Company Reg. No: 06305254 VAT No: 217401149
Bat Activity Survey Report
For: Mark Cunningham of Leandra Limited
Site
Roe Cross Green Mottram in Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Date: August and September 2017
Surveying Ecologist:
Natasha Estrada BSc (Hons), MRes, MCIEEM
Natural England Bat Licence: 2015-12213-CLS-CLS
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 2 of 22
Client: Mark Cunningham of Leandra Limited
Site Name: Roe Cross Green, Mottram-in-Langendale, Hyde SK14 6SE
Grid Reference: SJ 98819 96370
Report: Bat Survey Report
Date of survey: August and September 2017
Surveyed by: Natasha Estrada BSc (Hons), MRes, MCIEEM
Issue: Revision: Stage: Date: Prepared by: Approved by:
1 -
Draft
for
review
3 October
2017
Jane Gruber,
Estrada Ecology
Ltd
Natasha Estrada MCIEEM,
Estrada Ecology Ltd
2 n/a FINAL 9 October 2017
Jane Gruber, Estrada Ecology
Ltd
Natasha Estrada
MCIEEM, Estrada Ecology
Ltd
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 3 of 22
Executive Summary
The surveys recorded no evidence of use of the building on site by any species of bat. Land, immediately outside the site boundary to the north,
was recorded as being a commuting route for common pipistrelle bat,
Pipistrellus pipistrellus; likely to be to, and from a roost identified to the
north-east.
A low level of noctule, Nyctalus noctula bat activity was recorded along
the periphery of woodland, to the south of the survey site.
As a precautionary measure, it is recommended that roofing tiles on the
northern elevation of the property are stripped under ecological supervision. Artificial lighting should be minimised to prevent overspill
on land outside the northern elevation.
Every effort has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this report and its
contents. However, in view of potential ecological constraints to development, or the likely presence or absence of species, it must only
be viewed as a snap shot in time and not be viewed as definitive. Due to external factors, such as seasonality, weather etc, having the
potential to affect survey results, no liability can be assumed for omissions or changes that may, or may not occur, after the date this
report was produced.
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 4 of 22
Contents:
Summary
1 Introduction and Site Description
2 Protected Species Legislation
3 Survey and Site Assessment
4 Survey Methodology
5 Survey Findings
6 Interpretation and Evaluation
7 Site Status Assessment
8 Ecological Constraints
9 Assessment of Impacts
10 Mitigation
11 Biodiversity Enhancements
Appendices and photographic plates
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 5 of 22
1 Introduction and Site Description
1.1 Estrada Ecology Ltd was commissioned to undertake a preliminary roost assessment, and subsequent bat activity surveys to satisfy
a planning application to demolish an existing building on site, to
facilitate redevelopment of the site into five residential dwellings.
1.2 The property is located on land at Roe Cross Green, Mottram-in-Langendale, Hyde SK14 6SP; central OS grid reference SJ 98819
96370.
1.3 A preliminary roost assessment of the property, conducted on 22
August 2017, within the bat activity season 2017, by a licenced bat ecologist (2015-10170-CLS-CLS), recorded the building on
site to contain a moderate level of suitability to provide features which bats could utilise for roosting or as a place of shelter. No
field sign evidence of bats was recorded at the time of survey.
1.4 Two activity surveys following guidance outlined within the Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines 2016 were recommended to
ascertain presence / likely absence. Surveys entailed one dusk
and one pre-dawn survey.
2 Protected Species Legislation
2.1 All species of bat and their breeding sites or resting places (roosts)
are fully protected under The Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010 (as amended).
The Regulations prohibit: the deliberate killing, injuring or taking
of bats; the deliberate disturbance of any bat species in such a
way as to be significantly likely to affect:
• their ability of to survive, hibernate, migrate, breed, or rear or nurture their young; or the local distribution or abundance of
that species. • damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place
(roost);
• the possession or transport of bats or any other part thereof.
Bats are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981 (as amended) through their inclusion in Schedule 5.
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 6 of 22
Under the Act, they are protected from:
• intentional or reckless disturbance (at any level); obstruction of access to any place of shelter, breeding or rest; selling,
bartering or exchange of these species, or parts of.
