Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report
Transcript of Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report
1
Report Prepared For: Project Ref: ECN17 002
Steven Fairhurst
Willmott Dixon Construction Limited
Willmott Dixon House
Cliffe Park
Bruntcliffe Road
Morley
Leeds
LS27 0RY
Prepared By: Dan Wales GradCIEEM
Reviewed By: Mark Middleton
Approved By: Victoria Mordue MIoD
Date: 23rd June 2017
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal &
Bat Survey Report
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
June 2017
Draft Report
2
Document Control
Version Date Changes Confidentiality Prep Rev Auth
Draft V01 23/06/17 Draft to client Not confidential DW MM VM
Field Investigations and Data
Where field investigations have been carried out, these have been restricted to a level of detail required
to achieve the stated objectives of the work. Where any data supplied by the client or from other
sources have been used it has been assumed that the information is correct. No responsibility can be
accepted by EcoNorth Ltd. for inaccuracies in the data supplied by any other party.
Declaration of Compliance
“The information which we have prepared and provided is true, and has been prepared and provided in
accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Code of
Professional Conduct. We confirm that the opinions expressed within this document are our true and
professional bona fide opinions.”
Copyright
The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by EcoNorth Ltd. (© EcoNorth Ltd.
2017).
Third Party Disclaimer
Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by
EcoNorth Ltd. at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not
in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. No other
warranty, expressed or implied is made as to the professional advice included in this report.
EcoNorth Ltd.
11 Enterprise Court
Cramlington
Northumberland
NE23 1LZ
Tel: 01670 735547
Web: www.econorth.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales – Company Number 2274277
1
1
Page 1
1
Contents
Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Summary ................................................................................................................................. 3
2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Site Context ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Nature of the Proposals ................................................................................................. 6
3. Planning Policy and Legislation ........................................................................................... 6
3.1 Planning Policy and Guidance .................................................................................... 6
3.2 Legislation concerning protected species ................................................................. 7
3.3 Legislation concerning bats .......................................................................................... 8
4. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Desk Study ....................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Field Survey ...................................................................................................................... 9
4.3 Assessment .................................................................................................................... 13
5. Baseline Conditions ............................................................................................................. 13
5.1 Desk Study ..................................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Field Survey .................................................................................................................... 13
6. Interpretation and Discussion ............................................................................................. 16
6.1 Survey Constraints and Further Survey Requirements ............................................. 16
6.2 Assessment of Value .................................................................................................... 16
6.3 Input into the Design Process ...................................................................................... 16
6.4 Impact Assessment....................................................................................................... 17
7. Mitigation and Compensation Strategy ........................................................................... 17
2
2
Page 2
2
8. References ............................................................................................................................ 18
Appendix A – Key Legislation .................................................................................................... 19
Appendix B – Site Plan & Habitat Map ..................................................................................... 22
Appendix D – Surveyor Locations ............................................................................................. 25
Appendix E – Status of UK Bat Species ..................................................................................... 26
Appendix F – Value of Ecological Receptors ......................................................................... 28
Appendix G – Protected and Notable Species Identified by the Desk Study ................... 30
Appendix H – Building Description ............................................................................................ 31
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
3
1. Summary
EcoNorth Ltd. was commissioned by Willmott Dixon to undertake a Preliminary Ecological
Appraisal, including a bat and breeding bird risk assessment, and bat survey of the Futurist
Theatre in Scarborough, North Yorkshire. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal of the full site
was undertaken in accordance with Phase 1 Habitat Survey guidelines (JNCC 2010), and
included a risk assessment of the site’s building and trees for bats and breeding birds on 3rd
May 2017, followed by one activity survey (emergence of part of the building) on 12th
June 2017.
The building is due to be demolished to make way for future development of the site; this
assessment is designed to support the full planning application of the site and assesses the
potential impacts upon bats.
This is a draft report and is not currently suitable to support a planning application.
A desk study completed prior to the field visit highlighted records of 2 bat species within
2km of the site boundary, the closest of which (common pipistrelle) lies more than 1km
from the site boundary. No statutory sites designated due to the presence of bats are
known to be present within 2km of the development area.
The following table highlights the key findings of the surveys, including a year-round
assessment based on a reasonable worst-case scenario, based on the information
available to date. No impact upon bats is expected, however a high number of nesting
Kittiwakes was recorded across the building. Necessary mitigation measures are provided
in Section 7.
Ecological
Feature
Presence on Site Ecological
Value
Further
Surveys
Required?
Key Mitigation
Habitats &
Trees
The habitats on site
include a small area
of hard standing, and
small area of
unmanaged shrub
along the western
edge of the site. Three
mature and two semi-
mature trees are
present within the
shrub section
Low No Replanting of trees within the
boundary of the site when
redeveloped, should mature
and semi-mature trees be lost to
demolition works
Bats Bats are not
considered to be
present on site, after
no evidence of bat
use of the building
was recorded within
the bat risk assessment
or bat activity survey
Negligible No N/A
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
4
Ecological
Feature
Presence on Site Ecological
Value
Further
Surveys
Required?
