8 http://ecountability.co.uk/ukhabworkinggroup-ukhab/
Colmer Ecology ltd
2019-21 35 RCHT, West Cornwall Hospital – EcIA Report
6.5 Based on the landscape plans provided and reviewed (Stride Treglown, Landscape GA,
154345-STL-XX-ZZ-DR-L-XXXX-90000) each habitat type was accurately measured pre
and post development using AuotCAD software with the habitat distinctiveness and
condition assessed and habitat units lost evaluated. The mitigation hierarchy was used
throughout. Table 3 outlines the SSM biodiversity offset calculations.
Table 3: Biodiversity Offset Calculations (Small Sites Metric JP040, based on Site area of 2,098 sq m)
Headline BNG Targets Met Trading Rules Trading Rules Satisfied
Detailed Results
Baseline value Habitat units 0.2745 Hedgerow units Zero Units Baseline River units Zero Units Baseline
Post development value Habitat Units 0.3025
Hedgerow Units 0.5791 River Units 0.0000
Net gain targets Habitat Units 0.3019
Hedgerow Units 0.0000 River Units 0.0000
Total net unit change Habitat Units 0.0280
Hedgerow Units 0.5791 River Units 0.0000
Total net % change: Including all on-site and off-site habitat creation and retained habitats
Habitat Units 10.22 % Hedgerow Units % target not appropriate River Units % target not appropriate
6.6 From the information gathered and landscape plans provided, a 10.22 % total net change in
habitat units will occur, which is greater than the suggested 10 %. Provided the proposed
mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures are followed within this report, there
will be some net positive benefit for wildlife in the form of creation of valuable habitats
within a relatively sub-urban location.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2019-21 36 RCHT, West Cornwall Hospital – EcIA Report
7.0 Conclusion
7.1 An EcIA comprising two main elements (Stage 1 and Stage 2) was carried out of land and
buildings at RCHT, West Cornwall Hospital, Penzance, Cornwall, to assess impacts from the
proposed development. Stage 1 was a PEA including a biological desk study, a phase 1
habitat survey with a protected species habitat assessment, a preliminary ground level bat
tree roost assessment and a protected species building assessment. Stage 2 comprised a bat
roost characterisation survey undertaken due to the evidence of, and potential for,
protected species noted during the Stage 1 PEA. In addition, a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)
calculation was completed, following the DEFRA Small Sites Metric (SSM) (JP040).
7.2 All habitat types have been mapped, with the Site dominated by hardstanding and buildings,
with the addition of amenity grassland, introduced shrub, intact species poor hedge and
scattered trees. An assessment of site valuation and impact to habitats was undertaken with
suitable mitigation and compensation measures suggested as required.
7.3 In the absence of mitigation measures, the proposed development was considered likely to
have, at worst, long-term, adverse effect at the ‘Site’ level. However, by following the
proposed mitigation and precautionary measure, the development was not considered to
have any significant residual effect to important ecological features within or adjacent to
the Site. Provided the proposed mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures are
followed, the development was considered to be consistent to relevant conservation
legislation, NPPF (2021) and local policies. In addition, an increase above 10 % biodiversity
net gain was calculated.
7.4 The Stage 2 bat roost characterisation survey was conducted between July and August
2021, with no bats observed emerging/re-entering the structure. Due to the number of bats
(a single bat observed roosting in situ during Stage 1), and no subsequent bat emergence/re-
entry during Stage 2, the Site was considered to be an infrequent day, non-breeding roost
for singleton/low numbers of common pipistrelle bats. The development works will result
in the loss/alteration/blocking access of the roosts, the potential to kill/injure bats during
some of the works as well as disturbance, and therefore, an EPSL was considered
necessary.
7.5 Mitigation and compensation measures for the loss/alteration of the bat roost was
proposed, which, if followed would ensure that the favourable conservation status is
maintained for this bat species and the continued ecological functionality of its roost. An
EPSL will be necessary, which is applied for and granted by Natural England, once
planning permission has been approved. Construction work must proceed in accordance
with terms and details outlined in any EPSL method statement submitted to Natural England,
Colmer Ecology ltd
2019-21 37 RCHT, West Cornwall Hospital – EcIA Report
and any deviation from a granted EPSL would constitute a breach of licence terms and
conditions. No works to the Site/areas where bats were roosting can commence until an
EPSL is in place.
