Upper Outwoods Farm, Burton-Upon-Trent

Hallam Land Management Limited

Upper Outwoods Farm, Burton-Upon-Trent

Appendix 6.7

Bat Survey Report

January 2012

wendy.keach

Text Box

P/2013/00429 Received 12/04/2013

Bat Survey Report – Upper Outwoods Farm Site

J:\3400\3457\Ecology\Bats\Bat report 2011\3457 - Upper Outwoods Farm Bat Report - Jan2012 DRAFT FOR ISSUE.doc

fpcr

1

FPCR Environment and Design Ltd

Registered Office: Lockington Hall, Lockington, Derby DE74 2RH Company No. 07128076. [T] 01509 672772 [F] 01509 674565 [E] [email protected] [W] www.fpcr.co.uk This report is the property of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd and is issued on the condition it is not reproduced, retained or disclosed to any unauthorised person, either wholly or in part without the written consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. Ordnance Survey material is used with permission of The Controller of HMSO, Crown copyright 100018896.

Rev Issue Status Prepared / Date Approved/Date

- Draft 1 EF / 29.11.11 KEH / 30.11.11

Final LR / 18.01.12

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.fpcr.co.uk/



fpcr

2

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3

2.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 4

3.0 RESULTS............................................................................................................................ 10

4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 17

5.0 FIGURES AND APPENDICES ........................................................................................... 20

TABLES

Table 1: Survey dates and timings

Table 2: Assessment of trees with bat potential

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: Site Reference Plan

Figure 3: Nocturnal Transect Results 2008

Figure 4a: Building Reference Plan: Beamhill Road Properties

Figure 4b: Building Reference Plan: Upper Outwoods Farm

Figure 5a: Nocturnal Survey Plan: 142-144 Beamhill Road

Figure 5b: Nocturnal Survey Plan: Upper Outwoods Farm

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Detailed building descriptions.



fpcr

3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The following report details the results of bat surveys carried out in 2008 and subsequent update

surveys undertaken in 2011, all surveys were undertaken by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd

on behalf of Hallam Land Management Limited. It provides details of bat surveys undertaken on

land surrounding Upper Outwoods Farm, which is located to the north west of Burton on Trent.

1.2 The survey area was dominated by improved grassland divided by mature established

hedgerows and larger arable field compartments, bounded by heavily managed hedgerows.

Several trees were identified throughout the site, which were generally associated with

hedgerows. A belt of immature plantation stretched through the central regions of the site with an

associated water course flowing through it. The plantation was linked to north eastern areas of

the site through a number of hedgerows. The buildings of Upper Outwoods Farm were located to

the west of the survey area, which was in close proximity to the immature plantation.

1.3 The site is bordered by residential properties associated with Beamhill Road, Kitling Greaves

Lane and Field Lane. Further arable land and improved grassland extends to the south and west

of the site.

1.4 The extensive bat surveys were undertaken in 2008 and 2011. In 2008 these comprised initial

assessment of the buildings and trees for their potential to support bat roosts, followed by

nocturnal surveys of buildings that are to be demolished for the proposed access roads (four

properties on Beamhill Road), nocturnal activity transects on the whole development area, aerial

inspections of the trees with bat potential, followed by nocturnal inspections of a number of trees.

1.5 In 2011, bat surveys comprised nocturnal surveys of the Upper Outwoods Farm complex and two

of the Beamhill Road properties affected by proposals. The report includes the results of all of the

above.



fpcr

4

2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 The following outlines the surveys undertaken, however for survey timings and conditions please

consult table 1 at the end of the section. In addition personnel used and licence reference

numbers (where applicable) are listed at the end of this section.

Nocturnal Activity Surveys

2.2 A planned transect route was walked that incorporated habitats that were suitable for bat

commuting and foraging. This included linear features such as hedgerows, woodland edges,

streams and tree lines, the majority of these habitats were covered during each of the two

transect surveys undertaken.

2.3 A heterodyne bat detector (Bat Box Duet) and MP3 recorder were used to record passes and

subsequently analysed using Batsound analysis software. Each transect was walked at a steady

pace, with the species, time and behaviour of each bat pass recorded on a site plan. These

surveys were completed during suitable weather conditions which comprised an ambient air

temperature exceeding 10°C, with little wind and no rain. This provides a general view of the bat

activity and highlights which habitats were associated with the activity.

2.4 The duration of the dusk transect surveys needed to run for at least 90 minutes post dusk,

whereby all habitats were covered adequately, although where possible areas were not walked

twice to avoid any bias in the data set. During the transects surveyors walked the site at a steady

pace, but where areas of activity were confirmed surveyors took a static position to confirm the

presence / absence of a bat roost in the area.

Assessment of Trees

Daytime Assessment of Trees

2.5 Trees were visually assessed to identify those supporting features with potential as bat roost

sites. Tree habitats represent a valuable resource for breeding, hibernation, feeding and as

landmarks for commuting bats. Mature single trees can provide important foraging and roosting

opportunities. Features with the potential as roosting sites include:

Holes within trunks and main laterals including rot-holes and woodpecker holes

Raised, flaking and cracked bark

Dense ivy cover, (not a feature in itself but can obscure potential features

2.6 The trees were then given a classification from low to high, in terms of bat potential. Please note,

the term ‘bat potential’ is a non-quantifiable term describing suitability for bats and as such is

open to a level of surveyor subjectivity. This is mitigated against using good practice and

established methodology, as outlined in this document.