Seven British bat species are listed as Species of Principle Importance (SPI) under the Natural Environment and Rural
Communities (NERC) Act 2006. These are: barbastelle
(Barbastella barbastellus); Bechstein’s (Myotis bechsteinii); noctule (Nyctalus noctula); soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus
pygmaeus); brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus); greater horseshoe (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum); and lesser horseshoe
(Rhinolophus hipposideros).
2.2 Under the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the presence of any protected species is a material planning consideration. The
Framework states that impacts arising from development proposals must be avoided where possible, or adequately
mitigated/ compensated for, and that opportunities for ecological
enhancement should be sought.
2.3 Under certain circumstances, a licence may be granted by Natural England to permit activities that would otherwise constitute an
offence. In relation to development, a scheme must have full
planning permission before a licence application can be made.
2.4 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan sets out the priorities for the UK, regarding habitats and species of principle importance for
conserving biodiversity in the UK. Local areas have then identified the habitats and species within their areas which are on the
national list and those which are of importance locally.
3 Survey and Site Assessment
3.1 Existing information on bats, (all species) at the survey site
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit was contacted for bat records for the site and a 1km radius. A total of seven bat records were
returned for the search area; comprising of two confirmed species; common pipistrelle, Pipistrellus pipistrellus, and soprano
pipistrelle, Pipistrellus pygmaeus. Of those records, two roost records for both common and soprano pipistrelle were recorded
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 7 of 22
approximately six hundred metres north east of the survey site.
Of the remaining records all are for un specified “other signs” for
common and soprano pipistrelle bats.
Figure 1: Bat records for the site provided by Greater Manchester
Ecology Unit for the survey site plus a 1km radius.
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 8 of 22
3.2 Status of bats in the local / regional area
The details of bat records for a 1km radius from site are outlined in Figure 1. Consultation infers that bats of local provenance are likely
widespread, but under recorded.
3.3 Objectives of the survey
The objective of this survey was to establish the presence or
absence of bats, and whether bats (all species) were using the building for roosting, or as a place of shelter. If present, then to
identify to species level, determine the population size and nature of the roost. Where appropriate, the presence of other European
protected species was surveyed for, and findings reported. Furthermore, the occupation by birds of all species was noted and
the activity level assessed.
3.4 The building
The traditional multi-storey stone building, with a stone tiled roof
is located within a wider plot of hardstanding.
The traditional stone-built building has a stone-tiled roof, which is
in relatively good condtion. However, the roof does have numerous potential access points for bats to gain entry to the
buildings eg missing mortar in stonework and lifted tiles.
No field sign evidence of use by bats was recorded during the
preliminary ecological appraisal.
Figure 2: The sites location within its wider setting.
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 9 of 22
4 Survey Methodology
4.1 Daytime survey (all structures)
An inspection survey of the property was undertaken in
September 2017 following guidance from Collins, J., Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists,
Good Practice Guidelines, 3rd Edition 2016.
Where accessible, all cracks and fissures in the buildings were examined with a pro vision recording endoscope. Furthermore,
investigation with a FLIR E60 thermal imaging camera was
conducted to ascertain if any bats were in situ.
Attention was paid to fissures within stonework. Windows, window sills, where present, and any debris were examined for bat field
signs. Features which have the potential to support roosting bats
were recorded as were any evidence of occupation by birds.
An external examination was conducted to identify potential roost sites and access points and any signs of actual occupation such as
scratch marks, droppings, smudge marks, discarded moth wings
and urine staining etc.
4.2 Assessment of site and surrounding habitats
The site is situated within the semi-rural area of Roe Cross, some 0.7 km south east of the town of Mottram-in-Longdendale, Hyde.
The surrounding landscape provides some suitable natural roosting, foraging and commuting features which bats could
utilise. Habitats recorded within the search area include:
• Deciduous Woodland • Lowland Heath
• Mixed Woodland
4.3 Search of existing bat roost records
Bat species recorded within a 1km radius of the site are
highlighted in Figure 1. Two roost records exist for approximately
six hundred metres north east of the survey site.