7.6 As evidence of breeding birds was noted on Site, suitable mitigation, compensation
measures and enhancements were recommended and will be adopted during the
development works.
7.7 Additional ecological mitigation and enhancements at the Site level were proposed where
necessary.
7.8 This report is valid for a period of 12 months from the date of the last survey.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2019-21 38 RCHT, West Cornwall Hospital – EcIA Report
References
Andrews, H. et al., 2016. Bat Tree Habitat Key (3rd Edition). AEcol, Bridgwater. Available from:
http://battreehabitatkey.co.uk/?page_id=43
Andrews, H. and Pearson, L., 2017. A review of empirical data in respect of emergence and return
times reported for the UK’s 17 native bat species. Unpublished report.
Barataud, M., 2012. Écologie acoustique des chiroptères d’Europe. Identification des espèces, étude
de leurs habitats et comportements de chasse. Biotope Éditions – Publications Scientifiques du
Muséum. 344pp.
Bat Conservation Trust (BCT), 2006. Bat Call Library.
British Standards Institution (BSI), 2012. Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction.
London, UK.
British Standards Institution (BSI) BS42020:2013, 2013. Biodiversity – Code of Practice for Planning
and Development. London, UK.
Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 2017a. Guidelines for Ecological
Report Writing (2nd edn). Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management,
Winchester.
Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 2017b. Guidelines for Preliminary
Ecological Appraisal (2nd edn). Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management,
Winchester.
Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2018) Guidelines for Ecological
Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland, 2018 (version 1.1 updated in 2019).
Collins, J. (ed.), 2016. Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn).
The Bat Conservation Trust, London.
Cornwall Local Development Framework. 2012. St Austell, St Blazey and China Clay Area
Regeneration Plan.
Day, J., Mayer, E. and Newell, D. 2019. The swift – a bird you need to help. In Practice, June 2019,
Issue 104. CIEEM.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2019-21 39 RCHT, West Cornwall Hospital – EcIA Report
Defra and Environment Agency, 2016. Pollution prevention for businesses. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pollution-prevention-for-businesses#construction-inspection-
and-maintenance.
Eaton, M. A., Aebischer. N.J., Brown, A. F., Hearn. R. D., Lock, L., Musgrove, A. J., Noble, D. G., Stroud,
D. A. and Gregory, R.D. (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in
the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108, 708 – 746.
Edwards, J., Knight, M., Taylor, S. and Crosher, I., E., 2020. Habitat Networks Maps, Use Guidance
v.2. Natural England.
English Nature, 1994 et seq Species Conservation Handbook. Herps 3:1 Feb 1994. English Nature,
Peterborough.
Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D. and Evans, J., 1998. Bird Monitoring Method. A manual of techniques for
key UK species. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.464 pp.
Gunnell, K., Murphy, B., and Williams, C., 2013. Designing for biodiversity: A technical guide for new
and existing buildings/ Second Edition – Riba Publishing.
Institution of Lighting Professionals and Bat Conservation Trust, 2018. Guidance note 08/18 Bats
and Artificial Lighting in the UK.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (JNCC). 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey. A
technique for Environmental Audit. JNCC, Peterborough, UK.
Middleton, N., Froud, A. & French, K., 2014. Social Calls of the Bats of Britain and Ireland. Exeter:
Pelagic Publishing. 176pp.
Natural England, 2017. Natural England Standard – Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) Standard.
ODPM Circular 06/2005, 2005. Biodiversity and geological conservation - statutory obligations and
their impact within the planning system.
Russ, J., 2012. British Bat Calls: A guide to Species Identification. Exeter: Pelagic Publishing. 192pp.
Stace, C., 1997. New Flora of the British Isles. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press.
Sterry, P., 2006. Collins Complete Guide to British Wildflowers. Harper Collins Publishers Ltd.