Key Mitigation
Birds A total of c.28 active
kittiwake nests were
recorded across the
eastern and southern
aspect of the building
High N/A Kittiwakes are a Red Listed
(BoCC 4, BTO 2015) species of
gull that are afforded legal
protection when nesting, and
must be considered due to their
conservation concern listing
The building will not be
demolished inside of the
breeding bird season (March –
August inclusive)
It is likely that the kittiwake
population will suffer a short-term
loss due to the loss of nesting
locations when the building is
demolished. However, it is likely
that the surrounding buildings
and natural cliffs will absorb the
breeding population in the long-
term.
The client is happy to commit to the implementation of the mitigation measures detailed
within this report and is aware that these are likely to be made a condition of any
planning consent which may be granted.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
5
2. Introduction
2.1 Background
EcoNorth Ltd. was commissioned by Willmott Dixon (henceforth referred to as the client) to
undertake a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) including a bat and breeding bird risk
assessment, and bat survey of the Futurist Theatre in Scarborough, North Yorkshire (central
grid reference TA 0448 8857). The survey was designed to assess the habitats onsite and
determine the potential suitability of the site for protected species. The bat risk assessment
aspect of the survey was designed to assess the potential use of the site by bats year-
round, to support the full planning application of the site.
This report:
• Sets out the results of the survey
• Analyses the site’s value for bats and nature conservation
• Identifies additional survey requirements in order to fully determine the baseline
ecological conditions on the site
• Identifies key avoidance, mitigation and/or compensation measures required to
help ensure the proposals do not have an adverse impact upon biodiversity
2.2 Site Context
Figure 1 identifies the extent of the development site, with Figure 2 showing the location of
the site in relation to the surrounding locality.
Figure 1: Indicative Site Boundary (Boundary outlined in red)
N
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
6
Figure 2: Site Location Plan (Boundary outlined in red)
The site is located on the seafront of Scarborough, central within the town. The site is
surrounded by commercial and residential properties of varying age and structure type.
Immediately south of the theatre building is a small park adjacent to Scarborough Town
Hall; this park contains mostly amenity grassland with some shrub coverage with
ornamental species. The remaining area around the site is relatively devoid of
greenspace, tree coverage or garden spaces.
2.3 Nature of the Proposals
The theatre building is due for demolition to make way for future development. This report
is designed to inform the full planning application of the site.
3. Planning Policy and Legislation
3.1 Planning Policy and Guidance
A series of national and local planning policies are in place which are designed to ensure
that development works do not have an adverse impact upon biodiversity, at a site or
wider level. Such policies ensure that both developers and public bodies must give due
consideration to the potential effects of development works upon both ecological
receptors (in line with existing wildlife legislation) and biodiversity.
N
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
7
3.1.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012)
The NPPF outlines the Government’s policies through the planning process, acting as
guidance for local planning authorities and decision-makers. The document places a duty
on local authorities to consider the principles included when assessing planning
applications and preparing Local Plans and Regional Spatial Strategies. Chapter 11
relates to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, in line with
existing wildlife legislation. Further details are provided on the gov.uk website
(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2)
3.1.2 Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs)
The UK BAP was published in 1994 to guide national strategies for the conservation of
biodiversity. BAPs were designed to ensure the conservation and re-establishment of
natural habitats, and that measures were implemented to aid the conservation and
enhancement of habitats and species of local importance, the latter through the
development of Local BAPs. The UK BAP was succeeded by the ‘UK Post-2010 Biodiversity
Framework’ in 2012 however, the lists of species and habitats of conservation importance
are still considered to remain a valuable tool for identifying features of local and national
conservation concern. As such, the potential presence of both Local and UK BAP bat
species were considered throughout the surveys and assessment.
3.2 Legislation concerning protected species
A range of legislation is in place to ensure that habitats and species of conservation
importance are protected from both direct and indirect harm. Key legislation includes:
• The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (The Habitat
Regulations)
• The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
1979 (The Bern Convention)
• The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
• The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006
• The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000
• The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996
• The Protection of Badgers Act 1992
• The Hedgerow Regulations 1997
An overview of the above legislation is provided in Appendix A.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
8
The potential presence, on or near the site, of species afforded protection under the
above legislation was considered throughout the surveys and assessment. Species
considered include:
• Bats
• Badger
• Breeding Birds
An overview of the legislation and level of protection relating to such species is provided
in Appendix A.
3.3 Legislation concerning bats
All European bat species are protected in Britain under the Habitat Regulations 2010. All
British bat species are included on Schedules 5 and 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981 (as amended) and the whole of Section 9 applies to European bat species. The
above collectively prohibits the following:
• Deliberately or recklessly capturing, injuring, taking or killing of a bat
• Deliberately or recklessly harassing a bat
• Intentionally or recklessly disturbing of a bat in its place of rest (roost), or which is
used for protection or rearing young
• Deliberately or recklessly damaging, destroying or obstructing access to any resting
place or breeding area used by bats
• Deliberately or recklessly disturbing a bat in any way which is likely to significantly
affect the local populations of the species, either through affecting their distribution
or abundance, or affect any individuals ability to survive, reproduce or rear young
• Possession or advertisement/sale/exchange of a bat (dead or alive) or any part of
a bat
Bats are also protected by the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. Licenses are issued by
Natural England for any works which may compromise the protection of European
protected species, including bats. This license is required irrespective of whether the works
require planning permission. Selected species are also listed in the UK BAP.