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 10 of 22
4.4 Activity surveys
For each survey, the surveyors operated a Bat Box Duet, in combination with an MP3 recorder. An Anabat static detector was
also used to record bat passes and activity on the site. Where possible, species were identified from contacts, and if the bat was
seen, visual cues were used to aid identification. All bat passes and contacts were recorded on to field maps. Where possible the
behaviour of the bat was also recorded, to further inform of the use of the site. The number of bats observed was also recorded.
Bat activity is strongly affected by weather conditions and surveys were conducted in suitable weather conditions as outlined within
the Bat Conservation Trust’s Bat Survey Guidelines 3rd Edition. All
surveys were undertaken in dry and calm conditions, during which
bats are most likely to be active.
The emergence survey commenced half an hour before dusk, and
ended over two hours after dark to encompass the emergence times of different species within the locality. The pre-dawn re-
entry survey commenced two hours pre-sunrise and ended thirty minutes post-sunrise. Surveyors were located at differing
elevations of the building in locations of potential roost sites.
As the building was deemed to have moderate potential to be used
by bats, two activity surveys were conducted in line with the BCT
Best Practice Survey Guidelines 2016.
Table 1: Timings of the activity surveys
Date Sunset/
Sunrise
Start
time
End
time
Weather conditions
24 August 2017 20.07 19:40 22:11 21°C, 63% humidity, 8mph WSW
wind, clear
20 September 2017 06:49 04:33 07:15 16°C; 84% humidity, 6 mph SW
wind, light cloud
4.5 Analysis of bat calls
Bat echolocation calls recorded by the AnabatWalkabout were analysed using AnalookW software to confirm the identity of the
bats present and to calculate the approximate number of passes by each species. A bat pass is defined as an unbroken stream of
echolocation calls recorded as a bat passed in and out of the
detector’s range.
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 11 of 22
Where possible bats were identified to species level.
Because many bat species having overlapping call parameters, for example between long-eared calls and serotine calls, or between
the two species of Nyctalus (noctule and Leisler’s bat) and Myotis
spp. identification to species level is not always possible.
Where species identification of these bats has not been possible,
these calls have been grouped as either species, as recommended
in the Best Practice Guidelines (Hundt, 2012).
For Pipistrellus species, the following criteria was used to classify
calls; this is based on measurements of peak frequency:
• Common pipistrelle > 42 and <49 kHz
• Soprano pipistrelle >51 kHz
• Nathusius’ pipistrelle <39 kHz • Common pipistrelle / soprano pipistrelle > 49 and <51 kHz
(i.e. call parameters are such that it is not possible to determine which pipistrelle species made the echolocation
call) - this is subsequently recorded as Pip 50. • Common pipistrelle / Nathusius’ pipistrelle > 39 and <42 kHz
(i.e. call parameters are such that it is not possible to determine which pipistrelle species made the echolocation
call) - this is subsequently recorded as Pip 40.
4.6 Timing
The preliminary ecological assessment was undertaken on 22
August 2017. The activity surveys were conducted on dates throughout August and September 2017, during suitable weather
conditions as outlined in Table 1.
4.7 Personnel
The preliminary roost assessment was undertaken By Helen
Holford (Natural England Bat licence 2015-10170-CLS-CLS) an experienced bat ecologist. The activity surveys were carried out
by experienced bat ecologist Natasha Estrada (Natural England bat licence 2015-12213-CLS-CLS); a full member of the Chartered
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM), and the named ecologist on several EPS mitigation licences for
bats, assisted by suitably qualified, seasonal assistants.
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 12 of 22
5 Survey Findings
5.1 No bats of any species were recorded emerging from or re-
entering the property during the surveys.
5.2 A peak count of eleven common pipistrelle bat passes was recorded during the emergence survey. All contacts came from
the north east, past Old Road to the immediate north of the site, before dispersing nto woodland to the south of the site. The first
contact was recorded at 20:13, with the final contact being
recorded at 20:27.