Aerial Assessment of Trees

2.7 An assessment of the potential of trees to support bat roosts was undertaken. Trees were

examined for cracks, fissures and rot holes that could provide suitable roost sites. Evidence of



fpcr

5

bat roosting in the potential roost sites sought included staining and the presence of bat

droppings. The majority of the trees were surveyed from ground level with the aid of binoculars

2.8 These surveys were undertaken on trees as identified during the initial assessment as providing

potential to support roosting bats. Surveys were undertaken by Licensed bat workers from

FPCR, NPTC Certified to Climb Trees (J/101/2449) and Perform Aerial Rescue (A/101/2450) –

Level 2. The climbing methodology used follows that detailed within the Arboriculture and

Forestry Advisory Group (AFAG) Tree Climbing Operations Leaflet (AFAG401 – attached).

Furthermore, to ensure any risks associated with aerial climbing were minimised FPCR Risk

Assessment OOR18 was strictly adhered to. Each individual tree was thoroughly examined and

assessed for safety prior to the commencement of any climb.

2.9 Features identified as providing potential to support roosting bats during the climbing inspection

were thoroughly examined using endoscopes, mirrors and torches. Evidence of bat occupation

sought included: the physical presence of bats, droppings, urine staining, and mammalian oil

staining.

Nocturnal Assessment of Trees

2.10 During the nocturnal surveys licensed / experienced bat workers were positioned such that all

aspect of the trees could be monitored. Emergence surveys were completed from 30 minutes

prior to and (at least) 90 minutes following sunset. Return surveys were undertaken (at least) 90

minutes prior to, and 30 minutes post sunrise. The emergence surveys were only undertaken

during suitable weather conditions which comprise an ambient air temperature exceeding 10°C,

with little wind and no rain.

2.11 The location and number of any bats observed emerging from the trees were recorded and the

species identified. To aid species identification ultrasonic bat detectors Bat Box Duets were

used.

Assessment of Buildings

External/Internal Building Assessment

2.12 External aspects of the buildings were examined to determine any potential access points and

roost sites. Structural features with the potential for use by roosting bats were recorded and

suitable access points such as small gaps under eaves/soffit boards, raised or missing ridge tiles

and gaps at gable ends were sought.

2.13 A detailed inspection of the interior of the buildings, including roof voids, for evidence of bat

activity and/or potential to be used by bats were undertaken in April for buildings within Upper

Outwoods Farm and during November for residential properties on Beamhill Road. Evidence of a

roost was determined as the presence of dead or live bats, concentrated piles or scattered

droppings, food remains such as insect wing fragments as well as scratch marks and/or staining.

Indicators that potential access points had not recently been used included the presence of

heavy cob-webbing and general detritus around these points.

2.14 The buildings were then given a classification from low to high, in terms of bat potential. Please

note, the term ‘bat potential’ is a non-quantifiable term describing suitability for bats and as such

is open to a level of surveyor subjectivity. This is mitigated against using good practice and

established methodology.



fpcr

6

Nocturnal Building Surveys

2.15 During the nocturnal surveys licensed and experienced bat workers were positioned such that all

aspect of the buildings could be monitored. ‘Emergence’ surveys were completed from 30

minutes prior to and (at least) 90 minutes following sunset. ‘Return’ surveys were undertaken (at

least) 90 minutes prior to, and 30 minutes post sunrise. The emergence surveys were only

undertaken during suitable weather conditions which comprise an ambient air temperature

exceeding 10°C, with little wind and no rain.

2.16 The location and number of any bats observed emerging from the buildings were recorded and

the species identified. To aid species identification ultrasonic bat detectors Bat Box Duets were

used.

2.17 In the case of the surveys on Upper Outwoods Farm, a change in the survey requirements meant

that one of the surveys on this building complex comprised an emergence and return within a 24

hour period. In total the following number of surveys were completed on each set of buildings:

92 and 94 Beamhill Road x 1 survey

142 Beamhill Road x 2 surveys.

144 Beamhill Road x 4 surveys (confirmed roost site).

Upper Outwoods Farm x 2 surveys on all buildings (including 1 emergence and roost within

24 hours), x 3 surveys on confirmed roost within B1 (including 1 emergence and roost within

24 hours).

Personnel

2.18 Initial inspections of trees for roost potential were undertaken by experienced ecological

personnel with external and internal inspections of buildings were undertaken by licensed bat

workers. The nocturnal surveys were conducted by licensed bat workers in conjunction with

experienced bat personnel. Finally, any aerial inspections of trees with bat potential were

undertaken by licensed bat workers in conjunction with licensed roped access climbers.

2.19 The following includes staff that were involved in the above surveys:

Bob Simpson – FPCR Senior Ecologist and licensed bat worker and roped access climber

(Natural England reference # 20110391).