An overview of the above legislation is provided in Appendix A.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
9
4. Methodology
4.1 Desk Study
Contextual information was gathered as part of a desk study undertaken prior to the start
of field surveys. Such information can identify protected or notable species which may
occur on the proposed development site or in the local area, as well as identifying
statutory and non-statutory ecological sites which may have the potential to be affected
by the proposals. The location of statutory and non-statutory nature conservation sites
designed due to the presence of bats which lie within 2 km of the survey site were
obtained from the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC)
website (www.magic.gov.uk), while bat records from within 2 km were obtained from
North & East Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre.
Additionally, 1:10,000 Ordnance Survey maps were consulted to help identify waterbodies
or watercourses within 500m of the site. This search reflects the potential for great crested
newts Triturus cristatus to utilise terrestrial habitat up to 500 m from their breeding ponds
and also helps determine the potential for other riparian or semi-aquatic species which will
move away from a watercourse to be present e.g. otter Lutra lutra).
It should be noted that an absence of records is likely to reflect an absence of survey
data and cannot be taken as confirmation that a particular species is not present in the
site or surrounding area.
4.2 Field Survey
4.2.1 Habitat Assessment
Mapping of the habitats within the site followed the Phase 1 survey methodology outlined
in the 2010 edition of the ‘Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey’ by the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee (JNCC) on 3rd May 2017. This follows a standardised system
which can be easily interpreted, with habitats and boundary features correlating to one
of around ninety set definitions. Target notes were used to record further information
regarding features of interest, or specific habitats or features identified during the survey
which do not closely match any of the Phase 1 criteria.
Plant species were identified in accordance with Rose (2006) and Stace (2010). A search
was also conducted for presence of Schedule 9 invasive non-native plant species such as
Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica and Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera.
The results of the Phase 1 survey are shown in Appendix B.
As well as utilising standard Phase 1 survey methodology, an assessment of the potential
suitability of the habitats within the site and surrounding area for bats was undertaken, as
part of the initial site risk assessment and PEA This included an assessment using the criteria
set out in the Bat Conservation Trust Survey Guidelines, as shown in Table 1, overleaf.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
10
Table 1: BCT Guidelines for Assessing the Value of Habitats for Bats.
Feature Value
Evidence indicating that a structure/feature is used by bats, such as:
• Bats seen roosting or emerging/entering a structure/
feature;
• Field signs such as droppings, feeding remains or
carcasses found; and/or
• Bats heard calling or ‘chattering’ within a roost.
Confirmed Roost
• Site is close to known roosts
• Site is connected with the wider landscape by strong linear features
that would be used by commuting bats e.g. river/stream valleys or
hedgerows
• Habitat of high quality for foraging bats e.g. broadleaved
woodland, tree-lined watercourses, parkland
• Buildings, trees or other structures e.g. mines, caves, tunnels, ice
houses and cellars, with features of particular significance for
roosting bats
High Value Habitat
• Site is connected with the wider landscape by linear features that
could be used by commuting bats e.g. lines of trees and scrub or
linked back gardens
• Habitat could be used by foraging bats e.g. trees, scrub, grassland
or water
• Several potential roosts in the buildings, trees or other structures
• Isolated site not connected by prominent linear features (but if
suitable foraging habitat is adjacent it may be valuable if it is all that
is available
• Isolated habitat that could be used by foraging bats e.g. a lone tree
or patch of scrub, but not parkland
• Small number of potential roosts generally of lower conservation
importance e.g. probably not maternity roosts or hibernacula
• No features that could be used by roosting bats for foraging, roosting
or commuting. Low Value Habitat
The above criteria were used to provide a guide as to the potential suitability of the site for
bats. It is important to note that an absence of potential commuting routes or ‘good
quality’ foraging areas around a site can not be used to confirm the absence of bats from
a site. Bats are highly mobile animals which will use different habitats at different times of
the year, therefore an appropriate level of additional survey work must be carried out in
order to determine if and how bats utilise a particular site.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
11
4.2.2 Protected and Notable Species
Throughout the field survey, searches were made for field signs indicating the presence of
protected and notable species, including but not being limited to those species listed in
Section 3.2. Any field signs recorded (including sightings of the animals themselves) were
mapped. An assessment was also made of the potential for the site and adjacent areas
to support protected and notable species, to identify where the proposals may impact
upon such species and identify any requirements for further (species-specific) surveys.
4.2.3 Building Surveys
Risk Assessment/Field Sign Survey
An initial inspection of the buildings within the site was completed on 3rd May 2017. The
internal and external areas of the theatre building were inspected and notes made
regarding both the nature of the structure (materials, loft structure, age etc.) and
condition of the different sections of the building, to help identify any areas or features
which may allow bats access or have the potential to provide roosting opportunities.
Where potential access or roosting opportunities were noted, these were inspected for
signs of bats, including droppings, feeding remains, staining or bats themselves.
The survey included an assessment of the likely potential use of the building at times
throughout the year to take into account the fact that bats will utilise different roost sites at
different times and for different purposes, sometimes including multiple roost types within a
single structure.
The layout of the buildings within the site is shown in Appendix B; site photographs are
provided in Appendix C.
Activity Surveys
One activity survey was completed at the site, comprising a dusk/ emergence survey. The
dusk survey commenced 15 minutes before sunset and continued for 1.5 hours after
sunset, in line with current best-practice guidelines.
Surveyors were positioned around the exterior of the building to watch for bats
emerging/entering the structure, with all elevations viewed at one time and the line-of-
sight not exceeding 50 m. Surveyor locations are shown in Appendix D.
