Wildlife & Countryside Servicespotkiln.homestead.com/Pot_KIln_Daylight_Bat_Survey.pdf · 1.2.1 All British bat species are fully protected by the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as

Wildlife & Countryside ServicesSupplying Ecological Services throughout the UK

Daylight Bat SurveyRef: R1389/a

The Pot KilnFrilsham

West BerkshireRG18 0XX

June 2016

Wildlife & Countryside Services ~ wildlifeservices.co.uk ~ 0333 9000 927

1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Background...................................................................................................................................31.2 Legislative Background.................................................................................................................31.3 Site Location and Context.............................................................................................................5

2 SURVEY METHOD..........................................................................................................6

2.1 Building Inspection........................................................................................................................62.2 Survey Constraints........................................................................................................................6

3 SURVEY FINDINGS........................................................................................................7

3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................73.2 External Survey.............................................................................................................................73.3 Internal Survey..............................................................................................................................8

4 DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................10

4.1 Assessment of Bat Potential.......................................................................................................104.2 Impact of Proposals and Recommendations..............................................................................11

5 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................13

APPENDIX 1 - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS..................................................................................14

APPENDIX 2 – DAYLIGHT BAT SURVEY FINDINGS..........................................................21

APPENDIX 3 – EXISTING ELEVATIONS AND PROPOSED PLANS...................................21

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Wildlife & Countryside Services commissioned John Wenman Ecological

Consultancy LLP, on behalf of Mr Francis Rockcliff, to undertake a survey

for the presence of bats within The Pot Kiln – a public house in Frilsham,

West Berkshire.

1.1.2 The survey was commissioned in connection with a planning application to be

lodged with West Berkshire District Council seeking consent to demolish

existing rear single-storey extensions and construct a new single-storey rear

extension, and to demolish a barn to build new single-storey guest

accommodation (refer to the proposed and existing elevations in Appendix

3).

1.2 Legislative Background

1.2.1 All British bat species are fully protected by the Wildlife & Countryside Act

1981 (as amended) and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species

Regulations 2010 (‘Habitat Regulations’). In summary, the legislation

combined makes it an offence to:

· Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place or intentionally or

recklessly obstruct access to a structure or place used for shelter by a

bat;

· Deliberately, intentionally or recklessly disturb bats; in particular any

disturbance which is likely to impair the ability of bats to survive, breed

or reproduce or nurture their young; or in the case of hibernating or

migrating bats, to hibernate or migrate; or to affect significantly the

local distribution or abundance of the species;

· Deliberately kill, injure or take any bat.

1.2.2 The government’s statutory conservation advisory organisation, Natural

England, is responsible for issuing European Protected Species licences

that would permit activities that would otherwise lead to an infringement of

the Habitat Regulations. A licence can be issued if the following three tests

have been met:

Wildlife & Countryside Services24/06/2016

The Pot Kiln, Frilsham - Daylight Bat Survey (R1389a).doc- 3 -

· Regulation 53(9)(a) - there is “no satisfactory alternative” to the

derogation, and;

· Regulation 53(9)(b) - the derogation “will not be detrimental to the

maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a

favourable conservation status in their natural range” and;

· Regulation 53(2)(e) - the derogation is for the purposes of “preserving

public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding

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

beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment”.

1.2.3 Local authorities have a statutory duty under Regulation 9(5) of the Habitat

Regulations to have regard to requirements of the Habitats Directive in the

exercise of their functions. The Council must therefore consider and

determine whether these three tests have been satisfied by applications

where survey findings show that European Protected Species licensing is

necessary before granting planning permission.

1.2.4 European Protected Species licence applications can be submitted once all

necessary planning consents have been granted and Natural England aim to

issue a licence decision within 30 working days.

1.2.5 Licensable projects affecting small numbers of seven commonly occurring bat

species may fall under the remit of the Low Impact Class Licence (WML-

CL21). The Class Licence permits ‘Registered Consultants’ to carry out

licensable operations on site on behalf of clients following the registration of

sites with Natural England at least 15 working days before the work is due to

start.

1.2.6 Survey data supporting EPS licence applications or the registration of the site

under the Low Impact Class Licence (WML-CL21) must be up to date i.e.

have been conducted within the current or most recent optimal survey

season i.e. May to August. Therefore, if surveys show bats are present and

licensable work is delayed until during or after the next survey season,

updated surveys will be required to support an application or site

registration.



1.3 Site Location and Context

1.3.1 The pub is situated on the north western side of Chapel Lane in Frilsham,

West Berkshire (OS Grid Reference: SU 55234 73060).