5.3 Two noctule, Nyctalus noctula bat contacts were recorded at 19:56 and 20:13 respectively, flying above woodland to the south of the
survey site. The second contact was heard but not seen. No
further contacts of any species of bat were recorded after 20:27.
5.4 During the pre-dawn activity survey, a peak count of six common
pipistrelle bats was recorded along Old Road, to the north of the site. All bats were recorded to be flying to the east, with initial
contacts recorded alongside woodland to the south.
5.5 One noctule bat contact was recorded on the second survey (pre-
dawn) at 05:15. No other contacts from any bat species were
recorded during the survey.
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 13 of 22
Figure 3: Identified commuting ground
6 Interpretation and Evaluation
6.1 The surveys produced no evidence to indicate use of the property by bats of any species. No bats of any species were recorded
emerging from, or re-entering the property.
6.2 The adjacent Old Road, to the immediate north, was recorded as
being used by common pipistrelle bat as a commuting line to and
from land to the north east.
6.3 There is no evidence of use of the building by breeding birds
current or historical.
6.4 Light levels on the northern elevation of the site are negligible and
not of an intensity which could impede bat occupation or foraging / commuting activity. Light levels on the southern elevation are
elevated by strong street lighting and security lighting, largely over spilling the southern elevation of the property. The intensity
is high and likely to dissuade use of this elevation by bats of local
provenance.
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 14 of 22
6.5 Land within the application boundary does not appear to be a
major foraging ground or commuting line. A commuting line
immediately outside the site boundary to the north was recorded
during the survey period.
7 Site Status Assessment
7.1 During the survey period, no evidence was collated to infer use of the building by bats of any species. Light overspill on the southern
elevation of the building and plot is deemed of an intensity likely to dissuade use of the immediate area particularly by more light-
intolerant species of bats, particularly Myotis and Plecotus species.
7.2 Evidence suggests use of Old Road, to the immediate north as a
commuting line for common pipistrelle bat. Two known roosts are located some 600 metres to the north east, and behaviour is
deemed likely dispersal from these roosts to favoured foraging
grounds in woodland to the south.
7.3 No evidence of use by breeding birds was recorded within the
building.
8 Ecological Constraints
8.1 There were no ecological constraints at the time these surveys were undertaken. Activity surveys were undertaken by suitably,
experienced staff in suitable weather conditions, and in line with
BCT guidance 2016.
9 Assessment of Impacts
9.1 No evidence was recorded throughout the survey period to indicate use of the property by bats of any species. A small
common pipistrelle commuting line was recorded, outside the site
boundary to the north.
9.2 No evidence of use of the property by breeding birds was recorded
during the surveys.
10 Mitigation
10.1 Mitigation is required to avoid or reduce the impact of development proposals on the population of bats present, either
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 15 of 22
roosting or feeding. Licences are required where a roost site is
threatened in some way by a scheme.
10.2 Under current plans no impacts on bats and their roosts are
predicted. Due to the presence of commuting bats immediately outside the site boundary to the north it is recommended, as a
purely precautionary, measure that the roofs on the northern elevation of the property are stripped by hand, in the presence of
a suitably qualified ecologist.
10.3 Should bats or field sign evidence of bats be recorded, then all
works should cease and a suitable mitigation strategy compiled
via consultation with Natural England.
10.4 No impacts are predicted in respect of breeding birds at this
juncture. It is recommended that demolition works are undertaken outside the bird breeding season (March – August
inclusive). Should timing constraints make this impractical then a pre-works walkover survey for breeding birds should be
undertaken.
10.5 Due to land outside the northern site boundary being used by
common pipistrelle bats as a commuting line, it is recommended that artificial light overspill is minimised during, and post
redevelopment works on this elevation.
10.6 Biodiversity enhancements should be avoided on the southern
elevation of the site, due to elevated light levels.
11 Biodiversity Enhancements
11.1 To enhance roosting potential within the proposed redevelopment
of the site, the following measures are recommended.
11.2 Two Ibstock enclosed bat box “C” should be integrated into the fabric of the buildings on Plots Five and Six. The Ibstock enclosed
box is idea for pipistrelle bat species.