Each surveyor used a Batbox Duet detector linked to a Zoom H2D recorder to identify bats
and allow subsequent analysis of calls where necessary. Bat activity during the surveys was
recorded on field sheets detailing the time, roost emergence/entrance points, the number
of bats, species (where possible), key flight-lines and foraging areas. A note was also
made of any other activity recorded, such as foraging or social calling.
Details of the surveys are provided in Table 2.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
12
Table 2: Survey Times and Weather Conditions
Date Sunrise
(BST)
Start
Time
(BST)
End
Time
(BST)
Precipitation Temperature
(oC)
Cloud
Cover
(Octas)
Wind
(Beaufort
Scale)
12/06/17 21:35 21:20 23:05 None 15 2 1
4.2.4 Tree Surveys
Risk Assessment/Field Sign Survey
An assessment was made of the suitability of the trees within the site to support roosting
bats on 3rd May 2017. Each tree was inspected and notes made of the species,
approximate height, diameter at breast height (DBH) and any features which provide
potential bat roost sites e.g. holes, splits in the trunk or limbs, flaking bark, areas covered by
ivy. Each tree was inspected from the ground using binoculars and a high powered torch
(Clulite CB2).
Where any field signs indicating the presence of bats, or bats themselves were recorded,
a note was made of the location of the roost. Where roosts were not confirmed, each tree
was classed as negligible, low, moderate or high risk, based on the potential for such
features to be present. The layout of trees within the site is shown in Appendix B, with site
photographs provided in Appendix C.
4.2.5 Personnel
Surveys were completed as shown in Table 3. Bat licensed surveyors are shown by
underlined text.
Table 3: Survey Personnel
Survey Date Survey Leader Assistant Surveyors
Building Risk
Assessment 03/05/2017 Dan Wales Laura Linsley
Building Dusk 12/06/2017 Dan Wales Alex Blackburn
Gemma Ryan
Any constraints or limitations to the survey are discussed in Section 6.1.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
13
4.3 Assessment
The value of the site for bats was assessed against the broad UK status of the species
recorded, as shown in Appendix E, and the criteria published by the Chartered the
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) in 2016
(http://www.cieem.net/ecia-guidelines-terrestrial-). Each feature was classified as being
as one of the following levels of value:
• International
• National
• Regional/County
• City/District/Borough
• Local
• Low
Examples of different ecological features meeting each of these criteria are outlined in
Appendix F.
5. Baseline Conditions
5.1 Desk Study
No statutory or non-statutory sites designated due to the presence of bats were identified
within 2km of the survey site. North & East Yorkshire Ecological Data Centre provided 9
records of bats within 2km of the site, including records of common pipistrelle Pipistrellus
pipistrellus, Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii, Pipistellus sp. and an unknown bat. The
closest such record relates to a flight record of a common pipistrelle from 2004 and lies
1km from the site at the closest point. Further details are provided in Appendix G.
5.2 Field Survey
5.2.1 Habitat Assessment
Habitats within the site were found to be dominated by hard standing, with a small area of
unmanaged shrub with ruderal herbs behind the building. Shrub habitat was dominated
by bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. and common hogweed Heracleum sphondylium. Such
habitats are considered to provide low quality habitat for protected species including
bats, being open and exposed with few good quality commuting routes or sheltered
foraging areas.
The habitat on site is not connected to any other area of good quality habitat in the
locality (see Figure 2 for surrounding urban environment).
Three mature sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, one semi-mature white poplar Populus
alba and one semi-mature maple Acer sp. trees were present along the western
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
14
boundary of the site. Trees are described in further detail in the BS5837 Tree Survey report
completed for the site (EcoNorth, 2017). Tree canopies could provide value for nesting
birds within the breeding bird season; however, no inactive or active nests were recorded
within these trees. Value for bats within these trees is discussed below in section 5.2.5.
5.2.2 Invasive non-native Plant Species
No invasive non-native plant species (as listed and referred to as Schedule 9 species of
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)) were recorded on site.
5.2.3 Building Surveys
Risk Assessment
One building with multiple sections is present within the site. The buildings were split into
four sections for ease of description. The majority of the building is brick-built with asbestos
sheet roofing. Sections of the building feature pre-fabricated concrete features and
asbestos sheet walling. The front of the building is cladded with decorative wooden
panelling across the original façade. Further details regarding the nature of the structures
are provided in Appendix H.
No field signs indicating the presence of bats were recorded during the survey, either in
the loft voids of the building or across any external aspect of the building. The building is
generally considered to be of negligible value for bats, due to brickwork across the
building being tightly sealed, and a lack of any roosting value within the two loft voids.
The wooden boards of the front façade, and a small area of hanging tiles on the
southeast corner of the building were the only sections of the building considered to be of
low risk for bats. Gaps in between boards and holes/degradation are present in boarding
across the front of the building that could be accessed by bats, although this is
considered unlikely due to probable significant light spill from the seafront lighting. The
section of hanging tiles could provide roosting space for bats, should any gaps be present
in between individual tiles, however this is also considered unlikely due to significant light
spill, and the presence of Kittiwakes Rissa tridactyla perching/nesting immediately in front
of the hanging tiles.