1.3.2 The pub is a detached building set in a rural area near a small village. It is

surrounded immediately by arable fields. About 150 metres to the south and

to the west are large areas of dense broad-leaved woodland. Both of these

habitats, in the immediate and wider surroundings, provide excellent

foraging opportunities for bats in the area.



2 SURVEY METHOD

2.1 Building Inspection

2.1.1 A survey of the interior and exterior of the pub and barn was undertaken by

an ecologist registered under Natural England bat survey class licence

(CL018) and an assisting ecologist on the 15th June 2016.

2.1.2 The survey was undertaken with the aid of binoculars, and a high power (1

million candle power) torch and looked for any signs of occupation by bats,

and for features that could offer potential roosting sites following standard

survey guidelines (Bat Conservation Trust 2016; Mitchell-Jones 2004;

Mitchell-Jones & McLeish 2004).

2.1.3 The following may indicate the presence of a bat roost within a building:

3 Bat droppings (these can be found externally, especially in sheltered

areas such as window sills, underneath roost entrances or internally

within a roof space);

4 Piles of insect remains e.g. moth wings (these may be indicative of

regular feeding sites used by species such as brown long eared bat);

5 Staining at roost entrances or within the roost (urine and oil from fur

can leave stains on timbers when bats are gathered for long periods);

6 Bats (live or dead).

6.1.1 Pitched roofed properties may offer potential roosting sites in a number of

locations; favoured locations include:

· Under roof, ridge and hip tiles, especially when loose tiles are present

or sections of mortar are missing;

· At the eaves – gaining access via gaps between the soffits and wall;

· At the gable ends – access is typically gained at the roof apex via

gaps in the soffits or under roof tiles;

· Within an enclosed roof space – long-eared bats (Plecotus sp.) for

example, will often cluster at the ridge beam.

6.2 Survey Constraints

6.2.1 Full access was available to the interior and exterior of the pub and barn and

therefore there were no significant constraints to the survey.



7 SURVEY FINDINGS

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 Photographs of the site are presented in Appendix 1 and a plan of the

external and internal survey findings with associated target notes is shown in

Appendix 2. The survey findings from the exterior and interior of the pub

and barn are described as follows:

7.2 External Survey – Pub

7.2.1 The pub was of brick construction with a pitched and hipped roof covered in

handmade clay roof tiles (Photograph 1). There was a single-storey

extension to the southwest of the pub (Photograph 2) and also to the rear

(Photograph 3). There were several gaps underneath the clay roof tiles on

all elevations (Photographs 4 & 5; Target note 1). The ridge tiles were

tightly mortared and offered no gaps underneath (Photograph 6; Targetnote 2). The verge tiles were tightly mortared and in place (Photograph 7;Target note 3). The hip tiles were mostly mortared and in place; there was

a gap underneath a tile on the rear southwestern hip (Photograph 8; Targetnote 4).

7.2.2 There were gaps underneath the clay tiles on the rear single-storey extension

(Photograph 9; Target note 5) but on closer inspection, they looked to be

shallow and also were at an unsuitable height for roosting bats therefore

were thought to have negligible roosting opportunity. The lead flashing was

tight to the brickwork at the edge of this extension (Photograph 10; Targetnote 6). The open storage section to the rear of this was covered with tight

bitumen felt (Photograph 11; Target note 7) and was boarded on the inside

offering negligible roosting opportunities (Photograph 12; Target note 8).

7.2.3 The flat-roofed single-storey rear extension was covered with bitumen felt,

which was flat and sealed (Photograph 13; Target note 9). There were

four brick chimneys, which were all tightly mortared with no gaps between

the brickwork and roof tiles (Photograph 14; Target notes 10-13)



7.2.4 The timber bargeboard at the rear gable ends of the building was not tight to

the brickwork and there were numerous gaps offering potential access

points (Photograph 15; Target note 14). At the front there were vents in

the timber soffits but they looked to be sealed beyond this (Photograph 16;Target note 15). The soffits were tight to the brickwork offering no gaps

(Target note 16).

7.2.5 No bats or evidence of roosting bats was found externally.

7.3 Internal Survey - Pub

7.3.1 The roof space was accessed through a loft hatch that opened into the more

western rear gable and had an estimated floor-to-ridge height of two metres;

the roof was pitched and lined with bitumen felt which was mostly intact

(Photograph 17); there was a large tear in the felt on the front elevation

exposing the clay tiles underneath (Photograph 18; Target note 17).