The boxes can be integrated into the brickwork of the buildings
and are available in several finishes to suit the aesthetics of the design. The boxes require no ongoing maintenance and provide
several roosting zones ideal for crevice dwelling bat species. Due
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 16 of 22
to the integrated nature of the boxes and their durability, they are
designed to be retained in situ for the lifetime of the building.
Figure 4: Proposed location of Ibstock enclosed bat box ‘C’
It is proposed that the boxes are located on the north-eastern
elevation of the plots as indicated in Figure 4. The boxes should
be located as high as possible to prevent grounding and predation, and it is recommended that they are sited directly below the
soffits. No artificial light should be allowed to overspill the location
of the boxes.
11.3 Within Plots One to Four inclusive, it is recommended that one
small enclosed Ibstock bat box ‘B’ is installed within the fabric of each of the buildings on the northern elevations. Specifically
designed for pipistrelle species, the boxes provide a number of
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 17 of 22
differing roosting zones, and thus environmental conditions. As
with all bat boxes, they should be integrated into the fabric of the
buildings and located as high as possible to prevent grounding and
predation.
Figure 5: Enclosed Ibstock bat box ‘B’
11.4 Due to the intensity of light overspill onto the southern elevation
bordering Roe Cross Road, it is recommended that biodiversity
enhancement features are not located within this area.
11.5 Artificial lighting
Due to commuting bats being recorded outside the northern site boundary along Old Road, it is recommended that no artificial
lighting overspills onto this location, either during the proposed
works, or post redevelopment of the site.
Where required, light levels within the site should be of low
intensity and illuminate only the immediate area required. Lights
should be positioned in at sharp downward angle with illumination directed on the intended source using shields or hoods. Thus,
overspill will be minimised as will be disturbance.
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 18 of 22
11.6 Consideration of lighting type:
• It is recommended that any lighting on site should comprise of low pressure sodium lamps housed in glass glazing, thus
reducing the amount of UV being emitted. • Lamps should be situated with the luminaire angled sharply
downwards to illuminate the intended source reducing overspill. No bare bulbs or upwards lighting should be
implemented. • Narrow spectrum bulbs should be considered for reducing the
potential number of species in the surrounding area affected by lighting.
• Hoods should be fitted to the lights if overspill is too great.
However, this may not be necessary if the light is angled sharply downwards.
• Overspill can be reduced and light directed to its intended source by limiting the height of the lighting column. Light at
low level can reduce ecological impacts. The lighting column should be no higher than 1.5 metres above the height of the
intended source of illumination.
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 19 of 22
Appendix One: The building, south eastern aspect
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 20 of 22
Appendix Two: Example of potential access for bats; missing mortar.
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 21 of 22
Appendix Three: : Example of potential access for bats; lifted tiles.
Roe Cross Green October 2017 Mottram-in-Langendale Hyde SK14 6SE
Page 22 of 22
References
Collins, J. (2016). Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) Bat Surveys for
Professional Ecologists, Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition
Bibliography
Davies, T.W., et al (2012). Street lighting changes the composition of
invertebrate communities. Biology Letters, 8 764-767
Eisenbeis, G., (2006). Artificial night lighting and insects: attraction of
insects to streetlamps in a rural setting in Germany. In C. Rich & T. Longcore (eds.). Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 281–304.
Entwistle, A. C., Racey P.A. and Speakman, J.R. (1996) Roost seltion by
brown long-eared bat. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 399-408
Stone, E., (2014) Bats and Lighting – Bats Conservation Trust.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd
=4&ved=0CDgQFjADahUKEwj1nrTOpMbHAhVF2RoKHfA7B3s&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bats.org.uk%2Fpublications_download.php%2F132
7%2FBats_and_Lighting_EStone_2014.pdf&ei=2nLdVfXJOMWya_D3nN
gH&usg=AFQjCNH-lbr2AXoaMhop4aSNb9N-VfuVuA&cad=rja
Swensson, A., M., and Rudell, J., (1998). Mercury vapour lamps
interfere with the bat defence of tympanate moths. Animal Behaviour, 55, 223-226.
Top Related