5.2.4 Bat Activity Survey
One activity survey was conducted at the site (a dusk emergence survey), with three
surveyors focussing on the front of the building. No bat activity was recorded during the
full length of the survey, including any emergence events or bat passes. It was noted
during the activity survey that the building is subject to significant light spill from the
adjacent arcade/amusement building to the north, and permanent street lighting across
the seafront to the east. As such, the survey area remained relatively very well-lit
throughout the entire survey, and is likely to remain well-lit all night.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
15
5.2.5 Tree Surveys
Risk Assessment
All semi-mature and mature trees on site, which were present behind the building, were
inspected for their value for roosting bats. Three mature sycamore, one semi-mature white
poplar and one semi-mature maple trees were present within this area. No trees featured
any potential roost features, such as knot holes, split branches or peeling bark that could
be utilised by roosting bats. Trees were therefore considered to be of negligible value for
bats.
Activity Surveys
Activity surveys were not completed for any trees within the site boundary, due to a lack
of value for roosting bats being held within any trees on site.
5.2.6 Protected Species
Birds
A total of 28 potential Kittiwake nesting locations were recorded across the eastern and
southern aspects of the building at the time of the site visit, with lower nests clearly visible
underneath perching Kittiwakes, and higher nests assumed to be present where Kittiwakes
were observed perching for an extended period of time.
A high number of Kittiwake feathers and guano staining were recorded in the main
theatre area of the building, indicating that birds are accessing the interior of the building.
However, no actual birds were observed within any section of the building, including the
loft voids. In addition, no Kittiwake nests were recorded inside of the building. No other
nesting birds were recorded during the site visit, either internally (i.e. in the loft void) or
externally.
Badger
The habitat on site is considered unsuitable for badger Meles meles, due to a lack of
habitat that could be utilised for sett creation. The habitat is also located in a highly
urbanised setting, with badger not likely to be present in the area.
Other Protected Species
The following protected species were considered when assessing the site, but deemed not
to be impacted upon by the proposed demolition of the building and redevelopment of
the site: great crested newts Triturus cristatus; reptiles; red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris; otter;
water vole Arvicola amphibius; white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes;
freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera; migratory fish. This is due to suitable
habitat not being present within or near to the site, such as a lack of watercourses for otter
and water vole, and a lack of waterbodies within 500 m for great crested newts.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
16
6. Interpretation and Discussion
6.1 Survey Constraints and Further Survey Requirements
No significant survey constraints were encountered during any aspect of ecological
assessment of the site.
A robust assessment of the value of the site and potential impacts of the proposals upon
bats can be made, given that all survey criteria were met. No further surveys are required
to evaluate the site for bat presence or use.
6.2 Assessment of Value
Based on the results of the desk study and field work completed to date, the site is valued
as shown in Table 4, below, using the criteria outlined in Section 4.3.
Table 4: Value of Ecological Features Recorded on Site
Feature Value for feature Justification
Habitats Negligible Habitat on site is limited to a small area of hard standing
and small area of unmanaged shrub and ruderal herb
behind the building.
Trees Low Trees on site are of negligible roosting value for bats, but
would provide low value for foraging and commuting bats
within the locality.
Bats Negligible The majority of the building was considered to be of
negligible value for bats, with one aspect of the building
surveyed for bat activity and emergence. No bats were
recorded roosting in the building, with no evidence of bat
use recorded during ecological assessment. The building
on site is therefore considered to be of negligible value for
bats.
Birds High The building is of high value for nesting Kittiwakes, with 28
potential nesting locations recorded across the eastern
and southern aspects of the building.
6.3 Input into the Design Process
It is not considered that bats will be impacted by the proposed development. Therefore,
no input into the design process is required for mitigation or compensating any potential
impact upon bats.
Kittiwake are present across the eastern and southern aspects of the building. As Kittiwake
are a Red Listed gull species (BoCC 4, BTO 2015), mitigation and compensation must be
considered for this species, in order to preserve the conservation status of Kittiwakes that
are present across the Scarborough Bay area.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
17
6.4 Impact Assessment
Based on the proposal to demolish the building to make way for future development, the
development will have the following impacts upon breeding birds if an appropriate
mitigation strategy is not implemented:
• Potential injury or death of nesting Kittiwakes, their young, and destruction of their
nests and eggs
• Loss of c. 28 kittiwake nesting locations across the eastern and southern aspect of
the building
• Displacement / loss of a sizable population of Kittiwakes from the locality, should no
alternative perching & nesting locations be available on nearby buildings,
structures or natural cliffs
7. Mitigation and Compensation Strategy
The following measures will be implemented in order to minimise the ecological impacts of
the proposals, including the risk of Kittiwakes being adversely affected:
1. Compensatory planting of trees should be provisioned when redeveloping the site,
due to the potential loss of up to five mature and semi-mature trees along the
western boundary of the site. It is recommended that 5 to 10 native tree species
could be planted within the site boundary upon completion of redevelopment
works, coupled with a small area of wildflower-seeded rough grassland around
provisioned trees
2. Demolition works will not occur within the breeding bird season (March – August
inclusive), in order to avoid disturbance and damage to active Kittiwake nests
3. It is likely that the local Kittiwake population will suffer a short-term population
decline when the building is demolished, due to a loss of the nesting locations
present on the building. This will be especially relevant if Kittiwakes are unable to
colonise the surrounding buildings or any natural cliffs near to Scarborough in the
following breeding seasons.
a. Compensatory nesting locations may need to be provided in close vicinity to
the existing building in order to allow Kittiwakes to continue nesting within the
locality. Consultation with Scarborough Borough Council and other relevant
organisations is advised to determine whether compensatory nesting
locations can be secured and facilitated. The purpose of which is to
preserve the conservation value of the species in a locally appropriate
manner, as it is recognised that the Council has consulted the public and
the town’s stakeholders on the nuisance factor that Kittiwakes can present
(Scarborough Borough Council, 2015).