There was a water tank in the western gable. The floor was insulated with

fibreglass, which did not extend fully to the eaves leaving them open to the

soffits (Photograph 19; Target note 18). The western rear gable end was

quite cobwebbed as was the ridge beam (Photograph 20; Target note 19).

In the main part of the roof space, at the front of the building, the ridge beam

was cobweb-free (Photograph 21; Target note 20). There was no beam at

the ridge at the rear eastern gable but the ridge was cobweb-free

(Photograph 22; Target note 21).

7.3.2 There were gaps at both rear gable ends between the brickwork and the

rafters (Photograph 23; Target notes 22 & 23). There were no gaps

around the more western chimney with the roofing felt being tight to the

brickwork (Target note 24). The chimney at the eastern end had potential

gaps between the brickwork and roofing felt (Photograph 24; Target note25).



7.3.3 At least nine brown-long eared bats were found roosting at the ridge in the

front section of the roof space (Photograph 25). Medium-sized bat

droppings were found scattered along the ridge in the front main section of

the roof space (Photograph 26) and also in the more western rear gable

(Photograph 27). Fresh medium-sized droppings were found to be

concentrated at the eastern chimney; more than 200 droppings were found

on the fibreglass insulation at the base of the northern (Photograph 28) and

southern (Photograph 29) sides of the chimney. Further droppings were

found stuck to the brickwork and on a small ledge at the more eastern gable

end (Photograph 30).

7.3.4 There were numerous wasps’ nests found throughout the roof space with a

couple being very large (Target notes 26 & 27). Old bird nesting material

and feathers were found at the more western rear gable end by a large

wasps’ nest (Photograph 31; Target note 28).

7.4 Barn

7.4.1 The barn was situated to the northwest of the main building (Photograph 32).

It had a pitched roof covered with corrugated metal sheets and had a

trussed timber frame (Photograph 33). The front of the barn was open as

was the southern gable end and part of the rear (Target notes 29-31).

There was a metal ridge externally, which had large gaps between it and the

corrugated metal sheets (Photograph 34; Target note 32). Internally, the

ridge beam was cobweb-free (Photograph 35; Target note 33). There was

a large gap at the apex of the northern gable end and the wooden boards

had gaps in between them as well (Photograph 36; Target note 34). There

was old bird nesting material at the ridge towards the southern gable end

(Photograph 37; Target note 35). No signs of roosting bats were found

externally or internally.



8 DISCUSSION

8.1 Assessment of Bat Potential

8.1.1 The observation of large numbers of medium-sized bat droppings in the roof

space and at least nine brown long-eared bats roosting on the ridge beam

suggests that the Pot Kiln acts as a maternity roost for brown long-eared

bats. The likely access points are thought to be at the eastern chimney and

also at the rear eastern gable end under the bargeboard. The brown long-

eared bat (Plecotus auritus) is a widespread species found throughout the

UK. Maternity roosts occupied by commonly occurring bats, such as the

brown long-eared bat, are considered to be of low-moderate conservation

importance (Mitchell-Jones 2004) and brown long-eared bats are a species

of principal importance for conservation (as defined within Section 41 of the

NERC Act 2006) and any loss of roosts may have an adverse impact on the

status of local populations.

8.1.2 The pub’s clay tiled roof provided several roosting opportunities suitable for

bat species that occupy crevice roosting sites such as the widespread

pipistrelle (Pipistrellus sp.) for example. In the absence of any indication of

the presence of bats it is considered unlikely that that the building has

supported a roost of higher conservation importance such as a maternity

colony; however any use by roosts of lower conservation importance i.e. day

and/or transitional roosts for small numbers of male or non-breeding female

bats is possible. Overall, taking the rural setting into account, the pub was

considered to be of high potential for roosting bats.

8.1.3 The barn was very open and offered very little protection as a roosting site.

Metal roofs are usually unsuitable as roosting sites for bats as they can have

unstable temperatures. Overall, the barn is considered be of negligible

potential for roosting bats.



8.2 Impact of Proposals and Recommendations

8.2.1 The proposed single-storey rear extension will not affect any sections of the

main roof. The rear eastern gable end and the eastern chimney, thought to

be the likely access points to the roof space used by the roosting brown

long-eared bats, will not be affected or blocked by the proposed plans. The

demolition of the current single-storey extensions is thought not to affect any

current bat roosts. The pitched roof covered with clay tiles is considered to

be of negligible potential for use by crevice-dwelling bat species as a close

inspection showed no evidence of the presence of bats and the potential for

bats to occupy these lower parts of the roof is considered to be of low risk.