Colmer Ecology ltd
2019-21 40 RCHT, West Cornwall Hospital – EcIA Report
Sterry, P., 2007. Collins Complete British Trees. Harper Collins Publishers Ltd.
Websites:
Actin for Swifts. http://actionforswifts.blogspot.com
Cornwall Council Interactive map: https://map.cornwall.gov.uk/website/ccmap/
MagicMap. www.magic.defra.gov.uk
Natural England. https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk
Natural England, 2015. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hazel-or-common-dormice-surveys-and-
mitigation-for-development-projects
NPPF, 2021.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2
Swift Conservation. https://www.swift-conservation.org
The Small Sites Metric (JP040): http://nepubprod.appspot.com/publication/6047259574927360
Figures
Figu
re 2: An
no
tated p
ho
tog
raph
s –in
ternal an
d extern
al (18th
May 20
21)
Fron
t elevation
of th
e cottag
es –n
ote b
ord
ered
win
do
ws w
ith co
mm
on
pip
istrelle roo
sting
beh
ind
h
igh
ligh
ted w
ind
ow
Rear view
of co
ttages, taken
from
main
ho
spital carp
ark
Terrace co
ttage lo
ft interio
r, with
intern
al chim
neystack
divid
ing
adjacen
t cottag
esExam
ple o
f derelict co
ttage in
terior –
no
te, no
evid
ence o
f bats w
as no
tedC
om
mo
n p
ipistrelle fo
un
d in
situ, ro
ostin
g in
the cavity
beh
ind
bo
arded
win
do
ws
Examp
le of am
enity g
rassland
and
scattered tree h
abitats
X
Figu
re 3: Eviden
ce of b
ats and
bird
s no
ted in
ternally an
d extern
ally
No
rth
Co
mm
on
pip
istrelle fou
nd
in situ
(beh
ind
win
do
w)
Leg
en
dCh
imn
eystacks
X
XA
ctive herrin
g g
ull n
est
X
Figu
re 4: Em
ergen
ce survey –
1stJu
ly 2021
No
rth
Leg
en
dSurveyo
r locatio
n
Ch
imn
eystack
Figu
re 5: Emerg
ence su
rvey –1stA
ug
ust 20
21
No
rth
Leg
en
dSurveyo
r locatio
n
Ch
imn
eystack
Figu
re 6: Em
ergen
ce survey –
19th
Au
gu
st 2021
No
rth
Leg
en
dSurveyo
r locatio
n
Ch
imn
eystack
Figu
re 7: Mitig
ation
, com
pen
sation
and
enh
ancem
ents –
bat an
d sw
ift
Bat m
itigatio
n/co
mp
ensatio
n:Sch
weg
ler 1FQ (o
r similar) b
at b
ox fitted
externally, at th
e sou
thern
elevation
of th
e existing
h
osp
ital, away fro
m w
ind
ow
s. Th
is is mitig
ation
/com
pen
sation
fo
r the lo
ss of th
e bat ro
ost w
ithin
the co
ttages.
Swift b
oxes:Lo
cation
of extern
al OR
retrofitted
swift b
ox
enh
ancem
ents.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Ap
pen
dix 1 - List o
f Ind
ictive Faun
a and
Flora Latin
Nam
es
Faun
aFlo
ra
Ad
der
Vip
era berus
Bin
dw
eedC
alystegia sepium
Go
ose g
rassG
alium ap
arine
Bad
ger
Meles m
elesB
ird's-fo
ot-trefo
ilLo
tus corn
iculatusG
reater bird
s-foo
t trefoil
Lotus p
edun
cuulatusB
arbastelle
Barb
astella barb
astellusB
lacktho
rnP
runus sp
ino
saG
reater bu
rdo
ckA
rctium lap
pa
Bech
steinM
yotis b
echstein
iB
lueb
ellH
yacinth
oid
es no
n-scrip
taG
rou
nd
ivyG
lecho
ma h
ederacea
Bran
dt
Myo
tis bran
dtii
Bo
rage
Bo
rago o
fficinalis
Gu
ilder ro
seV
iburn
um o
pulus
Bro
wn
lon
g-eared
Pleco
tus auritusB
rackenP
teridium
aquilin
umH
art's ton
gu
e fernA
splen
ium sco
lop
end
riumC
om
mo
n fro
gR
ana tem
po
rariaB
ramb
leR
ubus frutico
sus sp. agg.