Lynne Richards – FPCR Senior Ecologist and experienced bat surveyor.

Nick Goddard – FPCR Arboroculturalist and roped access climber.

Ed Feetham – FPCR Ecologist and licensed bat worker (Natural England reference #

20113784)

Dan Foster – FPCR Ecologist and licensed bat worker (Natural England reference #

20104245).

Marcus Hicks - FPCR Ecologist and experienced bat surveyor.

John Condron - FPCR Ecologist and experienced bat surveyor.

Naomi Condron - FPCR Ecologist and experienced bat surveyor.

Holly Stanworth – FPCR Assistant Ecologist and experienced bat surveyor.



fpcr

7

Ellie Dickinson - FPCR Assistant Ecologist and experienced bat surveyor.

Helen Kimble – Former FPCR Assistant Ecologist and experienced bat surveyor.

Other information

2.20 All the above bat surveys were undertaken in accordance with survey guidance current for the

year of survey. This included Bat Conservation Trust (BCT, 2007) and Natural England (2004).



fpcr

8

Table 1 – Survey timings

Date Survey type Area covered Timing/conditions

(where applicable)

27/11/2007 and

06/12/2007

Initial assessment of

trees for bat potential

Entire site (previous

application boundary)

N/A

20/04/2008 Visual assessment of

buildings

Beamhill Road

properties

(92, 94, 142,144)

N/A

8/07/2008 Nocturnal activity

survey (transect)



(see Figure 3 for time)

18C, light breeze, 10%

cloud cover.

8/07/2008 Nocturnal building

survey - emergence

Beamhill Road property

(144)

20:50 to 22:50


cloud cover.


survey - emergence

Beamhill Road

properties

(92, 94, 142 and 144)

20:20 to 22:30


cloud cover.

13/08/2008 Nocturnal activity

survey (transect)



(see Figure 3 for time)


cloud cover.

13/08/2008 Nocturnal tree survey -

emergence

T3, T8, Tg3h and Tg3i 19:50 to 22:50

18C, no win/rain 90%

cloud cover.

14/08/2008 Nocturnal tree survey -

return

T11, Tg3e and Tg3h,

Tg3i

04:10 to 06:10

11C, no wind/rain, 0%

cloud cover.

20/11/2008 Visual assessment of

buildings

Upper Outwoods Farm

and Green Acres

N/A



fpcr

9

Date Survey type Area covered Timing/conditions

(where applicable)


survey - emergence

Upper Outwoods Farm

(entire complex)

20:00 to 22:00


cloud cover.


survey - emergence

Beamhill Road Property

(144 )

19:50 to 21:50


cloud cover.


survey – emergence

(part of e/r within a 24

hour period)

Upper Outwoods Farm

(entire complex)

19:25 to 21:25


cloud cover.


survey – return

(part of e/r within a 24

hour period)

Upper Outwoods Farm

(entire complex)

04:30 to 06:30


cloud cover.


survey - emergence

Beamhill Road

Properties

(142 and 144 )

19:00 to 21:00


cloud cover.


survey - return

Upper Outwoods Farm

(B1)

04:45 to 06:45


cloud cover.



fpcr

10

3.0 RESULTS

Nocturnal Activity Transects (see Figures 2 and3)

3.1 During the desktop study and initial walkover of the site, the linear features (such as treelines)

and the combination of habitats were considered to offer potential for foraging and commuting

bats. Therefore further transect surveys were conducted in 2008 within the site. The following is a

summary of the activity recorded during the transects, which is subdivided into survey dates and

in the case of the second occasion, two separate transect routes.

08/07/2008 - Entire site (See Figure 3)

3.2 During this survey, 5 bat contacts in total were recorded, all of which were common pipistrelle. No

other bat species were recorded. These comprised a pass, between H12 (refer to Phase 1

Habitat Plan, Appendix 6) and the watercourse adjacent the woodland block, foraging along the

western edge of H11 within improved grassland, foraging within improved grassland to the south

of H7, and foraging to the north of the woodland block adjacent H2.

13/08/2008 (See Figure 3)

Northern transect

3.3 During the survey, a total of 5 bat contacts were recorded, comprising the following. A common

pipistrelle bat was foraging/social calling adjacent H4 within improved grassland, a common

pipistrelle pass adjacent a small woodland block near H6, with the 3 other common pipistrelle

contacts all adjacent the southern side of the Upper Outwoods Farm. No other bat species were

recorded.

Southern transect

3.4 During the survey, a total of 6 bat contacts were recorded and comprised the following. A Myotis

species Myotis Sp bat was recorded foraging adjacent Tg3, a common pipistrelle foraging

adjacent Tg3, a common pipistrelle bat pass adjacent H32 within improved grassland, a common

pipistrelle bat pass adjacent the end of H17 within improved grassland, a bat pass within the

improved grassland between H17 and H11, and a common pipistrelle pass adjacent Tg3 and H9

within the centre of the site.