The flat bitumen-covered roof of the second single-storey rear extension to

be demolished offers no potential for crevice-dwelling bat species to roost.

Therefore it is considered unlikely that the planned demolition and rear

extension will have an impact on bats or their roosts. In addition, the

proposed demolition of the barn, which offered negligible roosting

opportunities for bats, is not considered to impact on bats or their roosts.

8.2.2 Although the likelihood of bats being affected by the planned rear extension is

low, there were crevices within the clay roof of the single-storey rear

extension that could allow bats access beneath uneven roof tiles and as

such there is a small chance that bats could be affected and precautions

should be adopted as detailed in 8.2.4 below.

8.2.3 If the precautions in 8.2.4 are followed, it is considered unlikely that the

planned building work, which will retain equivalent roosting opportunities in

the longer term, would result in any bat roosting sites being damaged or

destroyed or result in the disturbance of bats, particularly disturbance that

would significantly affect the ability of bats to survive, breed, reproduce or

hibernate or migrate and as such would be unlikely to result in offence being

committed and therefore unlikely to require a European Protected Species

licence to proceed lawfully.

8.2.4 The following precautions should be adopted during the building work:

· Immediately prior to the commencement of the roof works (i.e. no

more than one week before), a pre-works close inspection survey of

the tiles to be removed should be undertaken by a licensed ecologist

to check for any evidence of bats using the section of the roof to be

disturbed.Wildlife & Countryside Services

24/06/2016


· In the event that the pre-commencement inspection continues to show

that bats are unlikely to be present, the roof tiles to be removed should

be removed carefully by hand and turned to check for bats or evidence

of roosting bats under the guidance of a licensed ecologist.

· If evidence of former use by bats is encountered beneath roof tiles

during the soft strip, an equivalent access point must be re-instated

beneath a new tile in an equivalent location on the newly re-instated

roof to ensure continued access for bats following the completion of

the work to ensure that there is no loss of roosting opportunities in the

long term.

· The work to remove roof tiles should be scheduled to take place in the

season of peak bat activity (April – October inclusive) to minimise the

small risk of disturbing hibernating bats.

· If at any point during the works, a bat is encountered, work must stop

immediately and a licensed ecologist asked to give further advice in

liaison with Natural England. At this point, a European Protected

Species licence may be required to allow works to proceed lawfully.



9 REFERENCES

Bat Conservation Trust (2016). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines 3rd

Edition. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Mitchell-Jones, A. J. (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature,

Peterborough.

Mitchell-Jones, A. J. & McLeish, A. P. (2004). Bat Workers’ Manual (3RD

Edition). JNCC, Peterborough.



APPENDIX 1 - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

1. The front of the pub viewed from thesouthwest.

2. View of the single-storey sideextension from the southwest.

3. Rear of the pub viewed fromnorthwest showing rear extensions

4. Gaps under clay tiles at the front ofthe building.

5. Gaps under clay tiles on rear elevationof side extension.

6. Tight and intact mortar under ridgetiles.



7. Tightly mortared verge tiles at morewestern rear gable end.

8. Gap under tile on southwestern hip.

9. Gaps under clay tiles on single-storeyrear extension.

10. Lead flashing tight to brickwork onrear single-storey extension.

11. Tight bitumen felt on open storagespace to rear of extension.

12. Boarded inside of roof in open storagespace.





19. Fibreglass insulation not extending toeaves.

20. Heavily cobwebbed more western reargable end and ridge.

21. Cobweb-free ridge beam in front mainroof space.

22. Cobweb-free ridge in more easternrear gable end.

23. Gaps between end rafter andbrickwork at more eastern rear gable end.

24. Potential gaps between brickwork ofchimney and roofing felt.



25. At least nine brown long-eared batsroosting at the ridge of the main roofspace.

26. Over 200 medium-sized bat droppingsscattered under ridge in main front roofspace.

27. Medium-sized bat droppings underridge in more western gable.

28. Large amount of fresh medium-sizedbat droppings on northern side ofchimney.

29. Collection of fresh medium-sized batdroppings on southern side of chimney.

30. Medium-sized bat droppings on ledgeat more eastern rear gable end.





37. Old bird nesting material at ridge inbarn.



APPENDIX 2 – DAYLIGHT BAT SURVEY FINDINGS



APPENDIX 3 – EXISTING ELEVATIONS AND PROPOSED PLANS

Existing elevations



Proposed Plans



Documents

Wildlife & Countryside Servicespotkiln.homestead.com/Pot_KIln_Daylight_Bat_Survey.pdf · 1.2.1 All British bat species are fully protected by the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as