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
18
8. References
• Altringham, J. (2000). British Bats – Collins New Naturalist Series, Number 93. Harper
Collins Publishers, London.
• Anon (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities
and Local Government.
• Anon (2015). Planning and development - guidance: Bats – surveys and mitigation
for development projects. gov.uk website.
• Bat Conservation Trust [BCT] (2016). Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd
Edition. Bat Conservation Trust, London.
• British Trust for Ornithology [BTO] (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4. British
Trust for Ornithology, Thetford.
• CIEEM (2016). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland:
Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, 2nd Edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and
Environmental Management, Winchester.
• England Field Unit – Nature Conservancy Council 1990 (2010). Handbook for Phase
1 Habitat Survey – a technique for environmental audit. Joint Nature Conservation
Committee, Peterborough.
• Entwhistle, A., Harris, S., Hutson, A., Racey, P., Walsh, A., Gibson, S., Hepburn, I and
Johnston, J. (2001). Habitat management for bats. Joint Nature Conservation
Committee, Peterborough.
• Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004). Bat mitigation guidelines. English Nature.
• Mitchell-Jones, A.J. and McLeish, A.P. (Ed.) (2004); Bat Workers Manual, 3rd Edition.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
• Rose, F. (revised and updated by O’Reilly, C.) (2006). The Wild Flower Key: How to
identify wild flowers, trees and shrubs in Britain and Ireland. Frederick Warne.
• Scarborough Borough Council (2015). Consultation on the problems of kittiwakes
and herring gulls. Available:
https://www.scarborough.gov.uk/home/council/consultations/consultation-
problems-kittiwakes-and-herring-gulls
• Stace, C (2010). New Flora of the British Isles, 3rd Edition. Cambridge University Press.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
19
Appendix A – Key Legislation
Table A1: Overview of Key Legislation
Legislation Key Features
The Conservation
of Habitats and
Species
Regulations 2010
(The Habitats
Regulations)
The Habitat Regulations transpose Council Directive 79/409/EEC on
the Protection of Wild Birds (the EC Birds Directive 1979) and Council
Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of
Wild Flora and Fauna (the EC Habitats Directive 1992) into UK law. The
Birds Directive was amended in 2009, becoming Directive
2009/147/EC.
The Habitat Regulations make it an offence (with certain exceptions)
to deliberately capture, disturb, kill or trade in those animal species
listed in Schedule 2, or to pick, cut, uproot, collect, destroy or trade in
those plant species listed in Schedule 4.
The EC Birds Directive requires member states to establish and
monitor Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for all rare or vulnerable
species included in Annex I, as well as for all regularly occurring
migratory species, with key focus on wetlands of international
importance. Annex I and II of the Habitats Directive respectively list
those habitats and species for which a similar network of sites –
Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) – must be established and
monitored. Collectively, SPAs and SACs form a network of pan-
European protected areas which are referred to as ‘Natura 2000’
sites.
The Convention on
the Conservation
of European
Wildlife and
Natural Habitats
1979
(Bern Convention)
The Bern Convention was adopted in 1979 and ratified by the UK
Government in 1982. The principal aims of the Convention are to
ensure the conservation and protection of all wild plant and animal
species and their natural habitats (listed in Appendices I and II), to
increase cooperation between contracting parties, and to afford
special protection to the most vulnerable or threatened species
(including migratory species).
Members of the European Community meet their obligations via the
Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. These are transposed into
UK law by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended),
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (as amended), Wildlife
(Northern Ireland) Order 1985, and the Nature Conservation and
Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
20
Legislation Key Features
The Wildlife and
Countryside Act
1981 (as
amended)
The Wildlife and Countryside Act consolidates and amends existing
national legislation to implement the requirements of the Bern
Convention and the Birds Directive throughout Great Britain. The Act
is the primary UK mechanism for the designation of statutory
ecological sites - Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) - and the
protection of individual species listed under Schedules 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8
of the Act, each of which is subject to varying levels of protection.
Schedule 9 of the Act also lists those plant species which it is an
offence to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild, while
Schedule 14 prevents the release into the wild or sale of certain plant
and animal species which may cause ecological, environmental or
socio-economic harm.
Natural
Environment and
Rural Communities
Act 2006
The NERC Act places a duty on public bodies to consider and
conserve biodiversity through the exercise of their functions and
includes a range of measures to strengthen the protection of both
habitats and wildlife. The Act makes provision in respect of
biodiversity, pesticides harmful to wildlife, protection of birds and
invasive non-native species.
The Countryside
and Rights of Way
(CRoW) Act 2000
The CRoW Act, which applies to England and Wales only, strengthens
the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended), both in respect of protected species and statutory
ecological sites, the latter primarily relating to the management and
protection of SSSIs. It also provides for better management of Areas
of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs).
The Act places a statutory obligation on public bodies to further the
conservation of biodiversity through the exercise of their functions,
thereby providing a statutory basis to the Biodiversity Action Plan
(BAP) process. Section 74 of the Act lists those habitats and species of
principal importance in England.