Summary

3.5 Overall, the transects recorded only two species of bat (common pipistrelle and Myotis sp), with

only 5 to 6 bat contacts per survey indicating a low level of activity. The bat contacts were spread

throughout the survey area with only two areas of the site having significant activity levels (3 or

more contacts within one area), comprising Tg3 and the periphery of Upper Outwoods Farm.



fpcr

11

Assessment of Trees

Daytime Assessment of Trees (See Figure 2)

3.6 During the daytime assessment by the ecologist and arboricultural bat worker a number of trees

were identified with varying potential to support roosting bats. Therefore it was recommended

that these be further assessed by a licensed bat worker prior to aerial assessment. Given the

large amount of trees within a site of this size, trees with no potential to support roosting bats are

not included with the document to reduce the amount of unnecessary data.

3.7 The following table outlines the features recorded and any further action taken. Tree references

are those used in the Arboricultural Assessment at Appendix 6.4 and are shown at Figure 2 of

this report.

Table 2 – Assessment of trees with bat potential

Ref Species Features of bat interest

Evidence/ Y or N?

Potential Action taken in 2008

T3 Common ash Fraxinus excelsior

Hollow trunk, stem failure.

N Moderate Aerial and nocturnal

T8 Common ash Large trunk cavity N Moderate Nocturnal

T9 Pedunculate oak Quercus robor

Branch socket cavity, shallow trunk cavities x 2.

N Low-moderate Aerial

T11 Common ash Multiple trunk and branch cavities, woodpecker hole

N Moderate Nocturnal

T13 Pedunculate oak

Multiple shallow trunk cavities. Shallow trunk split.

N Low-Moderate Aerial

T25 Common ash Hollow trunk, multiple shallow cracks and cavities

N Low Aerial

T30 Pedunculate oak

Multiple woodpecker holes, large trunk split.

N High Aerial

T32 Pedunculate oak

Basal cavity, multiple branch splits and trunk cavity.

N High Aerial

T33 Common ash Shallow trunk cavity N Low-Moderate Aerial

Tg3a Common ash Branch socket cavity, trunk cavity

N Moderate Aerial

Tg3c Common ash Trunk cavity, branch split

N Moderate Aerial and Nocturnal

Tg3e Pedunculate oak

Multiple shallow branch socket cavities and branch splits. Ivy cover.

N Moderate Aerial and Nocturnal

Tg3g Common ash Trunk cavity N Low-Moderate Aerial

Tg3h Common ash Hollow trunk, multiple trunk cavities and trunk splits

N Moderate-high Aerial and nocturnal

Tg3i Common ash Trunk cavity, areas of dead wood

N Moderate Nocturnal and aerial



fpcr

12

Ref Species Features of bat interest

Evidence/ Y or N?

Potential Action taken in 2008

Tg3k Common ash Multiple branch and trunk splits, all shallow

N Low-Moderate Aerial

Aerial Assessment of Trees (See Figure 2)

3.8 Based on the initial assessment of the trees, a large number of trees were assessed aerially. The

following is a summary of the results:

T3, Tg3c, Tg3e and Tg3h– No bat evidence was identified in association with these trees,

however due to further potential being identified or areas of the tree being unreachable by the

climbing team, further nocturnal survey was recommended.

T9, T13, T25, T30 and Tg3k - No bat evidence was recorded and all areas of the tree could

be fully surveyed. It was considered that the presence of roosting bats could be reasonably

discounted.

T8, T11 and Tg3i – These trees could not be aerially assessed due to climbing constraints

and /or health and safety considerations, so further nocturnal survey was recommended.

Nocturnal Assessment of Trees (See Figure 2)

3.9 The following are results of the nocturnal surveys conducted. In the case of some trees, the

potential was such that they were covered twice during the survey period. Activity levels were

overall low in these areas, therefore, the results have not been transferred to a reference plan.

However the descriptions accurately describe any bat activity.

T3 – 13/08/2008

3.10 During the emergence, no bats were observed emerging from or entering the trees. Bat activity

comprised foraging and commuting common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus activity along the

treeline which T3/T4 sits, from north to south and vice-versa.

T8 – 13/08/2008

3.11 During the emergence, no bats were observed emerging from or entering the tree. Bat activity

comprised foraging and commuting common pipistrelle activity along the treeline which T8 sits,

from north to south, south to north and towards the west.

T11-14/08/2008


comprised foraging and commuting common pipistrelle activity along the treeline which T11 sits

in, from north to south, south to north and eastwards. In addition a soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus

pygmaeus bat was recorded foraging northwards along the treeline and from west to east along

the treeline.

Tg3c, Tg3h and Tg3i – 13/08/2008

3.13 During the emergence, no bats were observed emerging from or entering the trees. Bat activity

comprised foraging and commuting common pipistrelle activity along Tg3, from west to east and



fpcr

13

east to west. In addition a noctule Nyctalus noctula bat was recorded commuting to the south of

Tg3c.

Tg3h and Tg3i – 14/08/2008

3.14 During the return survey, no bats were observed emerging from or entering the trees. Bat activity

comprised a foraging common pipistrelle along the south of the treeline.