Haw
kbit
Leon
tod
on
sp.
Co
mm
on
lizardZ
oo
toca vivip
araB
ug
leA
juga reptan
sH
awth
orn
Crataegus m
on
ogyn
aC
om
mo
n p
ipistrelle
Pip
istrellus pip
istrellusB
uttercu
pR
anun
culus spH
azelC
orylus avellan
aC
om
mo
n to
adB
ufo b
ufoB
utterfly b
ush
Bud
dleja d
avidii
Hem
lock w
ater-dro
pw
ort
Oen
anth
e crocata
Dau
ben
ton
Myo
tis daub
ento
nii
Cam
om
ileM
atricaria cham
om
illaH
emp
-agrim
on
yEup
atorium
cann
abin
umD
orm
ou
seM
uscardin
us avellanarius
Can
adian
po
nd
weed
Elod
ea canad
ensis
Herb
Ro
bert
Geran
ium ro
bertian
umG
rass snake
Nartix n
atrixC
hickw
eedStellaria m
edia
Him
alayan b
alsamIm
patien
s gland
uliferaG
reat crested n
ewt
Triturus cristatusC
leaversG
alium ap
arine
Ho
gw
eedH
eracleum sp
ho
nd
yliumG
reater ho
rsesho
eR
hin
olo
ph
us ferrumeq
uinum
Clo
ver species
Trifolium
H
olly
Ilex aquifo
liumG
rey lon
g-eared
Pleco
tu austriacusC
ob
nu
tC
orylus sp
eciesH
on
eysuckle
Lon
icera periclym
enum
LeislerN
yctalus leisleriC
ock's-fo
ot
Dactylis glo
merata
Ho
rse chestn
ut
Aesculus x carn
eaLesser h
orsesh
oe
Rh
ino
lop
hus h
ipp
osid
eros
Co
mfrey
Symp
hytum
officin
aleIvy
Hed
era helix
Nath
usiu
s pip
istrelleP
ipistrellus n
athusii
Co
mm
on
chickw
eedStellaria m
edia
Japan
ese kno
tweed
Fallop
ia japo
nica
Natterer
Myo
tis nattereri
Co
mm
on
marsh
-bed
strawG
alium p
alustreLau
rel Lauraceae
No
ctule
Nyctalus n
octula
Co
mm
on
nettle
Urtica d
ioica
Lavend
erLavan
dula o
fficinalis
Otter
Lutra lutraC
om
mo
n so
rrelR
umex aceto
saLesser b
ulru
shTyp
ha an
gustifolia
Palm
ate new
tTriturus h
elveticusC
om
mo
n vio
letV
iola rivin
iana
Leyland
cypress
Leyland
ii spSero
tine
Eptesin
us serotin
usC
oto
neaster
Co
ton
easter spLim
e Tilia sp
.Slo
w w
orm
An
guis fragilisC
otto
ng
rassErio
ph
orum
angustifo
liumM
arch m
arigo
ldC
altha p
alustrisSm
oo
th n
ewt
Triturus vulgarisC
ow
parsley
An
thriscus sylvestris
Mead
ow
bu
ttercup
Ran
unculus acris
Sop
rano
pip
strelleP
ipistrelly p
ygmaeus
Creep
ing
ben
tA
grostis sto
lon
iferaM
eado
w fescu
eFestuca p
ratensis
Water vo
leA
rvicola am
ph
ibius
Creep
ing
bu
ttercup
Ran
unculus rep
ens
Mead
ow
foxtail
Alo
pecurus p
ratensis
Wh
iskeredM
yotis m
ystacinus
Crested
Do
gstail
Cyn
osurus cristatus
Mead
ow
sweet
Filipen
dula ulm
ariaD
aisyB
ellis peren
nis
Navelw
ort
Um
bilicus rup
estrisFlo
raD
and
elion
Taraxacum o
fficinale agg.