The Wild Mammals
(Protection) Act
1996
This Act provides protection for wild mammals from acts of cruelty.
An offence is committed if any person mutilates, kicks, beats, nails, or
otherwise impales, stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or
asphyxiates any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary
suffering.
The Protection of
Badgers Act 1992
This consolidates the existing legislation relating to the protection of
badgers, and makes it an office in England and Wales to wilfully kill,
injure or take a badger (or attempt to do so) and affords protection
to both the animals themselves and their setts.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
21
Legislation Key Features
Hedgerow
Regulations 1997
The Hedgerow Regulations are intended to protect important
countryside hedgerows from destruction or damage in England and
Wales.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
22
Appendix B – Site Plan & Habitat Map
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
23
Appendix C – Photographs
Photo 1:
Front of the Futurist Theatre showing wooden board
cladding
Photo 2:
Front of The Mermaid section of the building
Photo 3:
Southern aspect of the building
Photo 4:
Hanging tiles and stonework in the southeast
section of the building
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
24
Photo 5: Typical exterior view of the back area of
the theatre
Photo 6: Exterior view of the backstage area of the
theatre
Photo 7: Inside the loft void of the main theatre area Photo 8: Evidence of bird (kittiwake) activity inside
the building – though no nests were found inside
the building
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
25
Appendix D – Surveyor Locations
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
26
Appendix E – Status of UK Bat Species
Table E1: Status of UK Bat Species
Bat Species Distribution Status
Greater
horseshoe*
Confined to south west England
and south and west Wales Very rare and threatened
Lesser horseshoe* Wales, south west England and
western Ireland
Rare (but currently increasing in
no.); threatened
Bechstein’s* Confined to central to southern
England and Wales Very rare; threatened
Natterer’s
Widespread throughout much of
the UK, except the far north of
Scotland
Common; not threatened
Daubenton’s Widespread throughout the majority
of the UK Common; not threatened
Whiskered/Brandt’s Common in north and west
England, rare elsewhere Locally common; not threatened
Alcathoe’s
First recorded in caves in Yorkshire &
Sussex in 2010 – distribution currently
unknown, but likely to be under-
recorded due to similarities with
whiskered/Brandt’s
Status currently unknown
Greater mouse-
eared
Small number of individuals
currently known from southern
England (non-breeding population)
Status currently unknown; at one
time considered extinct in Britain
Serotine Restricted to southern England and
Wales Uncommon
Noctule*
Found as far north as Central
Scotland, but absent from northern
Scotland and Ireland
Uncommon; threatened
Leisler’s Scattered throughout England and
into south west Scotland.
Scarce in Great Britain; Common in
Ireland.
Common
pipistrelle Widespread throughout the UK Common; not threatened
Soprano pipistrelle* Widespread throughout the UK Common; threatened
Nathusius’
pipistrelle
Found throughout Britain and
Ireland, but not common Rare
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
27
Bat Species Distribution Status
Brown long-eared* Widespread throughout the UK Common; threatened
Grey long-eared
Restricted to south Devon and
coastal areas of Dorset and west
Sussex. More common on the Isle of
Wight and Channel Islands
Very rare
Barbastelle* Restricted to southern England and
Wales Rare; threatened
* UK BAP Species
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
28
Appendix F – Value of Ecological Receptors
Table F1: Examples of Ecological Receptors of Differing Value
Value Examples
International • An internationally designated site or candidate site (SPA,
pSPA, SAC, cSAC, pSAC, Ramsar site) or an area which
meets the designation criteria for such sites.
• Internationally significant and viable areas of a habitat type
listed in Annexe 1 of the Habitats Directive, or smaller areas
of such habitat, which are essential to maintain the viability
of a larger whole.
• Any regularly occurring, globally threatened species.
• A regularly occurring population of an internationally
important species, which is threatened or rare in the UK, of
uncertain conservation status
• A regularly occurring, nationally significant
population/number of any internationally important species.
National • A nationally designated site (e.g. SSSI, NNR) or a discrete
area which meets the published selection criteria for
national designation (e.g. SSSI selection guidelines)
irrespective of whether or not it has yet been notified.
• A viable area of a UK BAP priority habitat, or smaller areas of
such habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of a
larger whole.
• A regularly occurring significant number/population of a
nationally important species e.g. listed on the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
• A regularly occurring population of a nationally important
species that is threatened or rare in the county or region.
• A feature identified as being of critical importance in the UK
BAP.
Regional/County • Viable areas of key habitat identified in the Regional or
County BAP or smaller areas of such a habitat, which are
essential to maintain the viability of the larger whole.
• Regional/county significant and viable areas of key habitat
identified as being of regional value in the appropriate
English Nature (now Natural England) Natural Area.
• A regularly occurring significant population/number of any
important species important at a regional/county level.
• Any regularly occurring, locally significant population of a
species which is listed in a Regional/County Red Data Book
or BAP on account of its regional rarity or localisation.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
29
Value Examples
• Sites of conservation importance that exceed the district
selection criteria but that fall short of SSSI selection
guidelines.
City/District/Borough • Areas of habitat identified in a District/City/Borough BAP or in
the relevant Natural Area profile.
• Sites that the designating authority has determined meet the
published ecological selection criteria for designation,
including Local Nature Reserves selected on
District/City/Borough ecological criteria.