Tg3e – 14/08/2008


comprised foraging and commuting common pipistrelle activity along Tg3, from west to east and

east to west.

Assessment of Buildings

Internal/External Building Assessment Surveys

Residential Properties on Beamhill Road (See Figure 4a)

3.16 House number 92 was a two-storey, brick-built house with a pitched, clay tiled roof with a larger

dormer. Gables, soffits, fascias and flashing were all present whereas barge boards were absent.

Potential bat access points comprised of gaps between roof/ridge tiles which could potentially

lead to cavities.

3.17 Internally a large roof void was present which was approximately 2.5m high with undersheeting

and exposed modern roof trusses being present. At the time of survey no evidence of current or

previous occupation by bats was identified.

3.18 House 94 was a two-storey, brick-built house with a pitched, clay tiled roof. Fascias and flashing

were both present whereas gables, barge boards and soffit boards were absent. Hanging tiles

were present above the ground floor bay window on the north aspect. Potential bat access points

comprised of occasional gaps under tiles and fascia boards which could potentially lead to

cavities.

3.19 Internally a large roof void was present which was approximately 2m high with exposed roof

trusses and ridge beam. Only a small section of the roof void had underfelt present. At the time of

survey no evidence of current or previous occupation by bats was identified.

3.20 142 Beamhill Road was a single-storey, brick-built with concrete render, dormer bungalow with a

pitched, concrete tiled roof. A single-storey, brick-built converted garage with a flat, felted roof

was attached to the bungalow. Gables, barge boards, soffits, fascias and flashing were all

present. Two areas of hanging tiles were present on the sides of the large dormer window on the

south facing aspect. Potential bat access points comprised lifted areas of flashing, occasional

gaps under tiles and soffits which could potentially lead to cavities.

3.21 Internally a small roof void approximately 0.7m high was present which had an exposed beam

and underfelt present. Another small roof void was present at the eaves on the north facing

aspect which was approximately 0.5m high at the tallest point and had underfelting present. At

the time of survey no evidence of current or previous occupation by bats was identified.



fpcr

14

3.22 144 Beamhill Road was a two-storey, brick built with concrete render, house with a pitched,

concrete-tiled roof. A single-storey brick-built garage with a hipped, concrete-tiled roof was

adjoined to the main house. To the rear of the house a brick-built single-storey extension with a

two-storey section was present with a flat, felted roof. The two-storey section had a hipped, clear

corrugated plastic roof without a roof void. Gables, barge boards, soffits, fascias and flashing

were all present. A dormer window and two chimneys were also present. Potential bat access

points comprised occasional gaps under tiles and lifted flashing which could potentially lead to

cavities and a pipe hole in the brickwork at the gable end leading directly into the roof void.

3.23 Internally a roof void with modern trusses and an exposed ridge approximately 1.8m high and

underfelted was present. A brick partition wall preventing access to the western gable end was

present. At the time of survey five suspected Pipistrellus spp bat droppings were recorded within

the roof void, one beneath the ridge beam in the middle of the void, two at the eastern gable end

and two stuck to the partition wall close to the western gable.

Upper Outwoods Farm Buildings (See Figure 4b)

3.24 Building 1 (farmhouse) was a two storey, brick built residence with a hipped clay tile roof and a

single storey, pitched roof extension. No other external features of note were recorded. Potential

bat access points comprised of the occasional gaps in a generally well sealed roof, and gaps in

soffits/fascias. Internally the building had a roof void, approximately 2.5m in height, with no

underfelting or sarking present. The roof void was full of detritus and the beams were heavily

cobwebbed, in addition the roof void had a strong draft running through it. Overall, no evidence of

bat activity was recorded externally or internally but the building was considered to have potential

for bat occupation. Building 1 is being retained within the proposed development.

3.25 Buildings 2, 3, 5a and 5b were of similar construction. These buildings were single/two storey

brick built units with pitched/hipped clay tile roofs. Other external features of note included open

aspects on one aspect of buildings 2 and 5a. Potential bat access points comprised the open

aspects and occasional gaps under roof/ridge tiles (though these were generally well sealed).

Internally, roof voids were not present in any of these buildings. The internal features recorded

included, an absence of underfelt or sarking and timber roof beams in various construction types.

During the survey no evidence of bat activity was recorded externally or internally but the

buildings were considered to have potential for bat occupation. Over the survey two swallow

Hirundae rustica nests were also recorded in building 5a. Buildings2 and 3 are being retained

within the proposed development.

3.26 Building 4 was a single storey unit with a concrete based/metal sheet unit and a pitched single

skinned asbestos sheet roof. Other external features of note were the presence of skylights.

Potential bat access points could be gained through the occasional gaps between the asbestos

roof sheets and external metal sheeting. Internally the building had no underfelt/sarking or other

features of note. During the survey no evidence of bat activity was recorded externally or

internally and the building was considered to have extremely limited potential for bat occupation.

3.27 Buildings 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 6 and 7 were also of similar construction. These buildings were

single/two storey, metal/wood framed sheds with single skinned metal/asbestos sheet roof.