New
Zealan
d p
igm
y weed
Crassula h
elmsii
Do
ck spR
umex sp
Oxeye d
aisyLeucan
them
um vulgare
Ag
rimo
ny
Agrim
on
ia spD
og
rose
Ro
sa canin
aP
edu
ncu
late oak
Quercus ro
bur
Ald
erA
lnus glutin
osa
Do
g's m
ercury
Mercurialis p
erenn
isP
erenn
ial rye-grass
Lolium
peren
ne
An
nu
al mead
ow
-grass
Po
a ann
uaEld
erSam
bucus n
igraP
eriwin
kleV
inca sp
.A
pp
leM
alus do
mestica
ElmU
lmus m
ino
r var. vulgarisP
ine
Pin
us species
Ash
Fraxinus excelsio
rField
bin
dw
eedC
on
volvulus arven
sisP
on
d w
eedP
otam
ogeto
nA
spen
Po
pulus trem
ulaField
map
leA
cer camp
estreP
op
lar speceis
Po
pulus sp
Bay lau
relLaurel n
ob
ilisFo
rget-m
e-no
tM
yoso
tis scorp
ioid
esP
op
py
Pap
aver species
Beech
Fagus sylvaticaFo
xglo
veD
igitalis purp
ureaP
rivetLigustrum
spB
ell heath
erErica cin
ereaG
erman
der sp
eedw
ellV
eron
ica cham
aedrys
Pu
rple lo
osestrife
Lythrum
salicaria
Rag
wo
rtSen
ecio jaco
bae
Red
camp
ion
Silene d
ioica
Red
clover
Trifolium
praten
seR
eed can
ary grass
Ph
alaris arund
inacea
Reed
sweet g
rassG
lyceria maxim
aR
ibw
ort p
lantain
Plan
tago lan
ceolata
Ro
semary
Ro
smarin
us officin
alisR
ou
gh
haw
kbit
Leon
tod
on
hisp
idus
Ro
ug
h m
eado
wg
rassP
oa trivialis
Ru
ssian vin
eFallo
pia b
auldsch
uanica
Silver birch
Betula p
end
ulaSilverw
eedP
oten
tilla anserin
aSo
ft rush
Juncus effusus
Stinkin
g iris
Iris foetid
issima
Spin
dle
Euon
ymus euro
paeus
Sum
acR
hus sp
.Sycam
ore
Acer p
seudo
platan
usT
easel spD
ipsacus sp
Th
istle spC
irsium sp
Tim
oth
yP
hleum
praten
seW
alnu
tJuglan
s regiaW
ater crow
foo
tR
anun
culus aquatilis
Water fo
rget-m
e-no
tM
yoso
tis scorp
iod
esW
ater min
tM
enta aq
uaticaW
ater plan
tainA
lisma p
lantago
-aquatica
Wayfarin
g-tree
Vib
urnum
lantan
a W
hite cam
pio
nSilen
e latifolia
Wh
ite clover
Trifolium
repen
sW
hite d
eadn
ettleLam
ium alb
umW
hite m
elilot
Melilo
tus albus
Wild
geran
ium
sG
eranium
maculatum
Willo
w h
erbEp
ilob
ium sp
eciesW
illow
species
Salix species
Wo
od
sorrel
Oxalis aceto
sellaW
oo
d sp
urg
eEup
ho
rbia am
ygdalo
ides
Wo
od
mellick
Melica un
iflora
Wo
un
dw
orts
Stachys sp
eciesW
ych elm
Ulm
us glabra
Yarro
wA
chillea m
illefolium
Colmer Ecology ltd Registered in England: No 7876750 Registered Office: Castle Street Studios | 14 Castle Street – First Floor | Exeter | Devon | EX4 3PT
Colmer Ecology ltd | The Senate – 3rd Floor | Southernhay Gardens | Exeter | Devon | EX1 1UG
T: 01392 758 325
W: www.colmer-ecology.co.uk