• Sites/features that are scarce within the District/City/Borough
or which appreciably enrich the District/City/Borough
habitat resource.
• A diverse and/or ecologically valuable hedgerow network.
• A population of a species that is listed in a
District/City/Borough BAP because of its rarity in the locality
or in the relevant Natural Area profile because of its regional
rarity or localisation.
• A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a
District/City/Borough important species during key phases of
its life cycle.
Local • Areas identified in a Local BAP or the relevant natural area
profile.
• Sites/features which area scarce in the locality or which are
considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource within
the local context, e.g. species-rich hedgerows.
• Local Nature Reserves selected on Parish/Local ecological
criteria.
• Significant numbers/population of a locally important
species e.g. one which is listed on the Local BAP.
• Any species, populations or habitats of local importance.
Low • Habitats of moderate to low diversity which support a range
of locally and nationally common species, the loss of which
can be easily mitigated.
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
30
Appendix G – Protected and Notable Species Identified by
the Desk Study
Table G1: Bat Records within 2 km
Species Number of
Records
Most Recent
Record
On Site? Level of Protection
HR
2010
WCA
1981
NERC
/UK
BAP
Common
pipistrelle 3 2004 No
Daubenton’s bat 2 2004 No
Pipistellus sp. 3 2004 No
Unknown bat 1 2004 No
Key
HR 2010 – The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
WCA 1981 – The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
NERC – The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
UK BAP – UK Biodiversity Action Plan
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
31
Appendix H – Building Description
Table H1: Building description of the Futurist Theatre
Description Bat and Bird Roosting
Signs/Opportunities
Bat Roost
Assessment
Main Theatre Area: The main theatre
area includes the southern aspect of
the building, and the majority of the
eastern aspect of the building. This
section features the lobby, the theatre
stalls and hall, the theatre galleys and
two loft voids.
The building is of red brick construction
with stone work present across the
eastern aspect of the section.
However, original stone work is
covered by yellow wooden boarding/
cladding (see photos 3 & 4).
The roof is compiled of asbestos sheet
roofing atop metal support beams;
the loft voids are relatively light and
draughty due to the presence of
multiple vents and fans.
No evidence of bats was recorded
internally, with no bat droppings,
feeding remains or actual bats
encountered inside any section of
the building, include the loft voids.
The majority of the building is
considered unsuitable for bats.
External brickwork is well-sealed and
does not present ant gaps for
crevice-dwelling species of bat to
roost. The loft void is unsuitable for
roosting bats, due to the
construction materials present. The
loft void could be utilised by nesting
birds, however no inactive or active
nests were encountered. In addition,
no evidence of bird entry into the loft
voids was recorded.
The wooden cladding across the
eastern aspect of the building was
considered to be of low value for
bats, due to the presence of gaps in
between boards and signs of
degradation that could allow bat
access.
28 potential or confirmed kittiwake
nesting locations were recorded
across the southern and eastern
aspects of the building, above the
top level of the wooden board
cladding. A significant amount of
feathers (assumed kittiwake) were
also recorded in the main theatre
hall, although no nests or actual birds
were encountered.
Negligible
Low – wood
cladding
boards on
eastern
aspect of
building
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
32
Description Bat and Bird Roosting
Signs/Opportunities
Bat Roost
Assessment
The Mermaid: This section of the
building is adjacent to the main
theatre area to the north, and
encompasses the northern section of
the eastern aspect of the building.
Wooden board cladding continues
across the eastern aspect of the
building.
Internally, this section of the building is
a tall, empty warehouse-style building.
The building if brick built with a flat
concrete roof that was utilised as car
parking. No loft voids are present.
No evidence of bat or bird activity
was recorded internally or externally
across this section of the building.
The interior of the building is
considered unsuitable for roosting
bats due to a lack of any potential
roosting locations. The interior could
be used by nesting birds across
metal support beams, where
potential perching locations are
present. However, no inactive or
active nests were recorded, and no
assess points were identified.
The wooden board cladding present
across the eastern aspect of the
building continues along this aspect
of The Mermaid; this boarding was
considered to be of low value for
bats due to potential entry points
being present.
Negligible
Low – wood
cladding
boards on
eastern
aspect of
building
Backstage Area: The backstage area
is located centrally within the building,
north of the main theatre area. This
section of the building is a tall, square,
brick-built structure that extends
above the height of the main theatre
area with long asbestos/concrete
sheet walls. No loft voids are present.
No potential roosting locations are
present internally or externally across
this section of the building, with no
evidence of bat activity or use
recorded within this section of the
building. The tall asbestos/concrete
sheet walls are unsuitable for bats, as
they do not feature any crevices for
bat entry. There are also no potential
entrances that bats could enter the
interior of the building across
brickwork, with the exception of a
small vent; this vent is however,
covered with a fine gauze.
Negligible
ECN17 002 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Survey Report –
Futurist Theatre, Scarborough
33
Description Bat and Bird Roosting
Signs/Opportunities
Bat Roost
Assessment
Back Area: The back area of the
building features brick-built sections
with asbestos sheet roofing, and pre-
fabricated concrete sections with flat
roofs. All brickwork, windows and door
frames are tightly sealed with no gaps
observed.
No area of this section of the
building features any gaps or
crevices, or potential entrance
points, that would allow bats to roost
within the building.
Negligible