Other external features of note comprised open sides on various aspects. Potential bat access

points were limited to the open sides of these buildings. Internally the building had no

underfelt/sarking or other features of note. During the survey no evidence of bat activity was



fpcr

15

recorded externally or internally and these buildings were considered to provide no suitable roost

sites for bats.

Green Acres (See Figure 2)

3.28 A compound was located to the south of Kitling Greaves Lane, which was subdivided by a series

of fences dividing an assortment of stored materials including machinery, hay, building materials

etc. as well as allotments and a chicken coup. Stables, kennels and cow sheds were also present

and generally comprised single storey wooden structures with single skinned asbestos sheet and

corrugated tin roofs. These buildings were not covered under nocturnal surveys as they were

unsuitable for bat occupation.

Nocturnal Building Surveys

3.29 The following sections are subdivided by buildings and dates of survey. The results are a

summary of the data collected over the course of the survey. The property at 144 Beamhill Road

was surveyed more extensively including surveys in 2011 as this was the only property that had

any evidence of roosting during any survey occasion (5 pipistrelle droppings found in roof void

during internal inspection in April 2008).

144 Beamhill Road (See Figure 5a)

08/07/2008

3.30 During the survey no bats were observed emerging or entering. Activity recorded during this

survey comprised of the occasional commuting and foraging common pipistrelle bats, which were

seen in the garden to the south and north of the property.

23/07/2008

3.31 During the survey no bats were observed emerging or entering. Activity recorded during this

survey comprised of the occasional commuting and foraging common pipistrelle bats, which were

seen in the garden to the south, north and west of the property.

16/08/2011

3.32 The survey recorded no bats emerging from the building. Bat activity comprised

foraging/commuting common pipistrelle activity to the west, south and east of the property, with a

myotis species bat commuting to the west over the garden and over the roof of the property. In

addition, a noctule Nyctalus noctula bat was recorded commuting to the south over the roof of the

main house.

08/09/2011

3.33 During this survey no bats were seen emerging from the building. Bat activity comprised common

pipistrelles within the northern and southern garden of 142 adjacent the survey area, with no bats

observed within the grounds 144.



fpcr

16


23/07/2008

3.34 During the survey no bats were recorded emerging or entering from any of these buildings. Bat

activity recorded during this survey comprised commuting and foraging common pipistrelle bats,

which were seen in the garden to the south and north of the property.

08/09/2011

3.35 During the survey no bats were seen emerging from the building. Bat activity comprised

commuting/foraging common pipistrelle bats to the north and south of the building and a noctule

bat commuting to the south.


23/07/2008

3.36 During the survey no bats were recorded emerging or entering from any of these buildings. Bat

activity recorded during this survey comprised commuting and foraging common pipistrelle bats,

which were seen in the garden to the south and north of the property.

Upper Outwoods Farm Buildings (see Figure 5b)

3.37 Although only B1-3 and B5a-5b were recorded as having potential, due to surveyor positioning to

cover the right aspects, elements of other buildings were also covered. Therefore any references

to other structures within the complex have arisen from this overlap.

02/08/2011

3.38 During the survey, no bats were recorded emerging from or entering any of the buildings within

the survey area. In total, 3 species of bat were recorded within the site all of which were

commuting or foraging. This included, common pipistrelle activity around all aspects of B1,

between B4 and B5e, within the open barn section of B5d, and to the north and south of the open

sides of B5d. Noctule Nyctalus noctula bats were recorded commuting over the roof of B5b, 5c

and B5f, to the south of B5e to the south of B6 and B7, and to the south and west of B4. Finally,

an unidentified myotis species bat was recorded within the open barn section of B5d, and to the

north and south of the open sides of B5d.

01/09/2011


the survey area. In total, 5 species of bat were recorded within the site all of which were

commuting or foraging. This included common pipistrelle activity to the north, west and south of

B1, between B4b and B5e, within the open barn section of B5d, to the south of B5d and to the

south of B6 and B7. A soprano pipistrelle bat was recorded between B4 and B5e, with brown

long-eared bats within the open section of B5d and to the north, a myotis species bat over the

roof of B5e and a noctule bat was recorded to the west of B5a and B5f.



fpcr

17

02/09/2011

3.40 During the survey, 1 common pipistrelle bat was recorded entering the western pitch of B1 at

06:00am. In total, 2 species of bat were recorded within the site all of which were commuting or

foraging. This included common pipistrelle activity to the north, within the open barn section of

B5d and to the north of B5d and a soprano pipistrelle bat was recorded over the roof of B5a.

09/09/2011


the survey area. In total, 1 species of bat was recorded within the site all of which were

commuting or foraging. This included common pipistrelle activity to the north of B2 and B3, and to

the west and south of B1.

4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

General Site Value

4.1 During the desktop study and initial walkover of the site, the linear features (such as treelines)

and the combination of habitats were considered to offer potential for foraging and commuting

bats. Therefore further transect surveys were conducted in 2008 within the site.

4.2 Overall, the transects recorded only two species of bat, with only 5 to 6 bat contacts per survey

indicating a low level of activity. The bat contacts were spread throughout the survey area with

only two areas of the site having significant activity levels (3 or more contacts within one area),

comprising Tg3 and the periphery of Upper Outwoods Farm.

4.3 As no significant foraging areas were identified the site is not considered to provide a significant

foraging resource for the local bat population. Therefore, the low level bat activity is not

considered to be a significant ecological constraint to development. However, it is recommended

that the central corridor within the site (comprising Tg3) is retained and where possible enhanced

to ensure a connective corridor through the site. Furthermore, development proposals should aim

to provide additional foraging areas to compensate for any lost, but also to increase habitat

usage by bat species.

4.4 The development proposals retain Tg3 and include a comprehensive Green Infrastructure

network to include extensive areas of new woodland and other habitat creation. The Green

Infrastructure is based on connecting areas of retained existing habitats.

Assessment of Trees

4.5 During the surveys, no bat roosts were recorded within any of the trees within the site. During the

daytime visual assessments, 16 trees were observed with potential to support roosting bats

(comprising;T30 and T32 – High potential, Tg3h - Moderate to high potential, T3, T8, T11, Tg3a,

Tg3c, Tg3e and Tg3i – Moderate potential, T9, T13, T33, Tg3g and Tg3k – Low to moderate

potential, and T25 – Low potential). Therefore further surveys were conducted on the trees,

which included a combination of aerial assessment and/or nocturnal survey.

4.6 During aerial assessments and nocturnal surveys conducted in 2008, no bat roosts were

confirmed within any of the trees and it is considered that the presence of bats is unlikely within

these trees.



fpcr

18

4.7 The design involved the retention of all trees with the exception of one: tree T33. Due to the time

that has elapsed between aerial assessment of this tree in 2008 and the transitory nature of

roosting bats, it is considered that as a precaution, that an aerial inspection of this tree should be

carried out prior to felling. No further survey of other trees is required.

Assessments of Buildings

Beamhill Road Buildings

4.8 During the internal surveys of house 144 in 2008 approximately five pipistrelle species

Pipistrellus Sp bat droppings were found scattered within the roof void. During the extensive

nocturnal surveys conducted (two in 2008, two in 2011), no bats were seen entering or emerging

from the confirmed roost site. Overall, this evidence is consistent with occasional use by a small

number of bats (3 or less), on a small number of occasions (less than 3 nights). Such roosts are

usually occupied by males/non-breeding females during months of highest activity (April to

October).

4.9 To ensure survey information remains current, an anabat stationary bat detector should be

placed within the roof void for a period of at least 7 days, during the peak season (May-August

2012) to identify if any bat activity is present. Based on this data a Natural England licence may

be required (in the scenario that bat activity was recorded) and this would be a statutory

constraint to demolition of this building.

4.10 During the buildings assessments on 92, 94 and 142 Beamhill Road, no bat roosts were

confirmed. However potential access points and roost sites were identified within the buildings,

so further nocturnal surveys were recommended on buildings affected by proposals (142, 92 and

94).

4.11 Over the nocturnal surveys no bats were identified emerging from the building and the level of

activity confirmed around the buildings was restricted to occasional foraging / commuting

common pipistrelle bats. From these result it has been determined that the presence of a bat

roost is reasonably unlikely as required by PPS9 and as such the presence of a roost in these

buildings is not a statutory constraint to the proposed development.

4.12 However, as a precautionary measure it is recommended that additional internal inspections are

conducted on these buildings in 2012, to ascertain if evidence has been deposited since the

previous inspection. In the unlikely event bats are recorded during these surveys, further action,

similar to that for 144 Beamhill Road (as above) will be taken.

Upper Outwoods Farm Buildings

4.13 During the internal surveys completed in 2008, no evidence of any bats were found however

there were features and access points highlighted that potentially provided opportunities for

roosting bats. Therefore further nocturnal survey was undertaken in 2011, to determine the

presence/ absence of roosting bats.

4.14 During the further nocturnal survey in 2011, one common pipistrelle bat was seen entering the

roof of a ridge of the farmhouse roof (B1) during the dawn survey on the 2nd

of September 2011.

No bats were seen emerging from or entering this building during the other surveys. This

evidence is consistent with a small occasionally used bat roost. Typically, these roosts are

usually occupied by males/non-breeding females during months of highest activity (April to



fpcr

19

October). This building is to be retained as part of the proposals and therefore no further actionis

required.

4.15 No evidence of any other bat roost were confirmed in B2, B3, B5a and B5b during the internal

inspections, but potential bat access points/roost sites were identified. Therefore further nocturnal

surveys were undertaken in 2011 to ascertain the presence or absence of roosting bats.

4.16 During the nocturnal surveys, activity was recorded around the majority of the buildings on site,

the highest levels of activity being around B1 and within the open section of B5d (which has no

roosting potential). The activity levels are consistent with a rural setting and the type of buildings.

However, no bats were recorded emerging from/ or entering of these buildings within the survey

area, and it is considered that the presence of a bat roost can be currently discounted.

4.17 During the survey, no evidence of occupation was recorded and the remaining buildings within

the Upper Outwoods Farm complex and were considered to offer limited opportunities for

roosting bats due to the nature of their construction. Therefore further nocturnal survey was not

required to demonstrate the absence of roosting bats within these structures, however

incidentally due to the positioning of surveyors for nocturnal surveys of other structures, these

low potential buildings were also within the survey area.

4.18 During further survey, no roost sites were identified in association with any of the aforementioned

structures. Therefore it is considered that the presence of a bat roost can be discounted.

Green Acres Buildings

4.19 These structures were generally unsuitable for roosting bats due to their structure and condition.

Therefore no further survey was undertaken and it is considered that the presence of roosting

bats is not a constraint to redevelopment of these buildings.

General Recommendations for Buildings

4.20 As good practice, building demolition should be undertaken in accordance with ‘best practice’.

This should comprise a full inspection of the unit, including behind internal support beams for

evidence of bat occupation at most two weeks prior to works. If no bat evidence is recorded then

the building can be demolished with no further constraints. In the unlikely event that

bats/evidence of bats are recorded during works, then operations should cease immediately and

further advice sought from a qualified ecological consultant.

4.21 If feasible within the development design, consideration should be given to the provision of

enhancements for the local population of bats through the provision of suitable roost features on

some buildings within the site or the installation of bat boxes on mature trees. The provision of

such features would be in accordance with National and Local Planning Policy helping to

enhance biodiversity within the local area.



fpcr

20

5.0 FIGURES AND APPENDICES



fpcr

21



fpcr

1



fpcr

2



fpcr

3



fpcr

4



fpcr

5

Appendix 1 – External/Internal Building Assessment Tables

3457 – Upper Outwoods Farm, Burton-upon-Trent vi November 2011

Ref

no#

Building

Construction/Description.

Structural Features Present Other

Structural

Features of

Note

Potential Bat

Access Points

Internal

Features

Bat

Potential

Gab

les

Barg

e B

oard

s

So

ffit

Bo

ard

s

Fascia

Bo

ard

s

Fla

sh

ing

Ro

of

Vo

id

1

Two storey, brick built residence with hipped clay tile roof and single storey, brick built extension.

N N Y Y Y Y None.

Occasional gaps under roof/ridge tiles. Gaps in soffits/fascias.

Roof void approximately 2.5m in height. No underfelt or sarking. Cobwebbed beams. Void was drafty and full of detritus.

No evidence, good potential for bats.

2 Single storey, brick built garage with pitched clay tile roof.

Y N N Y N N Open frontage.

Occasional gaps under roof/ridge tiles. Open front.

No underfelt or sarking.

No evidence, some potential for bats.

3 Single storey, brick built shed with single pitch clay tile roof.

Y N N Y N N None. Occasional gaps under roof/ridge tiles


No evidence, some potential for bats.

4

Single storey, concrete based/metal built unit with pitched single skinned asbestos sheet roof.

Y Y N N N N Skylights. None. No underfelt or sarking.

No evidence, extremely limited potential for bats.


3457 – Upper Outwoods Farm, Burton-upon-Trent vii November 2011

Ref

no#

Building



Structural

Features of

Note

Potential Bat

Access Points

Internal

Features

Bat

Potential

Gab

les

Barg

e B

oard

s

So

ffit

Bo

ard

s

Fascia

Bo

ard

s

Fla

sh

ing

Ro

of

Vo

id

5a Single storey, brick built garage with pitched clay tile roof.

Y N N Y N N Open frontage.

Occasional gaps under roof/ridge tiles. Open front.


No evidence, some potential for bats. 2 x swallows nests, currently disused.

5b Single/two storey, brick built barn with pitched/hipped clay tile roof.

Y N Y Y N N None.

Occasional gaps under roof tiles. Gaps under ridge tiles on two storey section. Gaps under soffits on tow storey section.


No evidence, some potential for bats. Good potential for bats on two storey section.

5c

Single storey, metal built lean-to with pitched single skinned, metal sheet roof.

N N N N N N Three open aspects.

Open sided. No underfelt or sarking.

No evidence, no potential for bats.


3457 – Upper Outwoods Farm, Burton-upon-Trent viii November 2011

Ref

no#

Building



Structural

Features of

Note

Potential Bat

Access Points

Internal

Features

Bat

Potential

Gab

les

Barg

e B

oard

s

So

ffit

Bo

ard

s

Fascia

Bo

ard

s

Fla

sh

ing

Ro

of

Vo

id

5d

Two storey, metal/wood framed shed with pitched single skinned asbestos sheet roof.

Y N N N N N

Open sided on 3 aspects. Skylights.

Open sides. No underfelt or sarking.


5e

Single storey, metal/wood framed shed with pitched single skinned asbestos/metal sheet roof.

Y N N N N N Open sides on various aspects.



5f

Single storey, metal/wood framed shed with pitched single skinned metal sheet roof.

Y N N N N N Open sides on various aspects.



6

Single storey, metal built unit with pitched, single skinned metal sheet roof.

Y N N N N N




7

Single storey, concrete based metal built units with pitched, single skinned metal sheet roof.

Y N N N N N




Documents

Upper Outwoods Farm, Burton-Upon-Trent